Bromford Housing Group Limited (202110482)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110482

Bromford Housing Association Limited

6 June 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. Liability for damages and loss caused during a fire at the resident’s home;
2. Liability for damages and loss caused by a contractor following the fire;
3. The landlord’s investigations and actions following the fire;
4. The landlord’s management of a temporary decant for the resident;
5. The landlord’s communication with the resident;
6. The landlord’s complaint handling including the level of financial redress offered.

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 42 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Liability for damages and loss caused during and following a fire at the resident’s home;
2. Liability for damages and loss caused by a contractor following the fire.

This is because paragraph 42 (g) states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
The resident has expressed concern that the fire at the property was caused by the landlord’s operatives not following the correct safety procedures and that their actions during the fire were not reasonable or in line with the landlord’s procedures.
The resident has also expressed severe distress at the treatment of their home and personal property by a contractor employed by the landlord’s insurer to ‘make safe’ the property following the fire. During this time the contractor disposed of the resident’s belongings and handed other items to third parties without authority.
The Ombudsman does not determine liability like a court and therefore cannot consider liability for the cause of the fire or the subsequent damage or loss to property. This Service considers that the resident can seek a remedy to this aspect of the complaint through the courts, or via an insurance claim.
This report will however consider whether the landlord’s investigations into the fire and its action following the fire were reasonable and references to the above issues are made for context.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a two-bed mid-terrace house owned by the landlord. The resident is represented in this complaint by her daughter. For clarity, both the resident and her representative are referred to as ‘the resident’ throughout this report.

Landlord policy and procedure

The landlord’s decant policy states that where a resident is decanted to a property not owned by the landlord, the landlord will pay “the rental and council tax costs of the decant” and “will assess the support needed and inconvenience caused on an individual basis with the customer to agree a ‘disturbance payment’”.
The decant policy also states that the landlord will:
1. Keep the resident informed of progress and timescales.
2. Facilitate access to visit their home during works.
3. Process any disturbance payments and paperwork required.
The landlord states that “disturbance payments are intended to cover the reasonable costs customers…incur when moving” and that payments will be “assessed on an individual basis…there is no fixed amount”.
The landlord’s fire safety policy states that operatives who complete ‘hot works’ “must have access to a serviced fire extinguisher within their vehicle” and “must have completed the hot works TBT training, have access to the hot works risk assessment (on the Safety Hub) and the hot works checklist prior to starting works”.
The landlord’s document titled ‘safe system of work for hot works’ states that:
1. “Suitable firefighting equipment must be immediately available in the location where hot works are being completed. Within 2 meters of the work area.”
2. “Fire/heat guards OR mats must be used where possible.”
The fire safety policy also states that on discovery of a fire within a resident’s home, colleagues should alert everyone in the building, ensure residents have left the building, leave the property themselves and call the fire brigade.
Following a fire incident the landlord’s policy states:
1. All incidents must be reported on its accident reporting system within 72 hours.
2. Where significant damage has been caused, this should be reported immediately to the repairs service who will arrange for a survey of the property.
3. Access to the property should be restricted until it is deemed safe.
4. Where the property is not habitable due to fire or smoke damage the landlord will provide advice to the resident on options available to them.
5. The fire safety team will complete a fire report as part of the fire investigation. This will summarise:
  1. the cause of the fire
  2. the extent of damage caused
  3. any failures of fire safety
  4. any necessary actions, incident learning or follow up requirements.
The landlord is insured in respect of liability for “loss or damage caused by or arising out of fire” however this is conditional on the landlord having taken safety precautions prior to carrying out ‘hot work’ including:
1. Inspecting the area and removing or covering combustible materials.
2. “Suitable fire-extinguishing equipment must be available for immediate use at the point of work or as near as practically possible”.
3. When each period of work has been completed a thorough fire-safety check must be carried out.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. It states it will respond to stage one complaints within five working days and provide a full response within ten working days. Stage two complaints will be acknowledged within five working days and responded to within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation procedure states that compensation “should be awarded where…loss or damage is due to neglect, act or omission of a colleague or contractor undertaking work on our behalf”. The compensation policy states the landlord consults with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance when calculating compensation payments.

