Great Places Housing Association (202123116)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123116

Great Places Housing Group Limited

5 May 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of a leak affecting the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of works to make good damage caused by the leak.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a one-bedroom ground floor flat owned by the landlord. This is supported living accommodation that the resident has on an assured tenancy agreement that began in 2013.
The resident has a representative (his mother) who has advised this Service of the resident’s vulnerabilities that include Down Syndrome and severe learning difficulties. For the purpose of this report, the resident’s representative will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
The Tenant and Landlord Act 1985 and the tenancy agreement sets out repair responsibilities. In particular, part B of the agreement refers to repairs and decorating. The following are some of the items covered although this is not exhaustive:
1. The landlord will repair and make good the items set out below:
  1. Repairs to the structure.
  2. Inside the home – heating, hot water, sanitation, electric wiring including sockets, light fittings and switches.
Section four of the tenancy agreement states that the landlord will insure the home (the building) and any fixtures and fittings in it which belong to the landlord. The tenant is responsible for insuring their own contents, personal belongings and any other items for which the tenant has responsibility.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out its responsibilities to keep its properties in good repair and it gives its commitments to managing its assets proactively, setting out priority timescale categories for repairs that include:
1. Category One emergency – it aims to make safe within 24 hours.
  1. Anything causing immediate risk to the health, safety and security of any occupants and/or visitors to the properties or causing immediate damage to a property’s structure, fixtures and or fittings.
2. Category two routine repairs – it aims to complete routine repairs within one visit and to take as little time as possible.
  1. Typical routine repairs include general joinery, minor plumbing, repairs to kitchen fittings etc.
3. Category three enhanced repairs offer – ‘handyman’ services.
  1. The landlord supports independent living through an enhanced repair offer to certain customers. The range of services are classed as ‘handyman’ and the timescales are supported where possible with routine repair visits. It includes, as examples, light bulb changes and flat pack furniture assembly.
The landlord has a decant, disturbance and home loss procedure for when it needs to consider moving a tenant from their permanent home on a temporary or permanent basis.
The landlord’s customer feedback policy outlines how it deals with complaints. It has a two-stage process and gives its commitment to responding within 10 working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two. It refers to a further 10 working days being required on occasions. It also refers to compensation that it will consider on the individual merits of the case in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Scope of Investigation

The resident and the onsite support company have referred to a history of leaks at the property and other properties within the building. This investigation has not taken into account previous events as no records have been provided from any party and therefore the investigation concentrates solely on the events and circumstances relating to the complaint submitted in July 2021.
The complaint involved a claim by the landlord through their insurance company to cover damage caused to the property and the resident’s possessions. This Service cannot assess this aspect of the complaint as it has already been addressed through the insurance route. However, there are aspects of the complaint that have been considered in relation to how the landlord handled the resident’s reports and whether or not it offered reasonable redress to the resident.

