London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202104433)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104433

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

31 May 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s former property, including a decant.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property the resident was transferred to.
3. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property the resident was transferred to that were reported after completion of the complaints procedure.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, complaint c. is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
On 11 October 2021 the landlord issued a new Stage 1 complaint response (reference CAS-343333-Q1Z6Q5) in which it stated that further works may be required in the basement. On 21 October 2021 the resident advised this Service that she had raised a new complaint with the landlord as works previously agreed had not been completed and issues with foundation of the property had arisen. She advised that the landlord was to consult with its building insurers and wanted to take up flooring to investigate.
In an email to the landlord sent on 4 March 2022 the resident stated that the basement had flooded again. She stated that the structure of the property had swelled therefore she could not make use of the three bedrooms upstairs, the toilet and the bathroom due to uneven flooring / the property sloping. On 4 April 2022, the resident advised that although works had now been completed in the basement, she was still concerned about the swelling and damage previously caused.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the resident’s new complaint has not completed its complaints procedure. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property she was transferred to that were reported after completion of the complaints procedure is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider. Essentially, a landlord must seek to resolve a complaint locally through all stages of its complaints procedure before this Service can assess its handling of the matter complained of. However, the resident’s latest reports have been noted to place her complaints in their current context and to inform the orders and recommendations made.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure.
1. At stage 1, it “will write within 10 working days after we receive a complaint to explain the outcome of our investigation, how we will resolve the complaint and the timescales. If we can’t, we’ll explain why and write again within a further 10 working days”.
2. At stage 2, it “will write with the outcome and next steps within 20 working days of the request to escalate. If we can’t, we’ll explain why and write again within a further 10 working days… After we’ve agreed the resolution and confirmed our decision in writing, we’ll monitor progress until all actions are complete”.
The landlord has a Compensation Policy which states:
1. “We will consider an offer of compensation when an apology alone is not sufficient and we recognise the impact the service loss or failure has had on the customer”.
2. “Compensation may be considered where we fail to follow our policies and procedures”.
3. With regards to Discretionary Payments:
  1. “Discretionary payments can be made to recognise individual household circumstances, for example, larger sized households, or specific vulnerabilities.
  2. Goodwill gestures – The offer of discretionary compensation is a goodwill gesture and staff will decide the value and form based on internal guidance”.
4. “Failure to respond – we will make a payment of £10 for the following service failures:
  1. failure to respond to a query within 10 working days
  1. failure to respond to a formal complaint within the timescales published in our Complaints Policy”.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms its statutory obligations to keep in good repair:
1. “The structure and exterior of the unit and property, including walls, roofs, windows, external doors, drains, gutters, external pipes and boundaries (e.g. fences).
2. All fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, heating and sanitation (including sinks, baths, basins and toilets)”.
The landlord’s Allocations Policy recognises that “there will be situations where we need to directly rehouse existing L&Q residents either on an emergency, temporary or permanent basis. In these cases, we will match the resident to a property through our Rehousing list”. The policy further states that:
1. “For a resident to be added to the Rehousing list, their circumstances must meet one or more of the following criteria:
  1. A temporary move is required to carry out repairs to the resident’s permanent home”.
2. With regards to a “Permanent Move”, the policy states “This is where a resident is required to move permanently from their home due to major disrepair where the duration of the works makes it impractical for the resident and their family to move back once the works are completed”.
3. The landlord can consider making a “Permanent offer of temporary accommodation” in circumstances “when a resident has occupied a General Needs home as their temporary accommodation for an extended period and requests a permanent move to that property”.

The policy states the landlord will make a Home Loss payment ‘if we need them to move from their homes permanently due to demolition, sale of land or major works.’

Summary of Events

The resident’s former property was a two-bed ground floor flat in a house conversion.
The landlord’s repair records show that on 7 June 2019, it first raised a repair in respect of “Basement, drainage running though wall”, with a 21-day priority. Its drainage contractor attended to suck out water on 17 June 2019.
On 17 June 2019 the resident made a formal complaint. She advised that she had made several reports of repairs to the basement and that there was sewage directly through walls. She advised that the smell was unbearable, there was an infestation of flies and maggots and that she would like to be accommodated locally whilst the issues were resolved. On the same day the landlord raised a job for its drainage contractor.