Summary of events

On 5 July 2021 the landlord attended the resident’s property to replace the central heating system. During the works a fire broke out at the property.
This Service has been provided with the hot works risk assessment and checklist completed on 5 July 2021 by Engineer A who carried out soldering at the property.
The landlord has provided this Service with a document titled ‘investigation of fire at [resident’s address]’. The document is not dated but states that the investigation on site was carried out the by landlord’s fire safety lead and the fire investigator for the Fire Service on 6 July 2021. The document states:
1. The fire originated in the resident’s property and affected three other properties within the terrace to varying degrees.
2. “The cause of the fire is accidental ignition caused by hot soldering works …close to the compressed fibre ceiling board within the linen storage cupboard in the main bedroom at first floor level.”
3. The fire took hold in the loft space and was unseen by operatives on the first floor.
4. As the fire developed smoke was seen coming from the roof tiles by neighbours who called the Fire Service at 15:17.
5. “On discovery of the fire Engineer A alerted Engineer B…and both proceeded to attempt to put out the fire using their on-site fire extinguishers”.
6. “The engineers did not call the Fire Service, however [the Fire Service] attended shortly after the engineers exited the building as they had been called by a member of the public”.
7. The damage to the resident’s property was summarised as an unsafe structure, with ceiling collapse and fire damage.
8. Initial recommendations within the report were that “all hot works cease with immediate effect”, further safety training be rolled out, and policies and procedures be reviewed.
On 6 July 2021 internal landlord communications demonstrate that all hot works were suspended until all relevant operatives had received “an update and refresh”. The training was being rolled out “to mitigate any future similar incidents and to reaffirm the controls required for the completion of hot works”.
Documents seen by this Service demonstrate that Engineer A and Engineer B were interviewed by the landlord on 8 July 2021 as part of its investigations.
Also on 8 July 2021, the landlord made a payment to the resident of £500 for “immediate essentials”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 July 2021, this email was treated by the landlord as a formal complaint. The resident provided the following account of events:
1. The resident left the landlord’s operatives in the property carrying out works to the central heating system.
2. At around 3:25pm they received a call from their neighbour advising that the property was on fire, they drove to the property and telephoned the landlord who advised that they were unaware of the situation.
3. Arriving on the street they found the fire to be “raging” and landlord operatives sat with their vans at the end of the street.
4. Neighbours had told the resident that the operatives had been “going in and out of the property whilst roof tiles were falling in to retrieve their tools, and also running to the van to get a fire extinguisher”. The resident had since been shown video footage of this happening.
5. Following the fire the landlord offered to provide temporary accommodation for the resident but they chose to stay with family rather than be moved around and their dogs put in kennels. The resident had been staying with family for four weeks and it was no longer practical due to overcrowding.
6. The resident requested:
  1. Official confirmation from the landlord on the cause of the fire and explanation of what investigations were being carried out.
  2. Access to the property for the resident and their insurance provider’s loss adjustor.
  3. An indication of how long it would be until the resident could likely return to their home and confirmation of where they would be temporarily rehoused.
7. The situation was having a “huge impact” on the resident’s wellbeing who was “mentally drained”, off sick from work, was not sleeping and their “stress levels [were] through the roof”.
The landlord responded to the resident on 29 July 2021 advising that it was doing everything it could to secure the right alternative temporary accommodation for the resident. The email also advised that the landlord was sorry that it had not responded to the resident regarding the cause of the fire but that it was awaiting the report from its assessors and expected this to be completed within “the next day or so”.
Also on 29 July 2021 an internal landlord email advises staff to “please all deal with the situation with bit more empathy as you will understand this is a distressing situation for the family for no fault of theirs”.
On 30 July 2021 the landlord advised the resident that it was chasing the insurer’s inspection team for the assessment report regarding the fire. It stated that when the property had been made safe the resident could arrange to go into the property to collect belongings. The resident responded on the same day advising that their belongings had been removed from their property by the landlord’s contractors without their knowledge or consent. Some items had been given to a neighbour but others were unaccounted for. The resident asked that a list be provided of all items that had been removed from the property and an explanation of where they were.