Summary of Events

On 7 June 2021, the resident reported a leak to the landlord. The landlord called the resident back on the same day to arrange an appointment and establish more details about the leak. As the landlord was unable to speak to the resident, it left a voice message, and the resident called the landlord back on 11 June 2021. Due to a human error, the call details were not recorded correctly. The landlord apologised for this oversight in its stage one complaint response of 27 August 2021.
On 2 July 2021, the resident reported a leak from the ceiling in his home. This was attended to the same day and an instruction was given for the contractor to attend and isolate the leak.
On 3 July 2021, an out of hours contractor was called out regarding the leak – a dehumidifier was taken to the resident’s home and the electrics were isolated as a health and safety precaution.
On 5 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and requested that the photos taken of the kitchen damage on 14 June 2021 be forwarded to the relevant officer.
On 5 July 2021, the landlord’s customer solutions manager contacted the resident to discuss the leak, offered an apology for the inconvenience caused and advised of action to resolve the leak that included passing the matter onto its insurers to investigate. The officer asked the resident to provide a list of items that were damaged. The officer was assigned as the named contact to liaise with the resident.
On 6 July 2021, an internal email discussed the case, including the source of the leak. A question was raised about whether a water isolator could be fitted.
On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord asking whether an emergency referral could be made to specific temporary accommodation as his parents (who he was stopping with) were going away and his home would not be ready for him to move into.
On 8 July 2021, the contractor collected the dehumidifier.
On 9 July 2021, the landlord emailed the resident’s social worker to confirm costs of alternative accommodation.
On 13 July 2021, the landlord acknowledged a stage one complaint request and advised the resident that it aimed to respond within the next ten working days.
On 14 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord with a query regarding the loss adjusters and asking if the leather recliner could be deep cleaned or whether it would have to be replaced. Details of the costs incurred were itemised and a request for the inconvenience and distress to be taken into consideration was made. The resident also asked about arranging specific temporary accommodation for when his parents were away on holiday.
On 14 July 2021, the landlord sent an email to the resident advising that it had tried to make contact regarding an appointment for the loss adjuster to visit. It confirmed:
1. A stage one complaint had been raised.
2. The deep clean of the sofa.
3. Decoration to the original standard.
4. Carpet to be replaced on a like for like basis.
5. Wardrobe unit replacement.
6. The replacement of a Duke of Edinburgh Certificate that it confirmed was on its way and it asked for the receipt for the certificate and the frame.
On 15 July 2021, the landlord’s internal emails shows that an officer spoke to the resident and follow up contact would be made. The officer asked for actions from various officers including an officer to make contact with the resident the following day in relation to the temporary accommodation. It also asked that the resident be kept informed what was happening. The internal conversation between officers shows that the vulnerability of the resident should be stressed to the loss adjuster and asked if work could start at the end of the month as its priority was to get the resident back in his flat.
On 19 July 2021, the landlord’s records show that its loss adjusters confirmed what items were part of the insurance claim. These were:
1. Deep clean of the water damaged sofa.
2. Renewal of carpet.
3. Bespoke wardrobe.
4. Duke of Edinburgh Certificate and frame.
5. Repaint to lounge.
6. Replacement of approximately 40 ceiling tiles.
7. Check electrics.
8. Check of hard-wired smoke detectors and alarm.
On 26 July 2021, the landlord emailed the resident advising that it would be extending the complaint timescale as it was awaiting information from its insurers.
