Havering Council (202112977)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112977

Havering Council

12 August 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1.     The complaint is regarding:

  1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s shed and the resident’s reports of damaged belongings.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

2.     The resident is a secured tenant. Around November 2020 the landlord was made aware of issues with the shed roof at the property (although it is not clear from the information available exactly what these issues were). After several visits from contractors, the roof was repaired on 3 February 2021.

3.     The resident made a stage one complaint on 6 January 2021 in relation to the landlord’s handling of the repair, asking that the landlord replace all equipment, garden furniture, and electrical appliances that were in the shed and were now water damaged. The resident said that she had been ignored by the repairs service, and that contractors had no reason not to attend (referring to a cancelled appointment due to Covid-19) as there was side access.

4.     The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 15 January 2021. It explained that it attended the property on 10 December 2020 to inspect and found that the works would require two people to complete. As a result, the works were rebooked for 22 December 2020. Contractors attended, to find the household isolating due to having Covid-19. The resident was asked to contact the landlord when the household were no longer isolating so the works could be carried out. The resident then contacted the landlord via her stage one complaint and as such works had now been scheduled for 19 January 2021. The landlord informed the resident that it would not replace belongings and that she should claim on her contents insurance. The landlord found no service failure.

5.     The resident requested to escalate the complaint to stage two on 19 January 2021. She complained that following on from her stage one complaint, she heard nothing further until the contractors had turned up that morning. The contractors said that the roof of the shed contained asbestos, so could not carry out works. The resident pointed out that tests had already been carried out for asbestos in December 2020. She asked for the shed roof to be fixed and compensation provided for her damaged belongings.

6.     Following on from the resident chasing a response on a number of occasions, she asked to escalate to stage three of the complaints process on 1 July 2021. The resident felt the communication and service was poor and that the landlord had wasted time with appointments and bookings.

7.     The landlord responded to the stage three escalation request on 6 July 2021 and informed the resident that the stage two complaint was still outstanding and therefore it could not escalate the issue. The then landlord gave its stage two response on 23 July 2021, apologising for the delay in this. The landlord noted that the complaint was about the failure to advise the resident of the 19 January 2021 appointment, that the contractor that day was unaware that there had already been asbestos testing in December 2020, failure to repair the shed after several attendances, and poor communication.

8.     The landlord noted that following the aborted repair appointment on 22 December 2020, it was agreed that the resident would contact the landlord when the household was no longer self-isolating. The landlord acknowledged that the resident disagreed with this version of events, but this was the information held in the contractor’s records. The landlord did not find that there had been a lack of communication.

9.     The landlord said that details of the 19 January 2022 appointment had been included in its stage one response dated 15 January 2021, and so the resident had been made aware of this. The landlord acknowledged that details of an asbestos test that had been completed on 2 December 2020 were not passed to the contractor that attended on 19 January 2021, recognising that this caused a delay. The stage two complaint had highlighted this and works were subsequently completed on 3 February 2021.

10. The landlord stated it would not replace the items from the shed and that the resident should claim on her contents insurance.

11. On 31 August 2021 the resident emailed to say that ‘the works’ had not been completed, the landlord had failed to contact her, and asked to escalate to stage three. Internal emails show the landlord establishing that this was in relation to new issues relating to the garden and fence. It replied to the resident providing a further copy of its stage two response, explaining that it could not respond to these new issues via the complaint process.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to shed and reports of damaged belongings

12. In line with its Repairs Policy, the landlord has an obligation to maintain and repair outhouses, sheds and non-habitable spaces. The policy sets out that repairs to sheds will be treated as ‘routine’ and completed within 28 working days.  

13. It is not entirely clear exactly when the landlord was first made aware of the issue with the shed roof or what this was: The repair records show that it was first logged on 2 December 2020, however, internal emails show that the first attendance for the shed roof was on 30 November 2020. 28 working days from this date, taking into account the Christmas period, would have been around mid-January 2021.

14. It is assumed that the job raised to test for asbestos on 2 December 2020 was the outcome of this 30 November 2020 attendance. The note from the 2 December 2020 stated, ‘We will send over the result as soon as it has been analysed. In the meantime no contractor or other personnel should enter this area.’ As such, it was reasonable that no further works were carried out at this time.

15. Presumably once the results showing no asbestos were received (it is not clear when this was), the landlord arranged a visit to the property on 10 December 2020. When the contractor arrived, it found that two people were required to complete the job and, therefore, it arranged to return to the property on 22 December 2020. While no doubt frustrating for the resident, this does not represent a failing on the part of the landlord.