Internal landlord emails dated 2 August 2021 stated that the resident had received a copy of the Fire Service report and that “it clearly states that the fire [was] caused by our engineers”. The email asked what the plan was in terms of “a formal acknowledgement and apology”. Within the email communications it is commented that the landlord’s insurer had commissioned their own forensics report but that this was unlikely to be shared with the landlord as it was not common practice to do so. The landlord’s data protection officer and insurance manager also stated that the landlord was unable to admit liability unless advised by its insurers as to do so could invalidate its liability insurance.
On 2 August 2021 the landlord made a further payment of £500 to the resident for “immediate essentials”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 August 2021 to advise it had found a private rented property that they would like to secure as temporary accommodation. The landlord responded the same day to advise that it would:
1. Pay the rent and bills on the resident’s temporary accommodation.
2. Provide assistance with removals and a furniture pack for the temporary accommodation.
3. Pay the resident a disturbance allowance of £10 per day from the date of the fire to the date they moved into temporary accommodation. The landlord increased this offer to £12.50 per day on 4 August 2021.
The landlord’s insurance team contacted its insurer by email on 3 August 2021 asking whether it was “in a position to admit liability” as the landlord was “keen to be able to update our customer and to be able to formally apologise if, as it appears, the fire was caused by our engineers”. The landlord advised that staff had been advised “not to say anything that will imply that we accept liability…that if we do not follow insurer’s advice we risk jeopardising our cover”.
On 4 August 2021 the landlord provided the private lettings agent with a reference for the resident and emails on 5 August 2021 demonstrate that it liaised with the letting agent and insurer regarding the guarantee of rent.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 August 2021 and provided an inventory from its contractor of items that had been removed from the property and confirmed as either handed to a neighbour or disposed of to landfill. The landlord stated, “I am so sorry that these are not retrievable”.
Internal landlord emails dated 5 August 2021 demonstrate that it was communicating with its insurer and a private letting agent to secure the private rented alternative accommodation identified by the resident. It also stated that:
1. The resident had rejected the landlord’s offer of £12.50 daily disturbance allowance for the period they were stating with family and had asked for £55 per day.
2. The landlord was concerned at the bureaucracy involved in the process of securing the alternative accommodation for the resident. It expressed this to the insurance claims handler and that it felt this was affecting the resident’s experience.
On 9 August 2021 the private landlord authorised the lettings agent to let the property to the resident and the resident moved into the temporary accommodation on 26 August 2021.
On 13 August 2021 the landlord, in internal email communications, advised that:
1. Following the incident, communications had been sent out to “cease all hot works”.
2. An investigation report was completed by the fire safety lead.
3. A final investigation report was provided to the landlord executive team.
4. The hot works risk assessment and checklist were reviewed.
5. A ‘toolbox talk’ was delivered to all colleagues who complete hot works.
6. Further formal training in the form of a ‘hot works passport’ was to be rolled out.
The reviewed version of the hot works risk assessment (version 1.1 dated July 2021) included the following supplementary questions not contained within the previous risk assessment:
1. “Is the fire extinguisher in close proximity to the completion of works?”
2. “Have any openings, voids, gaps etc. been adequately covered or sealed with a fire-retardant material?”
On 9 September 2021 the landlord received a letter from the surveyors working on behalf of the insurer regarding the allegation that one of its contractors had disposed of the resident’s belongings in error. The letter, a copy of which was provided by the landlord to the resident, stated that:
1. It had investigated the complaint and found that a miscommunication between the contractor and its sub-contractor had led to “the disposal of contents without consent”.
2. It apologised “unreservedly” and the contractor had been suspended from further contracts.
On 10 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord again asking for an update regarding the insurers report into the cause of the fire. They stated that the delay was causing them to be concerned that something was being covered up.