A repair order raised on 20 June 2019 noted that the bathroom floorboards, which had been reported as having holes and collapsing in areas due to water saturation, led to the basement and needed to be made safe. The order noted that there was a “health & safety issue children in the property” and that the “hole is 2 foot by 3 foot”. The landlord’s records indicated that a contractor attended that day.
On 26 June 2019, the landlord informed the resident that the drainage contractor had advised that it had sucked out water from the resident’s property, “taken a water sample to test, sanitary cleaned and carried out a cctv survey to rule out any waste water exfiltration as a probable cause”. The landlord also stated that the drainage contractor reported back that a large hole had been formed. The resident disputed that the drainage contractor had carried out a sanitary clean stating that it pulled some carpet up but “the dirty water was left for the property to absorb”. The landlord advised that it would ask the drainage company to comment further; however, there is no evidence that the drainage company responded. At this time the resident reiterated her wish for temporary accommodation.
In an email sent on 2 August 2019, the resident raised a number of concerns stating that she did not agree that her property was habitable as a sanitary clean was not carried out and 4cm of water was left in the basement causing respiratory problems to her and her family. She stated that a carpenter, furthermore, had the previous week refused to carry out works due to health and safety issues, and whilst an order for pest control had been raised, this did not cover the basement. The resident also stated that the hole in the bathroom floorboards had only been made safe with a plank. It is not evident that the landlord responded.
A repair order dated 2 August 2019 noted that “bathroom – floor boards – fix hole leading into basement which was only previously made safe”. The landlord sought to make appointments during August 2019. Emails from the resident at the time indicate that the drainage company reattended to drain water from the basement on 27 August 2019 and a carpenter attended on 28 August 2019 but was not able to complete works as the bathroom needed to be taken out first.
A separate order for the landlord to “remedy leak to basement” was confirmed in the landlord’s repair records as completed on 20 August 2019.
On 17 September 2019, the landlord’s surveyor reported that he had “visited this job yesterday there isn’t a leak in the basement. Water has been soaking the floor when bathing which has ended up in the basement, it has been pumped out but a lot of rubbish down there which is holding water. We need to remove/replace the vinyl floor covering 4sqm, remove/refix whb and wc, ply the floor and renew the bath panel. We don’t know the extent of the damage to the floor until the vinyl has been removed. They also need to remove central timber arm to allow access down the steps to the basement for … to remove bags of rubbish and spray flies”.
There was a treatment by the landlord’s pest controller for flies in the resident’s basement on 19 September 2019. On 26 October 2019, the landlord raised an order for its damp contractor to carry out a joint inspection of the resident’s property for “wet rot to bathroom sub floor and water ingress to basement”.
The resident has confirmed that the landlord between 26 October 2019 to 8 December 2019 placed her in temporary hotel accommodation whilst it completed works to her property. The landlord’s repair records confirm that on 26 November 2019 it replaced the bathroom subfloor and wall plates which had been assessed as dangerous due to wet rot. It cleared the basement including the replacement of the sub-floor vents which was allowing water ingress to the front of the basement. Within this time another treatment of drain flies was carried out on 7 November 2019.
On returning to the property the resident made further reports and stated she found that water was gushing through the walls. She contended that works were incomplete as access to the basement was simply blocked off without the repair problems resolved.
On 13 December 2019 the landlord raised another order for its pest controller to spray drain flies in the resident’s property. It advised the contractor to access the basement and “carry out clean or treatment required due to drain flies”.
On 2 January 2020 the resident wrote the landlord noting that “unsealed areas in bathroom and bedroom flooring meaning flies are still causing a nuisance and has not been dealt with …” and that the “Smell is coming back to the property”. She also raised other repair issues in the property and asked for a permanent transfer so that all necessary works could be carried out.
On 6 January 2020 the landlord advised the resident of further jobs stating that an order had been raised for the pest controller to deal with flies in her property after ponding in the basement had been resolved. The landlord’s repair records indicate that spray treatment was carried out on 15 January 2021.