On 28 July 2021, the landlord discussed through an internal email that some items may not be paid for through insurance and its compensation policy was not an alternative to contents insurance.
On 30 July 2021, the landlord received an email from the onsite support company to advise that the leak occurred due to a tap being left on that flooded the flat below. Pictures were attached and it confirmed the resident’s vulnerability. It asked for the landlord to confirm the current position.
On 6 August 2021, the landlord emailed the onsite support company to confirm that as the leak was an accident it was unsure if its insurance would accept liability. It agreed to keep them informed of progress and confirmed that it would visit the resident in the flat above.
On 9 August 2021, the landlord received an email from the onsite support company to say that the leak was not an isolated incident and that there were communications about this dating back to 2019.
On 13 August 2021, the landlord emailed the onsite support company to confirm that work at the property was due to start 31 August 2021.
On 16 August 2021, the landlord’s internal emails confirm that the resident had been advised that it would start work 31 August 2021 and that the sofa would be cleaned. It had a query about blankets and cushions as it advised that it had not heard about these. It confirmed that the resident was unwilling to use his own contents insurance.
On 20 August 2021, the landlord emailed the onsite support company to advise that it was still looking at starting the work on 31 August 2021.
On 23 August 2021, the landlord’s contractor advised that it would organise a deep clean of the sofa, it was arranging for the carpet to be fitted and it confirmed that it would be visiting the property on 24 August 2021.
On 27 August 2021, the landlord sent its stage one complaint response. It confirmed the following:
1. The events surrounding the leak report on 7 June 2021 and 2 July 2021 and the error with the call recording on 11 June 2021. It confirmed that it had not been able to determine whether the previous leak was associated to the one of 2 July 2021 and it apologised for the inconvenience and the oversight with the call recording error.
2. The out of hours contractor was called on 3 July 2021 and it had reviewed the events and confirmed actions to take a dehumidifier to the property and isolate the electrics.
3. The landlord advised the matter had been referred to its insurers and that the resident had been asked to provide a list of damaged items.
4. There had been some miscommunication about accepting liability and it was confirmed that the landlord could not confirm its position until the loss adjuster had attended and carried out an assessment of the property.
5. It noted the resident was staying with parents until the outcome from the loss adjuster was received and noted parents’ holiday dates for respite care to be arranged by the landlord, including liaising with the resident’s social worker to ensure the right level of support was received.
6. A named officer was appointed as a contact for regular communications.
7. The landlord acknowledged the impact the incident had had on the resident and family and thanked them for their patience. It explained that the involvement of its insurers had caused delays in resolving the repairs and reaching a satisfactory resolution.
8. It confirmed that work would begin 31 August 2021 and that part of the work involved carrying out a deep clean of the sofa.
9. It advised that under normal circumstances, it would advise residents to make claims for damage under their contents insurance, but it acknowledged the upheaval the incident had caused, and that the resident had already made a claim.
10. It agreed to replace the carpet on a like for like basis (supplier of resident’s choice to be fitted 24 September 2021) and a bespoke wardrobe as a gesture of good will in recognition of the impact the leak had had on the resident.
11. It offered a payment of £1054.95 for the replacement of the wardrobe.
12. It acknowledged the delay in repairs and offered a rent refund of £1514.96 broken down as follows:
  1. 81 nights away from home to stay with parents.
  2. 10 nights away from home in respite care. It confirmed that it would not reimburse this as it had paid for the services separately.
  3. Rent (£18.70 per day x 81 nights)
  4. Replacement of the Duke of Edinburgh Award certificate.