In an email to its insurer dated 20 September 2021 the landlord requested an update on the insurers position stating that it was aware that the resident may be considering claims against the landlord and was “therefore anxious to only proceed based on your advice”. It also asked, “if at any point there will be a statement of the cause of the fire, admission of liability or similar that we can or should share…If this is only ever going to be done insurer to insurer is there something we can tell our [resident] so as to close this matter down?”.
Internal landlord emails dated 28 September 2021 demonstrate that the landlord was aware that the resident had “previously been told that an investigation report from our insurers is due to be shared with [them] (which isn’t actually the case)”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 October 2021 and stated that the week before, they had been advised that the landlord would “get some answers and come back to [them]” but that they had since been advised that no information could be shared regarding the fire unless the resident instructed solicitors. This service has not seen a response from the insurer.
The landlord responded to the resident on 12 October 2021 stating:
1. It had agreed to provide all items that required repair or replacement following the fire, and that where replacement was required, items would be upgraded to current specifications.
2. It was “unable to provide details that were part of the ongoing insurance claim” for liability.
3. The resident’s solicitor or insurer could raise a claim for compensation allowing the landlord’s insurer to discuss matters of liability with the resident or their insurer.
4. The resident had referred to video footage held by their neighbour which may be useful to the landlord’s investigation. The team carrying out the investigation felt that the footage “would not have any bearing on [the] investigation”.
5. The landlord was sorry that the resident was informed that they would receive information about the fire.
6. The landlord had identified that it could have communicated better with the resident in the weeks following the fire. It could not “turn back the clock and change what was said” but it had learned lessons as a result.
The resident responded to the landlord’s email on the same day and stated:
1. They could not understand why the resident was not “entitled to understand the circumstances surrounding this incident given the impact it has had”.
2. The landlord had provided information that contradicted the report by the fire brigade. The landlord had stated that the report provided by the fire brigade was a basic report and did not confirm the cause of the fire.
3. The resident did not understand how the footage would not have a bearing on the investigation as it showed the landlord’s engineers not wearing appropriate safety equipment, running in and out of the burning building, and proved that they did not have fire extinguishers with them whilst completing the works.
4. The landlord had advised it would provide the resident with a copy of its hot works permit but this had not been received.
5. The landlord had not learned lessons regarding communication. A member of staff had advised the resident on 29 September that they would call them back but the resident had been advised by another staff member that they would not be calling them.
On 15 October 2021 the landlord provided a response to the resident’s formal complaint. It stated:
1. Due to the seriousness of the resident’s complaint, the complaint had been handled by the landlord’s executive team rather than in line with its complaint process.
2. The landlord could not discuss liability for or the cause of the fire with the resident unless they made an insurance claim against the landlord, either themselves or via their insurer. As the resident had not yet made a claim, the landlord was “unable” to discuss further details relating to the fire.
3. The video footage of the engineers referred to by the resident would not have altered the findings of the investigation in relation to the location of the fire extinguishers however the landlord would revisit the footage and consider amending its report required amending.
4. It estimated that the required works would be completed within 14 weeks.
5. A payment of £20 would be made to cover the cost of installing a landline at the resident’s alternative accommodation.
6. It had agreed a list of items that were to be repaired or replaced because of the fire, this included upgrading some items to current specifications.
7. The contractor that had disposed of the resident’s items was no longer involved in the work to the resident’s home. The resident could pursue a claim against them through their insurer for compensation for the loss of their contents.
8. The landlord was “deeply sorry for the way [it] responded to the fire” and acknowledged service failings in:
  1. its “initial delays with approving the alternative accommodation”
  2. “delays in providing timescales for completion of the works”
  3. handling of the resident’s personal items on site
9. However it felt that the payment of “£1,000 for essential items and emergency expenses, along with the steps taken to support with securing the alternative accommodation were fair and reasonable in the circumstances”.
On 15 December 2021 the resident contacted this Service and advised that they remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response because:
1. The resident wanted to confirmation of the cause of the fire.
