GreenSquareAccord Limited (202124182)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124182

GreenSquareAccord Limited

17 April 2023

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 about the landlord’s communication about the leaseholder’s buildings insurance policy terms and the claim process.
2. The leaseholder is also dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

3. The complainant is the leaseholder of a flat which at the time of the complaint was occupied by the leaseholder’s tenant.
4. In 2018, due to a water mains failure the flat suffered a flood. The leaseholder obtained information regarding the leaseholder building insurance policy via a landlord staff member at a landlord event a few days after the leak.
5. In May 2021, the leaseholder contacted the landlord via email advising she was unhappy with the claim procedure and querying the buildings insurance process and selection of the insurer.
6. On 13 August 2021 the landlord formally raised the leaseholder’s complaint. The leaseholder wished to know the processes for managing immediate repairs and dealing with the insurance claim. The leaseholder also queried how to get the excess fee reimbursed and requested the insurance policy documents. The leaseholder requested information on the criteria used by the landlord to select its insurance provider and how often the insurer’s performance is reviewed.
7. On 1 September 2021 the landlord issued a response to the leaseholder’s complaint. The landlord advised that information about the buildings insurance policy would have been provided to the resident when she bought the property. The landlord added that the insurance was re-arranged every five years. The landlord confirmed that immediate repairs to resolve the cause of the damage are the responsibility of the leaseholder if the repairs are within their property and not recoverable under the insurance policy. It confirmed that the policy only covers for the costs to rectify the damage caused and not to repair the actual fault. Any remedial work in relation to the damage caused, should be carried out following the guidance provided by the insurance broker when the claim is made. In addition the landlord would evaluate requests for excess fee repayments on a case-by-case basis.
8. Following the landlord’s issue of its Stage 1 response the leaseholder indicated she was dissatisfied with the response, however a copy of her Stage 2 escalation request was not provided as evidence.
9. On 16 September 2021 the landlord issued a Stage 2 response to the leaseholder’s complaint.
   1. The landlord advised it would review how insurance information could be made more easily accessible to leaseholders.
   2. The landlord confirmed buildings insurance claims as laid out in the insurance policy are managed by the insurance provider, not the landlord. It confirmed it would not reimburse the policy excess. The landlord advised it would consider the involvement of leaseholders in the future insurance tender process. Due to the delay in responding to the complaint, it offered the leaseholder a £50 voucher.
10. On 2 February 2022 the leaseholder contacted this Service. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response that buildings insurance claims are the responsibility of the leaseholder, that the information provided to the leaseholders regarding the policy is inadequate and the landlord has not reimbursed the excess fee payment.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

11. The resident is unhappy with the insurer’s handling of her claim, however, it is the Ombudsman’s role is to assess landlords’ actions and we cannot assess the actions of other organisations such as insurance companies. Therefore, we cannot comment on the handling of the claim as part of the investigation. If the leaseholder is unhappy with the insurer’s handling of her claim, she can raise a complaint with the insurer directly. If the leaseholder is unhappy with the insurer’s response to her complaint, she may be able to refer her concerns to  the Financial Ombudsman Service.
12. The leaseholder has disputed that she was given adequate insurance information when she purchased the property. As the original lease was assigned in 2010 this is difficult to assess due to the length of time that has passed and the difficulty of obtaining accurate records after more than ten years. In accordance with Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. Therefore, we would not consider the insurance information provided to the leaseholder in 2010 as this was not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within six months.

The Buildings Insurance Policy

13. The lease states that the landlord will keep the building insured ‘against loss and damage by such risk as the lessor shall think fit’.
14. The landlord is expected to provide leaseholders with policy information upon request, including how to contact the insurer to make a claim, but it is not responsible for managing claims under the insurance policy.
15. The leaseholder was unhappy that they must make the insurance claim themself as in other properties they own, a management agent deals with buildings insurance claims on their behalf. Whilst some landlords offer this service, landlords are not required to provide this as standard, and the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to suggest this landlord provides this service or that it told the leaseholder it would be provided. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to direct the leaseholder to make a claim directly to the insurer.
16. The leaseholder was provided with the insurance information by a landlord staff member at a landlord event attended by the leaseholder. Therefore, they were given information about the insurance policy a short time after the leak occurred. The landlord is expected to provide information about the buildings insurance policies to residents upon request. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the leaseholder requested this information sooner, after the leak. The landlord has taken appropriate steps to provide the insurance details to the leaseholder so that they could raise a claim. As with most insurance claims, the leaseholder would be expected to pay an excess.
17. The leaseholder was unhappy with the £100 excess fee payment which the landlord advised, under the terms of the policy, is payable by the leaseholder. Although the landlord said it would consider reimbursement of the excess on a case by case basis. The landlord’s final complaint response confirmed it would not be refunding the excess fee payment. The landlord’s position that it would consider reimbursement of the excess fee on a case-by-case basis is fair, as is its decision in this case not to reimburse the leaseholder for the excess fee. The landlord is under no obligation to reimburse excess fees for leaseholders and the excess fee payment is set by the terms of the insurance policy. The landlord may be expected to refund the excess in exceptional circumstances such as where the landlord was at fault for causing damage to the resident’s property due to negligence, but there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was negligent in this case.
18. However, the communication of the landlord’s position with regard to excess fees reimbursement was inadequate. Its stage one response advises reimbursement will be considered on a case-by-case basis, however the final response declined the leaseholders request for reimbursement without further explanation. While the landlord is within its rights to decline the request, it would be good practice to explain the reasons for its decision given that it had previously said it would consider the leaseholder’s request.
19. Following the complaint, the landlord provided the leaseholder with the requested information regarding the tender process for leaseholder building insurance, and its final response advised it will consider including leaseholders in the process in future. This is a fair response to the leaseholder’s concerns and demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to identifying learning from its complaints.

Complaint Handling

20. The leaseholder emailed the landlord in May 2021 requesting a response to some queries regarding the insurance policy and the claims process. The leaseholder was not provided with any response to this email. The landlord has advised the staff member they emailed had now left the organisation, although it is not clear from the information provided, when the staff member left, or what action if any was taken with the initial email.
21. Following further contact from the resident the May email was then forwarded to another member of the landlord’s staff on 10 August 2021 and a complaint was raised on 13 August.
22. The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. The landlord’s complaint policy states it aims to respond to complaint within ten working days at Stage 1, and within five working days at Stage 2.
23. In its complaint responses the landlord asserts it was within its complaint handling timeframes when raising the complaint, however it did not address the initial delay except to note the staff members departure. This is an insufficient reason for the delay. Notwithstanding the departure of the staff member, two months is not an acceptable amount of time to respond to a resident. In this case a response from the landlord within a reasonable amount of time may have been adequate to respond to the leaseholder’s concerns and prevent the need for a formal complaint.
24. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view on our website, suggests awards of compensation of £50 to £100 where we recognise that there has been service failure by the landlord which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. In line with this, the landlord has awarded the resident £50 compensation in the form of a shopping voucher in recognition of its lack of timely response to the leaseholder’s email of May 2021.
25. In awarding compensation, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case. In this instance, the lack of response would be likely to cause time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. However, it did not significantly affect the overall outcome of the complaint and therefore the amount is reasonable.

Determination

26. In accordance with Paragraph 52 the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its communication of the leaseholder building insurance policy terms and claim process.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.
28. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.