Chisel Limited (202203778)

Back to Top

 

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203778

Chisel Limited

20 March 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:

a. The landlord’s communication with the resident in relation to her insurance claim;

b. The length of time taken for the resident’s insurance claim to be processed.

Background

  1. The resident was an Assured Shorthold tenant of the landlord who moved out of the property on 2 July 2017.
  2. The resident had previously complained to the Ombudsman regarding sewing equipment (which she used to run her business) being damaged through water in the property, the landlord was ordered to pay compensation and provide details for resident to make a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance. The insurance details were provided to the resident, and she contacted the landlord to begin the claim process on 21 July 2021.
  3. The insurer contacted the landlord for more information regarding the claim on 5 October 2021, among other things they needed the resident to contact the landlord as ‘no allegation’ had been made by the resident to the insurer, and they needed the allegation. The landlord contacted the resident to request the information that the insurer had asked for 11 October 2021, the resident queried if this was necessary but did not receive a response. On 4 November 2021 the insurer asked the landlord again for more information regarding the claim. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this request.
  4. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 30 March 2022 as she was unhappy with the communication levels and requested compensation. A response was provided and at this point (between 14 April 2022 and 9 May 2022) the relevant information was provided to the insurer. The landlord apologised for the delay, advised they have been in touch with the insurers and explained they will update the resident on the insurance claim when updates are received.
  5. The resident requested escalation of the complaint and advised she was seeking compensation. A final response was issued to the resident, the landlord advised they had not had any further updates from the insurer, and they acknowledged the length of time the claim had been ongoing. They explained the progress of the insurance claim was outside of their remit and offered to update the resident every 2 weeks with an update on her claim.
  6. The resident has now brought her claim to the Ombudsman due to the length of time it is taking for the insurance claim to be settled, also she is unhappy with the landlord’s communication and updates on the claim. The resident also advises she is not sure if relevant information was passed on to the insurer for the claim to progress as proof of receipt was not confirmed and she was not asked to re-send the documents. The resident is requesting compensation and an investigation into the issues.
  7. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has now received a settlement figure from the landlord’s insurers but is not happy with the amount offered. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether there were failings in relation to the landlord’s communication with the resident and delays in the claim being processed. The decision of the insurer is not something that the landlord or the Ombudsman would investigate, and the resident is advised to go back to the insurer or contact the Financial Ombudsman Service if she wishes to dispute the amount offered.

Assessment and findings

the landlord’s communication with the resident in relation to her insurance claim

  1. It is reasonable that the tenant would expect that once she has provided the landlord with the relevant information the claim is being dealt with, with the landlord passing on relevant information to the insurer without her having to chase this up. The tenant could reasonably expect that once all the relevant information is provided, she would be notified if anything is missing or more information is needed.
  2. The resident should reasonably expect that once information is passed to the landlord to progress the claim they would then be responsible for ensuring this is passed on, and if for some reason this was not done there would be a system in place to pick this up.
  3. There is no evidence that the landlord replied to the resident when she queried if she needed to provide information that had been requested by the insurer, and there was no evidence of the landlord providing any details at all to the insurer until almost 6 months later.
  4. There had been various communication between the resident and the landlord in this period regarding the length of time it was taking for the insurance claim to progress, and the landlord missed an opportunity to discover relevant information hadn’t been provided and pass it on, and to communicate this with resident.
  5. There is no evidence that the landlord took responsibility for the delay in passing information to the insurer or communicated this with the resident.

The length of time taken for the resident’s insurance claim to be processed.

  1. There is evidence the landlord did not act in a timely manner to provide various details to the insurer for them to progress their claim, with the first request for information from insurer received 5 October 2021 and the information not provided until 18 April 2022 when the resident raised a complaint to the landlord.
  2. While the overall duration of the insurance claim is not something that the landlord has control over, it is reasonable to believe the claim would have been settled sooner had the insurer been in receipt of relevant information from the landlord, and that this had been provided in a timely fashion.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure when communicating with the resident in relation to her insurance claim.

In accordance with Paragraph 52(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the length of time it was taking for the insurance claim to be processed.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:

1.     Pay the resident the total sum of £150 in compensation within four weeks of this report to acknowledge the inconvenience experienced in the delay of the insurance claim progression and lack of communication with the resident.

2.     Review its handling of the communication with the resident and missed opportunities for earlier resolution of the insurance claim in this case to identify what learning it could take from it. 

3.     Write to the resident to apologise for the insurance claim handling failures and outline any recent service improvements resulting from the complaint.