2. They did not feel the landlord had taken appropriate steps to prevent a similar incident happening again.
3. The £1,000 paid by the landlord did not cover the resident’s losses caused by the fire and by the landlord’s contractor disposing of their belongings without permission.
4. The resident felt that due to the emotional stress they had suffered and time invested in trying to resolve the complaint, the landlord should pay them substantial compensation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 January 2022 and asked the landlord to advise on the process they were required to follow to obtain further information about the fire.
The landlord responded to the resident’s email on 27 January 2022 stating that it could not share further information regarding the fire but could provide advice on how to make a claim for contents damaged by the fire.
On 27 January 2022 this Service advised the resident that some aspects of their complaint may fall outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as liability was generally a legal matter and may need to be considered by a court.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 February 2022 advising that on visiting their property there were some snagging issues that had been pointed out to the contractor. The resident also advised that the property would need to be cleaned before they moved back in as “there was a thick layer of dust/dirt …and the house in general is very dusty”. The landlord replied on the same day agreeing that the property would be left clean.
On 25 February 2022 the resident confirmed that they had been given the keys for their property and would start moving back in. They reported that they were upset at the state of the front garden which was “full of debris, cigarette butts, nails etc”.
On 3 March 2022 the resident contacted this Service to provide clarification on the details of their complaint. They stated that:
1. One of the contractors “when they were supposed to be making the property safe, took it upon themselves to take most of the contents of the upstairs to landfill”. The resident stated they only became aware of this as they were informed by their neighbour.
2. The landlord had provided an inaccurate list of items that had been disposed of which impacted the insurance pay out as they were unable to itemise the contents of the house by memory.
3. The landlord’s chief risk officer had told the resident on the phone that the fire started between 2pm and 2.30pm, the resident wanted to know why the fire service were not called until 3.17pm.
On 6 March 2022 the resident reported several snagging issues with the works at the property which included poor cleanliness, damage to plastering and decoration, and debris left in the front and back gardens.
An internal landlord email dated 11 March 2022 stated that the landlord’s surveyor had carried out a joint inspection of the property with the resident who had been “over the moon with the final results”. The inspection had highlighted “externally high finish” but noted “very minor decoration issue…marks to lounge ceiling etc [and] stair handrail to be fitted.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 20 March 2022 to advise that following the clean that had been completed by the landlord on 17 March 2022 the property remained in an unclean condition. The landlord responded by email the following day and apologised that the standard of the clean “was not fully as we would have hoped for and…that this caused additional stress on your moving back day”. The landlord stated that it had arranged the cleaning as a gesture of goodwill and would not normally have carried the clean out.
A list of ‘snagging’ issues identified and resolved by the landlord on 30 March 2022 included:
1. general issues with the finish of decoration
2. possible leak from the boiler
3. holes and cracks in the plaster work
4. window restrictors had not been fitted
5. cleaning was required throughout
6. the garden fence required making good and debris removing from the garden.
The landlord, in the information it provided to this Service, has stated that the resident “has not made a liability clam to our insurers for any losses following the fire. Therefore, the cause of the fire has not been discussed or confirmed with [the resident]. [The resident] has six years to make a liability claim and this is typically done by [their] solicitors or insurers. Such a claim will lead to discussions around the cause of the fire and whether Bromford had been negligent. As a liability claim is yet to be made by [the resident], we are unable to confirm liability at this point and this would need to be discussed and concluded by our insurers.”
The resident, in their communications with this Service, has described “an extremely emotionally stressful time” and states that the landlord’s communication and complaint handling has made a distressing time “much worse”. The resident states that they are “still on anti-depressants to this day” and was now “faced with the possibility of having to be a witness in court”. The resident described feeling “shrugged off” by the landlord and that they were being “stringed along” in being told that they would be provided with information relating to the cause of the fire.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