The following outcome and recommendations were made:

It confirmed that the matter in relation to the call on 11 June 2021 had been addressed with the individual concerned.
It would monitor the repairs at the property to get the resident back in his home as soon as possible whilst supporting the resident and family.
It offered a discretionary payment of £70 for the delays as a result of the call on 11 June 2021 not being recorded correctly.
In conclusion, it confirmed the total offer of £3871.91

On 6 September 2021, the landlord received a letter from the resident advising it how the disruption due to the flood had had a detrimental effect on the family. It was pointed out that there were some missing details in the stage one complaint response. The resident advised the landlord that:
1. There had been a legacy of issues that the landlord had inherited from the previous organisation and there had been a previous resident meeting involving the MP in relation to another flood incident.
2. The resident strongly believed that the leak on 7 June 2021 was the cause of the water damage to the flat on 2 July 2021.
3. It should consider fitting a leak detection device.
4. The carpet should be a like for like one and the fitting should be the same as before in relation to a joint with the same fitter being used.
5. There had been no mention of costs for fitting the wardrobe when it arrived.
6. Various amendments were needed in response to the complaint facts which were:
  1. The landlord stated that it was unable to contact the resident on the landline on 7 June 2021. The resident pointed out that the family were on holiday and therefore it should have contacted the onsite support company to arrange access to the property.
  2. The resident had not recently made an insurance claim.
  3. It was the resident’s representative who completed the risk assessment and not the landlord’s officer.
  4. The landlord had stated that the insurers had caused some delays. The resident did not agree with this statement and felt that significant delays had been caused that totalled twelve weeks.
7. The resident did not feel that an appropriate resolution had been agreed and advised of additional costs of:
  1. Broadband – £40 per month.
  2. Commuting – £19 return.
  3. Contract with transport £65 – multiplied by five weeks.
  4. Costs associated with the resident’s parents accommodating him and caring costs with average hotel costs of £67 per night and breakfast of £9.50 plus a full-time carer rate of £14 per hour, £67.60 per week (health appointments, administration work etc.)
  5. Disruption costs to the family of having to come back from the seasonal pitch of their holiday home.
  6. Subsistence of £50 per day multiplied by two people.
  7. Electrics of £5 per week extra daily use of the shower, laundry of bedding and clothes.
  8. A query was raised about the decorating and the tiles.
On 13 September 2021, the landlord received an email from the onsite support company advising that it was shocked at the quality of the work being completed at the property. It advised that painting was completed around the furniture that had not been moved or sheeted, water marks were still present and confirmed that the ceiling tiles had been affected.
On 15 September 2021, the landlord’s records show an internal email confirming it had spoken to the resident and it had explained that the initial work carried out to the walls was for a stain wash.
On 21 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord with some concerns about:
1. The carpet that was being fitted the same week. The resident was concerned that the original carpet had been taken up and cut around the wardrobe.
2. The damaged wardrobe still being in situ.
3. Dirt and debris being present everywhere, paint on the settee and chair and a £200 picture left on the bed.
On 29 September 2021, the resident provided the landlord with an update to confirm that the resident’s dad had visited the property and he had had to remove everything himself ready for the carpet to be fitted. It was also confirmed that:
1. The wardrobe had now been removed.
2. The paintwork was different from the other walls, and it seemed darker in colour.
3. There was still paint on the furniture and the property had not been cleaned despite the move in date being that weekend.
On 4 October 2021, the landlord responded to the resident. It confirmed the previous details contained within the stage one complaint. It also confirmed:
1. A leak detection device would only be fitted as part of a telecare system where a resident is identified to have a history of blacking out or become incapacitated. As it believed the events leading to the leak were unrelated, it could not agree to this.
2. It would ask the onsite support company to check all ground floor rooms daily if the resident was away to check for signs of water ingress.
3. It confirmed that it:
  1. Agreed to pay for the increased electric of £42.
  2. Normally, contents insurance should be used for the wardrobe and carpet, but it had approved this as a goodwill gesture. The other items were not within the policy remit, and it was unable to provide reimbursement.
  3. Had appointed a cleaner.
On 11 October 2021, the landlord’s records show an email from their contractor to confirm all work was complete and a final costing was given.
On 13 October 2021, the resident made contact and disagreed that the leak was an isolated incident and said that there were further additional costs of:
1. Communal charges of £47.80 per month.
2. Broadband of £23.90 per month.
3. Commuting costs of £19 per month.
4. Transport contract of £65 per week for five weeks.
5. The electricity costs were withdrawn.
6. Caring costs of £68.60 per week including health appointments and wellbeing.
7. Subsistence of £100.
8. Extra electricity for laundry and personal hygiene of £50.
On 14 October 2021, a stage two complaint acknowledgement letter was sent to the resident advising that the landlord aimed to respond within 20 working days.
On 9 November 2021, the landlord sent its stage two complaint response. It confirmed that a thorough review had been completed and it believed that £3,871.91 was proportionate and the refund of rent was reflective of the inconvenience of the resident’s stay with his parents. It went on to acknowledge that Housing Benefit does not cover the ineligible service charges which were £47.80 per month.
1. It gave a breakdown of weekly costs of the ineligible service charges of:
  1. Private water = £5.13
  2. Private gas = £5.13
  3. Administration Charge = £0.77

Total = £11.03

It also agreed to reimburse the broadband and amended the total offer to £4,062.84 which included:
1. 81 days ineligible charges at £1.57 per day = £127.28
2. 81 days broadband charges at £0.79 per day = £63.65
3. Total of £190.93
It clarified a point that it had been unable to find any reference to it agreeing to pack away the resident’s belongings and that it would not deal with personal possessions.
It had already accepted an error about the call on 11 June 2021 not being correctly logged but it could not establish if there had been two separate leaks or one.
It could not find any previous reports of a leak and summarised the incident to be isolated.
It could not fit an isolated leak device as the criteria for fitting one had not been met.
It was unable to consider any other costs and it believed the offer would cover the expenses incurred as well as its agreement to replace the carpets and wardrobes as a gesture of goodwill.

