Islington Council (202119071)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119071

Islington Council

27 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak following the installation of a new boiler;
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a temporary decant whilst remedial repairs were carried out following the leak;
3. The landlord’s complaint handling;
4. The insurance provider’s response to the resident’s request for compensation and the management of the remedial works it ordered.

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 41 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The insurance provider’s response to the resident’s request for compensation and the management of the remedial works it ordered.
This is because paragraph 41 (b) states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme.
The resident has made a liability claim on the gas contractor’s liability insurance. The resident is dissatisfied with the insurer’s handling of her claim; its communications; the compensation it paid her for temporary accommodation; and delays to and quality of the remedial works to her property.
This Service will not consider the issues that have been subject to her insurance claim as these should be referred to the insurers. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the handling of this aspect of his complaint, she may wish to seek legal advice on the matter. Any mention of these issues in this report are for contextual information only.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident became a tenant of the landlord, a local authority, in February 2016 by mutual exchange. She lives in a two-bedroom flat on the ground-floor of a four-storey block.
The resident is registered disabled. She is a wheelchair user and has disclosed to the landlord physical and mental health conditions. Her property is adapted to meet her mobility requirements.

Landlord policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the boiler. It also states that it is the resident’s responsibility to insure their home and its contents.
The repairs policy states that the landlord is “not liable for any loss or damage of any improvements/alterations carried out by the tenant with or without permission”. The policy also states that in the case of a mutual exchange, the resident accepts improvements made by the previous occupant and is responsible for all repairs and maintenance.
The landlord operates a ‘temporary accommodation in emergencies’ policy which details its responsibilities to a resident after emergency incidents including fire, flood or explosion. The policy states that the process will be managed by the area housing office.
Under the landlords housing options policy, any applications for a decant due to major works will be managed by the area housing office and the housing options team will manage the points-based application process.
The landlord’s compensation policy, in relation to damage to belongings, states that “where damage to belongings occurs due to [the landlord’s] negligence residents must claim against [the landlord’s] Public Liability insurance…[in] cases where damage to belongings occurs due to the negligence of a contractor working on behalf of [the landlord], residents must claim compensation directly from the contractor”.
The landlord operates what it describes as a two-stage complaints process. In practicality this is a three-stage process:
1. Stage one complaints should be responded to within 21 calendar days.
2. Stage one reviews (referred to for clarity in this report as stage two complaints) should be responded to within ten working days.
3. Chief Executive reviews (referred to for clarity in this report as stage three complaints) should be responded to within 28 calendar days.
The complaint policy states that the landlord will not investigate:
1. complaints that are more than 12 months old
2. a complaint that has already been investigated
3. insurance and compensation claims
4. The landlord states within its complaints policy that “It should be noted that the Housing Ombudsman insists that all complaints are made in writing”.
The complaints procedure also states that when a complaint involves more than one service “in line with good practice, and Ombudsman guidelines, one response should be issued on behalf of the council”. The procedure goes on to say “[only] in exceptional circumstances should separate complaints be issued, this must be agreed between services and the customer advised in the complaint acknowledgement letter”.