As previously explained, this Service does not determine liability for damages or award damages in the way that a court might and therefore we are unable to determine liability for the fire and subsequent damage or order compensation for these issues.
The Ombudsman will however consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation and whether this was handled reasonably and in line with its own policy and procedures.

The landlord’s investigations and actions following the fire

The landlord has demonstrated that it followed its policies and procedures in its investigation of, and actions following, the fire.
The landlord has demonstrated that following the fire it:
1. Carried out an internal investigation, attending the property the day after the fire with the Fire Service to inspect the property and determine the likely cause of the fire.
2. Interviewed the engineers who were present at the time of the fire.
3. Issued a directive to cease all hot works until a safety review had been completed.
4. Reviewed its hot works procedures and made changes to its hot works risk assessment and checklist.
5. Carried out ‘toolbox talks’ and rolled out formal hot works training.
It is the view of this Service that the landlord responded swiftly and reasonably following the fire and undertook a comprehensive investigation of the incident.
However, the Ombudsman considers that in failing to inform the resident of the above actions that it had taken, their view that the landlord had failed to carry out sufficient investigations was understandable. This issue is explored further later in this report.

The landlord’s management of a temporary decant for the resident

Immediately after the fire at their property, the resident understandably decided that they would prefer to stay temporarily with relatives rather than have to keep moving or be away from their pets. When it became clear, approximately two weeks after the fire that they would be unable to return home for a substantial time, the resident requested that the landlord provide temporary accommodation.
The resident requested temporary accommodation on 28 July 2021. Five days later, on 2 August 2021, the resident viewed a private rented property and advised the landlord that the property was suitable and they would like to move in as temporary accommodation.
Four days after the resident identified the property, the landlord provided a reference for the resident and liaised with the letting agent and insurer to secure the property for the resident. It took a further five days for the application to be approved by the private landlord due to processes that had to be followed for the landlord’s insurer to guarantee the rent. The resident moved into the temporary accommodation on 26 August 2021, 17 days after the letting was approved.
The landlord has acknowledged failings in “initial delays with approving the alternative accommodation”. It is right that the landlord acknowledges the delays in securing temporary accommodation for the resident however this Service would highlight that not all the delay was within the control of the landlord.
Some of the delay in securing the temporary accommodation was caused by bureaucratic internal processes related to the insurance claim process. The landlord, to its credit, demonstrated that it was actively trying to expedite securing temporary accommodation for the resident and expressed its concerns to the claims handler that the delays were impacting on the resident’s experience.
The landlord made provisions over and above those outlined in its decant procedure to assist the resident in moving to and from their temporary accommodation. It agreed to pay for services such as removals and provision of furniture packs which would usually be provided by the resident’s home contents insurer. This was helpful given the severity of the resident’s situation.
Overall, whilst there were delays in securing temporary accommodation for the resident these were, in the main, outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord has demonstrated that it acted reasonably and actively tried to speed up the process in the knowledge that the resident was being negatively impacted.

The landlord’s communication with the resident

This Service acknowledges that it was reasonable that the landlord followed the advice of its insurer in relation to not disclosing information that may relate to its liability for the fire. It is clear from the landlord’s internal communications that the intention of doing so was to limit its financial exposure.
It was however completely unreasonable that the landlord did not, at an early stage, explain to the resident that it could not share this information and why it could not do so. The landlord’s failure to explain that it could not discuss liability for the fire occurred over a protracted period of three months, from July 2021 to October 2021.
The landlord, in failing to communicate effectively with the resident regarding its inability to discuss liability information, failed to manage the resident’s expectations. This caused the resident unnecessary distress, anxiety, frustration and uncertainty. It also caused the resident to invest time and trouble in chasing a response to their queries which could have been avoided had the landlord explained at an earlier stage that this information would not be provided, the reasons why, and the resident’s options. This, at a time when they were experiencing a traumatic event.
The resident themselves described how the landlord’s communication failures made an already distressing time “much worse” and that they were feeling “shrugged off” and that the landlord had been “stringing them along”.
Whether the resident is legally entitled to have a copy of the landlord or insurer’s fire reports is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Such matters are better suited to the legal process and the resident should seek her own legal advice about this. The resident is also able to contact the Information Commissioners Office for further advice and guidance regarding subject access requests.
In its early communications with the resident in July 2021 the landlord assured the resident that it would share the insurer’s report into the cause of the fire with them. This Service acknowledges that these initial assurances were made in good faith, however this advice was later rescinded and this added to the distress experienced by the resident.
The landlord was advised by its data protection officer on 2 August 2021, less than one month after the fire, that it could not share liability information with the resident as it may invalidate its insurance and impact on any legal findings of liability. Despite this, the landlord did not make the resident aware that it would not be sharing this information with them, unnecessarily prolonging the uncertainty and distress of the resident who made further requests.
Eight weeks later, on 28 September 2021, the landlord noted that the resident had been told they would be given information when in fact they would not. The landlord did not however explain this to the resident for a further ten days.
The landlord contacted its insurer on 3 August 2021 and 20 September 2021 by email asking for advice on how to deal with the resident’s enquiries. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the situation, and as the landlord was already aware that it had made false promises to the resident, this Service does not consider that the landlord handled its enquiries to the insurer with sufficient urgency.
The landlord’s failure to communicate its position to the resident exacerbated the distress that they were already suffering because of the fire and loss of all their belongings. This Service appreciates that this was not done deliberately to conceal the truth from the resident, but to avoid invalidating its liability insurance. Nonetheless the poor communication had the effect of damaging the resident’s trust in the landlord and causing additional distress and therefore there was severe maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling including the level of financial redress offered