The resident sought assistance from her MP. On 31 January 2020 the resident, according to an email sent to her MP, emailed the landlord raising concerns that her family had been breathing in toxic air from the evaporation of dirt/ground water for many years, as water was submerged under her property. She advised that the smell was coming through the property and that a pump/drain should have been installed in the basement, but had not. The resident further stated that water was still running directly through the walls, there were still wet floorboards in addition to maggot/worm infestations which lay within the walls/ground and surrounding areas.
The MP on 3 February 2020 wrote to the landlord advising that the resident was unhappy with the works carried out when she was decanted as access to the basement, which had been affected by the leak and maggots, had simply been blocked off without resolving the problem. The MP also advised that the resident additionally stated that water remained running through the walls.
In an exchange of correspondence, on 2 March 2020 the landlord advised that a “building surveyor has authorised works to fix all the issues and these are extensive and expensive jobs.”
The resident requested temporary accommodation due to the inconvenience to her family and safety concerns, which was arranged. On 30 March 2020 a sump pump was due to be installed and a membrane and chipboard floor to the basement, but works were postponed after imposition of Covid-19 lockdown restrictions.
From 29 June 2020 the landlord sought to make arrangements to complete the outstanding works and advised the resident the following day that it would arrange temporary accommodation. The resident asked to be rehoused permanently not be placed in temporary accommodation.
On 30 June 2020 the local authority Environmental HHHHealth service visited the property and subsequently wrote to the landlord stating it had identified hazards and would be serving an improvement notice in respect of:
1. “Personal Hygiene, Sanitation and Drainage Band C, Category 1
  1. Basement,
  2. There is a pond of wastewater in the basement of the flat causing foul smell and flies infestation in the flat.
2. Damp & Mould Band G, Category 2
  1. Kitchen.
  2. Lack of cooker hood”.
On 6 July 2020, the landlord inspected and found “the property is in a very poor state the Basement has a pond of wastewater, the whole property is infested with Flies”.
The landlord received further correspondence from Environmental Health which stated that it should commence works no later than 17 August 2020. Also, on 14 August 2019 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord noting that the basement remained wet, causing respiratory problems to the resident and her family.
On 18 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP advising that its damp specialist had been available to commence works since 3 August 2020 but not granted access by the resident and her family as they wanted to be permanently decanted first in the local area, not placed in temporary accommodation. The landlord advised that the resident had been shown two properties and had accepted one as a permanent decant.
On 31 August 2020 the landlord permanently decanted the resident to a new 3-bedroom property. Prior to the move the resident sent the landlord an email, for the attention of its Voids Team, noting several repair issues. This included noting that that the basement ground did not have flooring, and looked very similar to the previous property. It is not evident that the landlord responded at this time.
On 4 September 2020, the resident stated she would also like to request “compensation claim for the money lost for renting an unhabitable property beyond February 2018 until this current day”. On 12 October 2020 the landlord offered the resident a discretionary payment of £2,620 to cover the decoration and carpeting of her new property. The landlord’s internal correspondence notes that this comprised of a decorating voucher totalling £1,025, plus an additional award to cover the cost carpeting and £20 travel expenses. The resident subsequently accepted the offer.
On 25 September 2020 the resident reported rainwater coming straight through into the basement of the new property as there was no solid ground. The landlord advised on the same day that it was a “wet basement” which was not meant for storage, and which would usually be boxed off. It advised a surveyor and damp contractor would inspect and decide what further action to take. On 1 October 2020 the landlord’s damp specialist contractor advised that the problem appeared to be a perched water table and suggested that a new watertight concrete floor with a membrane overlay be installed. It noted that the resident would have to remove all furniture and floor coverings. The landlord’s records indicated that it decided to install two pumps in basement.
The resident also contacted the new local authority’s Private Sector Housing & Licensing Team which sent a letter to the landlord on 30 September 2020 asking it to investigate flooding in the basement within 14 days and report the outcome.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 2 and 3 October 2020 to confirm that the flood was getting worse following more rainfall and approaching the fuse box. The basement was drained by the landlord’s drainage contractor on 6 October 2020. The landlord’s repair notes state that there was no health and safety risk as the electrical circuits and fuse box were too high off the ground, although the resident stated that 30cm of water was left.