Summary of events

On 28 July 2020 the resident reported that she had returned home from hospital following brain surgery and had found a severe leak from her boiler which had been newly installed on 30 June 2020. The leak had caused extensive damage to her kitchen flooring and kitchen units and she wished to make a formal complaint.
On 30 July 2020 the landlord’s contractor contacted the resident to ascertain where the leak was coming from and whether it could be contained. The resident advised the contractor that the leak was coming from the boiler but that it had been contained by another operative who had been at her property attending to an unrelated repair to her bathroom.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint on 19 August 2020. The response stated:
1. The resident had not obtained permission for either the installation of the new flooring or the new kitchen.
2. She had been advised during a home visit on 13 August 2020 to submit a claim through her home insurance but she had advised she was dealing directly with the contractor.
3. The landlord had been advised that matter was being dealt with by the contractor’s insurer and therefore the landlord could not address the issue as insurance matters were outside its remit.
4. The resident was awarded compensation for delays to the unrelated repair to her bathroom.
On 27 August 2020 the resident replied to the landlord stating that she was unhappy with the compensation amount awarded which she described as an “insult”. She stated that she had severe disabilities and lived with her son who also had severe disabilities and was bed bound and her carer who had a heart condition.
The resident contacted her local Member of Parliament (MP) who contacted the landlord on 9 September 2020 advising that the resident was unhappy with its stage one complaint response. This was handled by the landlord as a complaint escalation request.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage two complaint on 5 October 2020. The response reiterated that the issues of the damage to the flooring and kitchen units were now a “private matter” between the resident and contractor’s insurer. The landlord stated it was unable to influence the insurer’s handling of the claim. It did acknowledge that the landlord had delayed in responding to the resident’s email of 27 August 2020 and awarded £25 compensation.
The landlord was contacted by the resident’s MP on 6 November 2020 who advised that the resident had stated she needed to be decanted for the duration of the remedial works to her kitchen which were expected to take three to four weeks to complete. The landlord replied to the MP on 20 November 2020 advising that the customer service team was unable to arrange decants as this was outside their remit. It directed the MP to the homes and communities department.
The contractor’s insurer advised the resident on 9 November 2020 that it had contacted the landlord to discuss temporary accommodation but had been directed to telephone a different department. The insurer advised it had done so and was awaiting a response. On 17 November 2020 the contractor’s insurer contacted the resident by email and advised that it had received no response from the landlord to emails or telephone messages left.
On 26 May 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that a second, smaller leak described as a “drip” had been located on the boiler cold water feed. This was in the same place as the original leak and the resident stated that she believed the original leak had been ongoing. The landlord’s contractor attended on 2 June 2021 and resolved the leak.
On 8 June 2021 the resident contacted her local councillor and advised that her flooring had been taken up by the contractor instructed by the insurers but that work had halted as the floor tiles underneath contained asbestos. The councillor emailed the landlord on the same day and asked that the customer services team investigate.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 June 2021 and again raised the matter of her damaged flooring and kitchen units because of the boiler leak in July 2020. The resident stated that the remedial works instructed by the insurer were “delayed beyond any acceptable timeframe”. She advised that asbestos had been found under her flooring and that her carer had safely removed the tiling himself in order than works could continue. She complained that as her kitchen was no longer in production, aspects of the repairs to her kitchen did not match. She stated that she was unable to access her wet room as since the flooring had been removed there was a ‘lip’ into the bathroom and her wheelchair could get over it. This was logged by the landlord as a new stage one complaint.
On 22 June 2021 the landlord responded to the local councillor and advised that the leak to the resident’s boiler had been resolved and that the outstanding issues of damage was an insurance matter. It also stated that the resident had decided to pursue a remedy through the contractor’s insurer rather than through the landlord’s liability insurance as had been advised.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 30 June 2021, in the recording of the call the resident confirmed that works to her property were complete.
Also on 30 June 2021 the landlord contacted the contractor’s insurer to enquire about the actions it was taking to resolve the resident’s claim. The landlord received a response from the contractor’s insurer on 7 July 2021 advising that the works were complete but that it could not discuss further details of the claim.
The landlord responded to the resident’s new stage one complaint on 2 July 2021. The landlord’s response stated:
1. The resident’s complaint about the installation of the new boiler and subsequent leak had been addressed in the landlord’s stage one complaint response dated 19 August 2020. The same complaint would not be investigated twice and it would therefore not revisit this matter.
2. At the time of the resident’s first complaint she was advised by the landlord to make a claim on her household insurance and that if she was unable to do so she should submit a claim to the landlord’s public liability insurance.
3. The resident had already made a claim on the contractor’s insurance and therefore, whilst she had also subsequently asked the landlord to settle her claim, the matter was being dealt with by the contractor’s insurer.
4. Insurance matters were outside of the landlord’s remit and insurance companies had their own complaints processes. The resident was advised to submit a complaint to the insurer directly.
5. The resident had advised the landlord that the insurer had paid her £5,500 for temporary accommodation costs which she had instead used to fund additional works to the property.
6. The landlord disputed the resident’s claim that the leak raised on 26 May 2021 was a continuation of the original leak reported in July 2020 “as it would be fair to deduce that either you or others, who inspected your home, would have noticed it”.
7. The homes and communities department would respond separately to the resident’s concerns that she was not provided with assistance in the form of a temporary decant. The customer service team “could offer no comment”.
8. It offered the resident £260 in compensation comprising:
  1. £210 for the delay in carrying out repairs to the kitchen between 28 July 2020 and 30 June 2021;
  2. £50 for time and trouble.
The resident requested that her complaint be escalated on 13 July 2021 as she was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered. She maintained that the leak she had reported on 26 May 2021 was in fact the original leak that had not been fully resolved. She also disputed the landlord’s argument that an ongoing leak would have been noticed stating that the leak was from a pipe behind a built-in cupboard and as a severely disabled person she could not have been expected to dismantle the cupboard to see this.
The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 27 July 2021 and repeated that temporary accommodation was a matter for the homes and communities department and advised the resident to contact that team directly. The landlord maintained its view that the recent leak was not the same as the leak reported in July 2020 and stated that there was no justification to increase the compensation previously awarded.
The resident asked that her complaint be escalated again on 9 August 2021 to a Chief Executive review – this represents a third stage in the landlord’s review process. The resident stated that she was unhappy because:
1. She had tried contacting the homes and communities team regarding a temporary decant but had received no response. She asked that the landlord deal with the complaints as one.
2. As a “very very unwell person, both physically and mentally” it was unfair that the landlord expect her to pursue two complaints with two departments about the same issue.
3. The landlord should have liaised with the contractor’s insurer following the leak as the leak was the landlord’s responsibility.
4. The amount of compensation was not acceptable.
On 11 August 2021 the resident’s MP contacted the landlord and requested clarification about why the resident’s complaint had to be dealt with by different departments. The landlord replied on 12 August 2021 stating that it understood that it was “confusing”. It advised that if a complaint involved multiple department “one service will take the lead to respond, with others providing feedback for their respective elements”. Conversely, it went on to say that “if multiple services are involved and the query is complex then each service may do a separate response”.
The landlord sent the resident a holding response to her stage three complaint on 17 August 2021 stating that due to a high volume of Chief Executive review requests it was unable to start its investigations. It advised that it would write to the resident when the investigation began. On 6 September 2021 the landlord advised the resident that the complaint was being investigated and she would receive a response within 28 days.
The landlord provided a stage three complaint response on 13 October 2021 and stated:
1. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing a response at Chief Executive review.
2. The resident’s Subject Access Request had been acknowledged but was delayed whilst the resident provided proof of identification. The requested documents would be provided by 11 November 2021.
3. The landlord’s stage one complaint response was appropriate. It acknowledged faults in communications and provided an apology and compensation of £260.
4. In November 2020 the resident and the contractor’s insurer had contacted the landlord regarding temporary accommodation. On 10 December the landlord advised the resident that as the damage was caused by a “third party”, the landlord was “unlikely to facilitate temporary accommodation”. On 3 February 2021 the landlord ordered a survey of the resident’s property, this was not actioned until June 2021. The survey found that the property was still drying out and repairs, which were being carried out by the insurer, could not be carried out until the property was dry.
5. There was a breakdown in the landlord’s internal communications in January and February 2021. Follow up actions and consideration of provision of temporary accommodation to meet the household’s disability needs were missed.
6. The landlord offered the resident £735 compensation comprising:
  1. £200 for delay, time and trouble
  2. £200 for distress
  3. £260 originally offered in its stage one complaint response (for an unrelated repair)
  4. £75 for the delay in providing a stage three response
7. The landlord stated that it was not awarding compensation for the period in 2020 when the resident was in private discussions with the contractor and its insurer.
In response to an information request from this Service, on 1 February 2022 the landlord advised that:
1. The resident had moved into the property following a mutual exchange in 2016 and had accepted the property in the condition it was in at the time. The resident had made a number of improvements to the property including fitting a new kitchen and flooring. As a result of the resident’s improvements the landlord was unaware of the defects to the kitchen tiles beneath which were identified during repair works to contain asbestos.
2. The landlord considered that it had provided “sufficient compensation…totalling £901.66” and the resident had also received a payment of £5,500 from the insurer.
3. The resident was unhappy with the quality of the works completed by the insurer and the matter had been referred back to the insurer for resolution.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak following the installation of a new boiler