The landlord has stated that, due to the gravity of the situation, it dealt with the resident’s complaint outside of its complaint procedure. The complaint was managed by the landlord’s executive team to offer additional support to the resident.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord wanted to convey to the resident the importance it was placing on resolving the issue for the resident and that the decision was not made to deny the resident their right to complaint. Nonetheless this decision impinged on the resident’s rights.
The landlord, despite maintaining regular contact with the resident, only provided one ‘formal’ response to the complaint, an email dated 15 October 2021. This email was not easily identifiable as a formal complaint response. The email’s subject title did not distinguish it as a complaint response and the email did not contain all the components identified by the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) as essential elements in a complaint response:
1. what stage the complaint had been considered at (eg stage one or two).
2. the details of the complaint.
3. the outcome of the complaint and the reasons for the outcome
4. details of any remedy to put things right
5. details of outstanding actions.
As the complaint response email signposted the resident to the Ombudsman, it is understood that this was intended to be the landlord’s stage two response. As this was the first and only complaint response the resident was denied the right of review. As such the landlord again impinged on the resident’s rights and this is unreasonable.
The complaint response was provided 57 working days after the resident’s initial complaint was made. This far exceeds the timeframes outlined in the landlord’s complaint policy which mirrors the requirements of the Code. The landlord therefore failed to adhere to its own policy and to act in line with the Code. This is unreasonable and added to the distress experienced by the resident.
The landlord said it was “sincerely sorry for all the upset and stress this matter has caused” and acknowledged failings in:
1. Initially securing alternative accommodation.
2. Providing timescales for completion of the works to the resident’s property.
3. Handling of the resident’s personal items on site.
The landlord’s complaint response failed to address all the issues raised by the resident. In their initial complaint the resident asked the landlord to provide details of its investigation into the fire. This Services appreciates that the landlord did not discuss liability in order to limit its financial exposure. However, it would have been reasonable to provide the resident some information regarding its investigation and the safety measures taken given that the resident had legitimate enquiries related to the temporary loss of their home and already been privy to the information in the fire service report. This would have given the resident with some confidence that their concerns were being taken seriously and not being dismissed. In not reflecting on its actions taken after the fire in its complaint response the landlord missed an opportunity to demonstrate that it had ‘learned from outcomes’ in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are key to this Service in our consideration of what is reasonable and fair. In particular, our principle to “be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process”.
The landlord, in refusing to share with the resident details of its investigation into the fire, curtailed the remit of its response to the resident’s complaint. This cannot be considered fair.
In its stage two complaint response the landlord advised the resident that in order to access the fire report they could make a claim against the landlord via their home insurer. Where a resident claims that their health has been adversely affected by the actions of the landlord, only a court can make a legally binding decision about whether the landlord is liable to pay damages. The Ombudsman would however still expect the landlord to investigate and respond to any issues of dissatisfaction raised by the resident not related to alleged damage to health during its formal complaint handling.
It is important to note that distress, inconvenience, annoyance and nuisance are not medical conditions. Therefore the landlord should have investigated and responded to the resident’s complaint that its actions or inactions had caused them distress. The landlord itself in its regular communications with the resident expressed that it appreciated the “stress”, “upset”, and “distress” they were experiencing.
Another of the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles is to “put things right”. The landlord should aim to put the resident back in the position they would have been in if there was no service failure, if their position cannot be restored then the landlord should consider financial compensation. In this case the landlord failed to acknowledge or compensate the resident for the distress caused by its failure to explain to the resident that it could not discuss liability for the fire, a failure that caused the most significant distress to the resident.
Despite acknowledging failings, the landlord failed to offer the resident any financial redress over and above the payments totalling £1,000 for essential items and emergency expenses and “the steps taken to support with securing the alternative accommodation” which the landlord felt “were fair and reasonable in the circumstances”.
The resident, throughout their contact with the landlord, explained that they were off work sick as a result of the impact of the fire and had been prescribed anti-depressants by their doctor. They also described being “mentally drained” and unable to sleep. In failing to consider redress for this adverse impact the landlord has failed to put things right and to demonstrate compassion for the resident. It is therefore understandable they the resident felt “shrugged off”.
In internal emails the landlord urged staff to “please all deal with the situation with bit more empathy as you will understand this is a distressing situation for the family for no fault of theirs”. Considering the extremely traumatic events experienced by the resident and that they had, in their own words “lost everything”, the landlord failed to display the empathy it advised within its final complaint response further compounding the resident’s distress.
The payment and arrangements referred to above were made in line with the landlord’s decant policy. Payment of disruption allowance is intended to reimburse resident’s for “reasonable costs customers…incur when moving”. Compensation, as opposed to disturbance allowance, should also take into consideration distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it consults with this Service’s financial redress guidance when considering paying compensation.
This Service does not consider that the landlord has provided any redress for the distress suffered by the resident, much of which could have been avoided by better managing their expectations.
Overall, the landlord completely disregarded its own complaints policy and failed to act in accordance with the Code. The landlord failed to advise the resident of the investigations and actions it had taken following the fire and in doing so, missed an opportunity to demonstrate learning. It failed to recognise and provide any financial redress for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble experienced by the resident. The landlord’s formal complaint response prioritised protecting its financial interests over behaving with compassion and empathy for the resident. Consequently, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s investigations and actions following fire at the resident’s home;
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s management of a temporary decant for the resident;
3. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident;
4. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling including the level of financial redress offered.