On 6 October 2020, the resident raised a new complaint due to repairs in her new property. In an exchange of correspondence, on 8 October 2020 the resident stated that whilst the drainage contractor had attended, water was still pouring through the walls and that she wanted a decant as contractors would be blocking off access to her kitchen and living room. On 9 October 2020 the landlord advised that the basement flooding was due to rainwater not sewage and it was considering how this could be prevented. The resident stated she wanted a solution from the roots of the foundations and was unhappy she had been transferred to a property with basement problems again.
On 12 October 2020, the landlord advised that the proposed works could be done around the resident as the contractor could prepare the works externally and was only required to work in the basement. It advised it could offer £25 per day for food in recognition of the inconvenience caused. The landlord reiterated the flooding was rainwater, not sewage, and that the electrics were dry.
On 27 October 2020 the landlord offered the resident choices of temporary accommodation to allow the works to proceed if she did not wish to remain in the property. After further contact between the parties on 3 November 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident that works would commence in her property on 9 November 2020 and that she would be placed in her preferred temporary accommodation which would be furnished and have white goods in the kitchen.
On 9 November 2020 the landlord explained that it was in the process of arranging a FOB and a parking permit for the resident at the temporary accommodation, and that it would send a cheque for £100 to cover essential expenses such as petrol. The landlord’s internal correspondence confirms that it took into account the distance from the temporary accommodation to the children’s school multiplied by its milage rate, which equated to £50 per week.
The landlord’s records indicate that tanking works were completed on 13 November 2020. On 15 December 2020 the landlord advised the resident that all works to prevent the flooding in the basement had been completed.
On 18 January 2021 the resident reported water ingress in the basement again to the member of staff who had previously dealt her complaint. The member of staff advised relevant staff members in the landlord’s repairs service of the report, attaching a photograph. When the landlord drainage contractor attended it did not witness flooding and ascertained that the water table had not risen which could have caused the tank to fail.
On 3 February 2021 the resident reported that the basement had flooded again. The drainage contractor pumped out the tanked area The landlord’s damp contractor later attended and found no breaches to the tank, and the outer shell membrane and walls behind the tank to be dry.
On 3 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the MP advising that the resident had reported further flooding after the tanking works in November 2020. It stated that its drain contractor had attended but found no flooding and “the photo provided appeared to relate to a previous incident prior to the works undertaken in November”. It stated that the contactor had recommended the installation of a pumping station under the tank as a precautionary measure which it was happy to fit.
On 11 February 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that she had been accused of submitting an old photo of the current state of the flood, which was not the case. She advised of the inconvenience from contractors attending her property on a constant basis since Christmas and that the previous works had been taken out that day so the flooding could be investigated. The resident advised that she would not provide access for works that were only temporary.
On 25 February 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP outlining reports the resident had made after moving to her new property, and the actions taken in response. It noted that it had advised the resident that the basement is not part of the living area and temperature changes in a high water table area meant that the basement may always be affected by moisture, but a correctly installed tank will not allow large scale flooding. It stated that it had agreed to monitor the tank closely and could return to fit a self-monitoring pumping station if the resident agreed.
The landlord apologised for previously advising that the resident had forwarded a photo which was taken prior to tanking works to evidence the leak in January; having investigated, it transpired that the complaint handler attached the photo of the leak in the basement taken prior to tanking works, as a reminder of the leak that had happened previously. It offered £100 for the error, but stated that no other compensation was payable, nor a rent rebate as the resident had not lost the use of habitable living space.
On 26 February 2021 the landlord explained directly to resident that when she had advised on 18 January 2021 that flooding had reoccurred, it attached a previous picture of the flooded basement in an email to the Maintenance Manager to refresh his memory. The photo had caused some confusion, but all staff members had been advised that she did not send the photo in question. The landlord apologised for the miscommunication and offered £100 compensation.
On 1 March 2021 the resident wrote to escalate her complaint explaining the repair issues in her previous property and the distress and inconvenience experienced by her and her family from being placed in temporary hotel accommodation between 26 October 2019 to 8 December 2019, including having to rehome pets. The resident noted the problem with the basement and foul smell continued on her return and that the local authority intervened.