Summary of Events after the landlord’s complaints process

On 19 January 2022, the resident contacted this Service to advise that her son’s mental health had deteriorated, and at the time he was asking daily when he would be returning to his home. The resident confirmed that the basis of the complaint was the level of compensation and that the landlord had ignored the distress and anxiety caused to the family. The resident did not feel that the landlord had been honest about the leak and the circumstances of the resident in the flat above.
This Service requested information from the landlord on how it reached the compensation level of £4,062.84. The landlord has confirmed the breakdown includes the following:
1. 81 days Housing Benefit ineligible charges at £1.57 per day = £127.28
2. 81 days broadband charges at £0.79 per day = £63.65
3. The service failure in relation to the initial leak of 11 June 2021 not being recorded correctly = £70.00
4. Rent refund for the time away from the property = £1514.96
5. The reimbursement cost for the replacement wardrobe paid directly to the supplier of the resident’s choice = £1054.95
6. The replacement carpet paid directly to the carpet fitter of the resident’s choice = £1232.00

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a leak affecting the property

The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are to:
1. Be fair;
2. Put things right; and
3. Learn from outcomes.
The resident’s first report of a leak affecting the property was on 7 June 2021. The landlord responded promptly, contacting the resident the same day. A message was left for the resident to make contact, but the landlord did not receive a call until four days later on 11 June 2021.
The resident has confirmed that this was because his parents were away, and the landlord should have made contact with the onsite support company for access to the resident’s home. It is unclear what process the landlord has in place in these circumstances and whether any damage was evident at the resident’s home. Whilst the landlord acted quickly in responding to the leak, considering this is supported accommodation, it should have satisfied itself that its follow up was thorough and ensured a process was in place for alternative contact.
When the resident called on 11 June 2021, the landlord later recognised that a human error had occurred with the call recording on that date and, although it is unclear how this impacted the resident or the repair, it offered £70 compensation for the service failure. This was within the range that the Ombudsman would recommend for an administrative error or a failing of a short duration. The landlord therefore demonstrated that it offered reasonable redress for the record-keeping error which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
On 2 July 2021, the resident reported a leak from the ceiling at his home. It is unclear whether this leak was related to the leak on 7 June 2021 and whilst the resident believes that it is, there is no clear evidence to support this. This leak was attended to the same day and fully responded to within one day, in line with the landlord’s repair obligations of its aim to carry out emergency works to make safe within twenty-four hours. This included making safe the electrics and visiting the property with a dehumidifier to dry out the property.
The landlord has demonstrated that it acted quickly in responding to the second leak and referred the matter onto its insurers within three days of the report. It also applied best practice of assigning a named contact officer as it recognised the resident’s vulnerabilities, the importance of communicating regularly with him and its aim of getting the property back to a habitable condition.
It appears from an early point that a decision was made that the property was not habitable and the landlord has evidence of some of its conversations with the resident about temporary accommodation. However, it is unclear at what point or by whom the decision was made for the resident to stay with his parents.
Four days after the leak on 2 July 2021, the landlord was made aware of the resident’s request for temporary accommodation as the resident’s parents had holiday dates booked. The landlord demonstrated that it acted appropriately in arranging temporary accommodation, liaising with the council’s social services to book the accommodation that had been requested and ensuring the right level of support for the resident. This demonstrated that the landlord not only acted appropriately but took into account the resident’s individual needs.
In summary, there was service failure in relation to the handling of the report with the first leak in June 2021 but the landlord has acknowledged this and offered £70 compensation which was a proportionate award.