Reasons

The landlord’s immediate response to, and investigation of, the fire was of a high standard. It carried out a swift and thorough investigation following the fire at the resident’s property and immediately ceased all hot works until it had completed a full review of its policy and procedure regarding hot works and undertook training with all relevant operatives.
There was some delay in securing temporary accommodation for the resident. This was in part due to bureaucracy in the insurance procedures which was outside of the landlord’s control and this Service has seen evidence that the landlord conveyed to its insurer that it was concerned about the impact that delays were having on the resident to hasten progress.
A significant failing in the landlord’s handling of this case was in its failure to communicate effectively with the resident in respect to the cause of the fire. The landlord was aware as early as 2 August 2021 that it did not intent to discuss liability with the resident as this may invalidate its insurance. Yet, it continued to assure the resident that it would share this information with them until advising them more than two months later that it would in fact not be sharing this information. The landlord caused the resident to invest a significant amount of time and trouble in chasing information that it was unable to disclose. This caused significant distress to the resident and damaged their trust in the landlord.
The landlord decided, due to the serious nature of the situation, that it would handle the resident’s complaint outside of its complaint process. The landlord made this decision in the expectation that it would provide a better service for the resident. This decision however led to the rights of the resident being impinged on to the complaint not being handled within the timescales outlined in the Ombudsman’s Code. The landlord failed in its final response to display empathy to the resident following the extremely distressing events she had experienced and the effect that its own communication failures had on compounding this upset.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report a senior officer of the landlord to apologise to the resident in person.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord to pay the resident £3,000 comprising:
1. £750 for the distress caused by its poor communication regarding the investigation into the fire;
2. £750 for time and trouble invested by the resident in repeatedly chasing the landlord’s fire report;
3. £750 for failing to follow its own complaint policy;
4. £750 for failing to act in line with the Code;
5. These payments are in addition to any payments already made by the landlord as disruption payments or for immediate essentials.
The landlord to provide guidance to all relevant staff explaining what should be communicated to residents who may be potentially considering liability claims against the landlord. This guidance should make clear that resident expectations should be managed with regards to what information will be shared and that the landlord must act on the advice of its insurer. Evidence of compliance with this order should be provided within six weeks.
If it has not done so within the past six months, within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to provide complaint handling training to all relevant staff to ensure that:
1. Complaints are managed in line with the landlord’s own procedures.
2. Where complaints are managed by the executive team due to the severity of the issue, this does not impinge on the rights of the resident or timescales for response.
3. Staff understand the requirements within the Code.
4. Staff understand the importance of having empathy and compassion for residents.
5. Compensation is considered when it is not possible to put the resident back in the position they would have been in if not for the landlord’s service failure. This includes consideration of distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, inconvenience, disappointment, loss of confidence, and varying levels of physical and emotional impact.