The resident went to complain that the same issues were present at her current property. She advised that she had told the landlord she thought the basement was damp before signing the tenancy but that it did not respond. She noted that she had been placed in temporary accommodation again for two weeks; however, within six weeks of returning, water again became visible and flooded to four feet in height. The resident advised that damp was present throughout the property, the taps were green from mould, and there was water ingress into the dining room floor.
The resident also advised that she was dissatisfied with the compensation of £100 offered by the landlord, and the fact that it had originally offered her £3,900 then reduced the amount to £2,620 to cover only the cost of decorating the new property. In complaining about the compensation, the resident referred to the disturbance of being placed in temporary accommodation from the previous property, the ongoing inconvenience, and no reimbursement of costs including the landlord covering petrol costs when placed in temporary accommodation from the new property.
On 18 March 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s Stage 2 complaint.
On 15 April 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response, and made the following findings:
1. Its lettings team confirmed that a permanent move from the original address was not required and therefore no home loss payment was due, nor could it offer any compensation for the loss of the resident’s pets as the decision to take temporary accommodation was hers.
2. The new property was larger than the previous property, and its lettings team confirmed that the resident was given time to think about this offer before she accepted it.
3. The resident was offered petrol costs to cover the expense of her traveling from the temporary accommodation from the new property to her children’s school, and it agreed that she should receive this reimbursement, which was calculated at the rate of £50 per week (a total of £200 based on the period 5 November 2020 – 6 December 2020).
4. The resident was offered £2,620 to cover costs of redecorating the new property which she accepted on 22 October 2020: a cheque was subsequently sent out for this amount.
5. The works at the new property had solved the leak to the basement. It had confirmed with the maintenance team and the damp contractor that this work would have been completed more quickly but they were unable to access the resident’s property on numerous occasions. Therefore, it did not feel that any further compensation is owed for delays to the works.
6. It had offered £100 by way of apology for the confusion over the photograph.
In summary the landlord reoffered the £100 offered for the errors in the handling of the resident’s complaint and £200 to cover petrol expenses.
On 8 June 2021 the resident advised the landlord that the contractor did not finish work in February 2021 as it had pulled up floorboards to carry out works that it did not replace. She requested that the landlord replace the floorboards cover up the works carried out and to reduce the smell coming from the basement at that time. The landlord agreed an appointment for 7 July 2021 and raised an order on 19 July 2021 to replace the basement flooring. The flooring was to be replaced on 16 August 2021, but landlord stated it would need to investigate the dampness in basement before relaying floorboards.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property, including a decant

In line with its repair obligations the landlord was required to investigate the resident’s report of leaks into her basement and repairs to her bathroom, and then to carry out any repairs that it identified so as to ensure the property was in good repair. Following the repair orders raised in June 2020 the landlord made safe the resident’s flooring in the bathroom and its drainage contractor attended to the flooding in the basement. It is therefore evident that the landlord responded to the resident’s initial reports.
However, there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord seeking to identify the underlying repairs problem raised and arranging necessary works. Having made safe the bathroom floorboards on 20 June 2019, the landlord did not raise an order for a full repair until more than six weeks later. The fact that a carpenter attended on 28 August 2019 but could not complete the works showed a failure to diagnose and plan exactly what works were needed and in what order. The landlord’s records show that it was not until 17 September 2019 that the landlord inspected and drew up a detailed schedule of works in the bathroom, and not until October 2019 that it arranged for its damp contractor to inspect the basement. This delay was particularly unreasonable given that the resident had reported the smell of sewage and health and safety issues.
Indeed, the resident raised concerns, at various times, about efficacy of the works carried out by the drainage contractor, the possible impact on her family’s health from residual water in the basement and from flies/maggots and whether her property was habitable. Neither the landlord nor the contractor addressed these concerns in any details. As such the landlord did not provide the resident with the necessary assurance that her property was habitable, or at least contained no hazards, leaving her in a state of uncertainty
It transpired that works carried out while the resident was decanted were not successful insofar as she made further reports of smells and flies, and as accepted by the landlord in its emails of January 2020 there remained ponding in the basement. The landlord took reasonable steps to resolve the resident’s reports of flies by arranging for its pest control contractor to carry out spray treatments. However, there was a further delay by the landlord in fully responding to the resident’s further reports as it was three months after, in March 2020, that the landlord confirmed it would carry out further works. This delay was particularly unreasonable given the possible impact on the resident and her family, such as from the smell from the basement and on the use of the bathroom.