16. The contractors attended the property on 22 December 2020, to find the household was isolating due to a positive case of Covid-19. It would seem that the contractors had to make an ‘on the spot’ decision in light of this, and although the Ombudsman acknowledges that there was side access to the garden, it was not unreasonable that the contractors declined to attend to the shed in these circumstance, and this was not a failing. The landlord appropriately explained in its stage two response that keeping in mind the health and safety of members of staff, it was the safest option for the contractors to leave the premises.   

17. As part of the resident’s complaint she stated that she had no further contact from the landlord after this visit. The landlord however noted that it was agreed that the resident would make contact once out of isolation. This position is supported by the contractor’s note of the 22 December 2022, and an email that was sent to the landlord that same day, copies of which have been provided to the Ombudsman. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the resident does not agree with this version of events, in light of the evidence available to it, the landlord’s response here was reasonable.

18. Once the resident got in touch via their stage one complaint, contractors were booked to re-attend the property on 19 January 2021. While the landlord did refer to this appointment in its stage one response, no time was given for the attendance, and it would have been best practice to have advised the resident of this appointment outside of a formal complaint response to ensure that they were aware. 

19. At this point there was a clear miscommunication internally between contractors and the landlord, as the contractor was unaware of the asbestos test carried out on 2 December 2020. As a result of the internal miscommunication, there was a two week delay in the works being completed, which would have been frustrating for the resident, and may have added an avoidable period of water damage to the items in the shed. It also meant that the repair was not made within the 28 working day timeframe (it would have been had the works been completed on 19 January 2022). While the landlord did acknowledge this failing, it took no action to ‘put right’ the frustration this would have caused the resident via its stage two response. As such, an order for remedy is made below.

20. Regarding the resident’s claim for compensation for damaged belongings, there was a failing in the landlord’s handling of this: Before advising the resident to claim for any damage on their content’s insurance, the landlord should initially have considered whether its actions may have contributed to the damage (outside of any strict liability claim). If the landlord accepted that it had been at fault, and it had contributed to the delays in resolving the shed roof, it may not be reasonable to ask the resident to make a claim via her own content’s insurance (particularly as this might affect a future premium and may require payment of an excess). In these circumstances, the landlord should either put right any damage caused by the leak and/or facilitate a claim on its own insurance policy for any damaged belongings.  

21. If the landlord disputes that it is at fault, it should either refer the resident to their own contents insurance or to its own insurers (and in this case, the resident has stated that she has no contents insurance), who would then establish negligence or liability to pay. In circumstances where a resident is unable to evidence the level of damages claimed, it may be reasonable for them to make a claim via their own contents insurance so that the insurer can determine the claim. 

22. The Ombudsman understands that as an outcome to the complaint, the resident is seeking financial compensation for damage to their personal belongings. While the Ombudsman can consider ordering a landlord to pay compensation as reimbursement of actual costs, in this case that would require an assessment of liability and an evaluation of the value of the belongings, which is something that an insurer is best placed to provide. Therefore, no order is made for compensation for damaged belongings, but instead for the claim to be considered and/or facilitated by the landlord.

Complaint Handling

23. The resident made a stage one complaint on 6 January 2021. The landlord provided a response on 15 January 2021. In line with its complaint policy the landlord responded to the stage one complaint in an acceptable timeframe, as its policy states a full written reply will be sent within ten days.

24. The resident escalated the complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure on 19 January 2021, after remaining dissatisfied with the outcomes in its stage one response. The landlord provided its stage two response on 23 July 2021. In line with the landlord’s complaint policy, a stage two response should be provided within 25 working days. Therefore, the landlord has failed to follow its policy in regard to complaint response. Neither has it explained the reason for the very long delay. The four month delay in the stage two response would have been frustrating for the resident, and also led to time and trouble in pursuing the matter.

25. Further, when declining to address the more recent issues as a stage three escalation, the landlord should have advised/facilitated the resident in raising these as a new complaint, so that they could be addressed.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s shed and the resident’s reports of damaged belongings.

27. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

28. Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay a total of £225, comprised of £75 for the two week delay in completing the repair, and £150 for the complaint handling.

29. Also within one month of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of the circumstances of the case and the resident’s claim for compensation for damaged belongings (contacting the resident to obtain details of this), to consider whether its actions may have contributed to the damage.

30. If it finds that it was at fault, the landlord should put right any damage caused via a compensation payment, and/or facilitate a claim on its own insurance policy for damaged belongings.

31. If the landlord disputes that it was at fault, it should facilitate a claim via its own insurance policy.