The landlord’s handling of works to make good damaged caused by the leak

The damage from the leak occurred in July 2021 with remedial works to the property commencing on 31 August 2021 and being completed in mid-October 2021; three months later.
The landlord acknowledged that there was a delay but that this was due to the insurance process. However, this was an excessive duration for the level of work identified and there is insufficient evidence to show that the landlord was pro-active in ensuring that there was progress via the insurer. This was a service failure that inevitably impacted the resident and his family for several months, as the resident was away from his home and his family had to accommodate him for part of this duration. Further, given the resident’s vulnerability and care needs, the impact of the disruptions were heightened.
The landlord recognised there was a delay, apologised and offered compensation which it has broken down as covering the replacement of a wardrobe and carpet, which it would normally have expected the resident to claim through his contents insurance but instead it said that these were replaced as a gesture of goodwill. It is unclear whether the landlord’s insurance accepted liability for the claim for the resident’s personal possessions and if these items were part of the insurance claim or not. However, it is not for this Service to ascertain liability or comment on how the landlord’s insurers handled the claim.
The landlord has demonstrated that it calculated compensation and itemised each element, which included some damaged personal possessions. However, it is unclear which parts were covered by the landlord’s insurance company and which parts it calculated as compensation in accordance with its compensation policy for service failure. In July 2021, the landlord confirmed that the wardrobe and carpet were part of the insurance claim but later it said that these were reimbursed as a gesture of goodwill. The landlord should have made it clear and separated the two claims to ensure transparency for all parties.
In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, it confirmed that its first offer of £3,871.91 included a wardrobe replacement of £1,054.95 and a rent refund of £1,514.96. It then increased its offer to £4,062.84 at stage two of the complaints procedure to include broadband reimbursement and service charges. It has also confirmed that the breakdown of costs covered a carpet replacement. This demonstrated that the landlord used its discretion and offered reasonable redress for the damaged items and charges associated with the property such as rent and utilities. Given some of these items would usually be required to be claimed through a resident’s own insurance cover, the landlord was pro-active in taking a reasonable approach to alleviate some of the costs that the resident incurred.
However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it took into account the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the service failure identified in relation to the delays in carrying out work to the property. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have made a separate award, beyond the rent reimbursement, for inconvenience and distress caused to the resident where there had been a failure that had impacted him and his ability to stay at his home. As the resident demonstrated how the duration away from his home impacted him and his family, particularly given the vulnerabilities and care needs, the landlord should have calculated compensation for the duration away from home taking into account the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord acknowledged the stage one complaint on 13 July 2021 and a holding letter was sent on 26 July 2021, explaining that it could not fully respond as it was awaiting the outcome of the loss adjusters report. On 27 August 2021, the landlord sent its full stage one complaint response; this was 31 days later and outside of the landlord’s ten working day target albeit it did send a holding letter and explained why there was a delay.
Nevertheless, this was still outside of the landlord’s customer feedback policy timescales and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and the response was therefore offered within an inappropriate timescale. The landlord could instead have responded within the required timescales and confirmed what actions it would take to put things right and follow up on these.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for the failures identified in its handling of the leak affecting the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the works to make good damage caused by the leak.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged the error with a telephone call not being recorded properly and offered a proportionate level of compensation to the resident for this service failure.
The landlord acknowledged, explained the reasons and apologised for the delays in carrying out work to make good the damage caused by the leak. It offered compensation for personal possessions but did not take into account the distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord did not comply with its stage one complaint timescales when replying to the resident.

Orders

Within four weeks of this report, the landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £350, made up of:
1. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the failures in its handling of the works to make good damage caused by the leak (addition to the compensation of £4086.84 it has already offered the resident).
2. £50 for the delayed stage one complaint response.
The landlord to give assurances to the resident and this Service of the process that is in place to ensure repairs are actioned where it is unable to contact the resident in its supported accommodation.

Recommendation

It is recommended that, if it has not already done so, the landlord considers introducing a system to check residents’ properties within its supported scheme on a regular basis where residents are away from home.
The landlord must reply to this Service to confirm its intentions in regard to the above recommendation within four weeks of the date of this report.