The resident also raised concerns that the landlord had blocked off the basement. The basement formed part of the property that the resident was renting from the landlord. There is also no stipulation in the tenancy agreement about use or access to the basement. Therefore, whilst basements cannot be considered as living space, the resident had a reasonable expectation that she could access and use the basement. Therefore, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not address the resident’s report that the basement had been blocked. The landlord simultaneously missed an opportunity to explain the works it had completed and how it had sought to resolve the condition of the bathroom floor, leaks in the property and related pest infestations.
There followed a delay in the landlord completing the works identified at this time, the installation of a sump pump, membrane and chipboard flooring. However, as this delay was due to Covid-19 pandemic lockdown restrictions, no fault can be attributed to the landlord.
After the easing of lockdown restrictions, the landlord sought to complete the outstanding works and indeed noted that “poor state” of the resident’s property at the inspection of 6 July 2020. Furthermore, Environmental Health had confirmed that the condition of the basement constituted a hazard to hygiene and sanitation. Whilst it is not evident that the landlord completed the works, this is superseded by negotiations over a decant which caused delay. The landlord agreed to permanently decant the resident which meant that she would not be impacted by ongoing outstanding repairs at the former property.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
In this case, in response to the landlord offering compensation for the condition of her former property the landlord made a payment of £2,620 calculated to cover the cost of decorating and carpeting the new property. Although the offer was not calculated by assessment of its service failures, it was in line with the discretion provided by the landlord’s Compensation Policy, which allowed it to decide on the value and form of compensation. The landlord was not obliged to cover the resident’s flooring costs at the new property, therefore by doing so it provided redress for its service failures. By also making a payment intended to cover decoration costs the landlord sought to put the resident in the position she would have been in had the issues with the basement not arisen.
With regards to the decant from the former property, under the Allocations Policy, the landlord was not required to move the resident on a permanent basis as the works were intended to bring the resident’s property, which was their permanent home at the time, to an acceptable state of repair so that they could return. It is understandable that that the resident wished to move though, so by agreeing to permanently decant the resident, the landlord exercised its discretion and showed pragmatism to the benefit of the resident. It offered the resident a property with an extra bedroom therefore sought to ensure that the property better met the resident needs, and the resident accepted the property.
Considering all of the circumstances of the case which also included pest treatments by the landlord to ameliorate the situation, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the financial remedy of £2,620 offered by the landlord appears suitable financial redress for the delays.
This means this Service considers it appropriate to make a finding of reasonable redress for this aspect, which may have been a finding of maladministration had the landlord not taken some steps to acknowledge and provide redress for its failings. This finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the pest infestation, the landlord’s handling of repairs or impact on the resident was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were considerable failings by the landlord, which its compensation offer acknowledges and compensates for in line with the Ombudsman’s approach.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property the resident was transferred to

It transpired that after moving into the new property, the resident reported a further leak to the basement, initially on 25 September 2020. The landlord responded appropriately to the report insofar as it sought to assess, with its damp contractor, what works should be carried out to the basement. It also arranged for its drainage contractor to attend on an emergency basis when the resident advised that the leak in the basement was getting worse, in line with its Repairs Policy.
However, the resident had previously, prior to the start of her tenancy, queried the condition of the basement including why it did not have a floor. The landlord did not respond and therefore missed an opportunity to address her concerns about the repair condition of the basement at this point, for instance by clarifying what its voids standards stated about basements and whether it had been inspected as part of the void process. The lack of response was particularly unreasonable given the resident’s concerns about issues with the basement at her previous property. Compounding this, the landlord did not respond to this aspect of the resident’s complaint in its Stage 2 response.
The landlord’s damp contractor identified works to the resident’s new property. The landlord took reasonable steps to ensure that works were completed by agreeing to decant the resident and offering a choice of temporary accommodation. The landlord was not required under the Allocations Policy to pay for the resident’s increased petrol expenses when in temporary accommodation, therefore in agreeing to do so it demonstrated that it wanted to mitigate the inconvenience to the residents from being in temporary accommodation.
It transpired that the resident made further reports of flooding in her basement, in January and February 2021. The landlord arranged for its drainage contractor to deal with the flooding and for its damp contractor to identify what further works could be completed. The damp contractor suggested that it install a pumping station which the landlord relayed to the resident and her MP. In arranging its contractors to attend and advising of their findings, the resident responded appropriately to the reports of further leaks.
However, the resident’s email of 8 June 2021 and subsequent correspondence with the landlord indicates that the damp contractor attended in February 2021 but did not fully complete all works that the resident was expecting, specifically the laying of floorboards. The landlord in the Stage 2 response of April 2021 had advised that the works carried out had resolved the basement leaks but did not make clear what exactly what works had been carried out and when. The landlord therefore failed to adequately explain why it considered it had resolved the resident’s complaint at that time. Its later acceptance that floorboards should have been laid indicates that the contractor did not complete all identified works in February 2021.
The landlord advised the resident’s MP that when the resident reported the leak in January 2021, she provided a photograph that was not taken at the time. It is understandable that this comment upset the resident as this implied she had made a false report. However, the landlord provided reasonable redress for this error insofar as it apologised to her and the MP, provided an explanation and offered compensation of £100.
The Complaint Handling Code states that “Complaint handlers should be able to act sensitively and fairly”. Acknowledging the impact on a resident and showing empathy can help resolve a complaint and improve the landlord/tenant relationship. In this case, whilst the landlord arranged for its contractors to attend and identify further works, it did not appreciate the impact on the resident’s family, for instance, the inconvenience to the resident from the repeated reports she made, and the number of instances contractors attended her property.

Determination (decision)

Paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “At any time, the Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This will result in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’”.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman determines that the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident in respect of its handling of repairs to her former property, including a decant.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the property they were transferred to.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property, including a decant

After the resident’s initial reports of repairs to the bathroom and basement, there was an unreasonable delay by the landlord seeking to identify the underlying repairs problem raised and arranging necessary works. This delay was particularly unreasonable given that the resident had reported the smell of sewage and given the health and safety issues accepted by the landlord. The landlord did not provide the resident with the necessary assurance that her property was habitable, or at least contained no hazards, leaving her in a state of uncertainty. It was also unreasonable that the landlord did not address the resident’s report that the basement had been blocked.
There was a further delay by the landlord in fully responding to the resident’s further reports which she made after the completion of works carried out when she was decanted. This is because it was only two months after the resident’s further reports, in March 2020, that the landlord confirmed it would carry out further works. However, in offering the resident compensation and agreeing a permanent decant, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its service failures which has resolved her complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property they were transferred to

There is evidence that the landlord has responded to the resident’s reports of repairs in her new property. However, the resident had prior to the start of her tenancy, queried the condition of the basement including why it did not have a floor, but the landlord did not respond. It also failed to respond to this point when responding to the resident’s formal complaint. The lack of response was particularly unreasonable given the issues with the basement at her previous property.
The landlord’s contractor, according to the evidence considered by this Service, did not complete all identified works in February 2021, in particular replacing floorboards in the basement. The landlord had the opportunity in the Stage 2 response of April 2021 to explain why it considered it had resolved the resident’s complaint at that time, but did not adequately do so.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within the next four weeks:
1. The landlord pays the resident £200 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to respond to her query about the condition of the basement in her new property made before the start of her tenancy and failure to replace the floorboards in the basement.
2. The landlord provides an update to resident on the works to replace the floorboards in the basement. If these works are still outstanding the landlord should make clear if other works need to be completed first.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:
1. The landlord contacts the resident to ascertain her present concerns about the swelling of her property and damage previously caused, and to check whether she wishes to escalate her formal complaint (reference CAS-343333-Q1Z6Q5).
2. The landlord pays the resident the £300 offered at Stage 2 of its complaints procedure for her travel costs when in temporary accommodation and for its error in respect of the photograph of the basement leak if it has not already done so.