The landlord does not dispute that the leak to the boiler and subsequent damage to the resident’s kitchen units and flooring were caused by improper installation of the boiler by its contractor.
The leak was not identified for a period of approximately one month due to the resident having an extended stay in hospital following major surgery. It was fortuitous that when the leak was identified by the resident’s carer, a plumber was already at the resident’s property attending to another repair and was able to contain the leak. The leak was therefore contained on the same day as it was identified which was reasonable.
The landlord visited the property on 13 August 2020, approximately two weeks after the leak was reported. This was within 20 working days as outlined within its repairs policy for attending to a leak after the initial leak has been contained. At this time the landlord advised the resident to submit a claim to her household insurer or, if she did not have insurance, to the landlord’s liability insurer. Whilst this advice was sensible, it is not in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy which states that where damage occurs due to negligence of a contractor working on behalf of the landlord, the resident “must claim compensation directly from the contractor”. This Service does not consider this policy to be reasonable. The resident has no contractual relationship with the landlord’s contractor, their relationship is with the landlord. It would therefore be appropriate that a resident make a claim on the landlord’s insurance if they did not have their own. The landlord may seek to claim back the compensation from its contractor but this would be dependent on their contract terms and is not the concern of the resident. An order has been made regarding this issue.
The resident chose to communicate directly with the contractor with regards to the repairs to her kitchen rather than make a claim through the landlord’s insurer. The contractor then passed the matter to its insurer to handle. As the contractor’s insurer was dealing with the claim and associated works it was reasonable that, at that time, the landlord concluded that it was not able to intervene in the process. The landlord did however, as the freeholder of the property, have an interest in condition of its property and should have made enquiries when it realised that the works were not proceeding in a timely manner.
It is not evident that the second leak reported by the resident on 26 May 2021 was the same leak as was initially reported on 28 July 2020 as the resident claimed. However, the landlord’s assertion that it could not be the same leak as the resident or others who inspected the property would have “noticed it” does not hold. As the resident reasonably stated, the leak was a slow drip and was hidden behind a built-in cupboard. She, given her disabilities, could not have reasonably been expected to dismantle the cupboard to discover it. The landlord did not respond to this point and as a result failed to reassure the resident that there had not been a continuous leak.
Overall, the landlord responded quickly to the leak when it was discovered. The landlord accepted that its contractor caused the leak due to improper installation of the boiler and provided the resident with advice regarding making an insurance claim. The landlord advised the resident to claim on her own insurance or on the landlord’s insurance, this was not in line with its own compensation policy. The advice given was however reasonable and the compensation policy requires review as the advice it contains is unreasonable. The landlord only provided good advice because it disregarded its own policy in this case, this may not happen in all instances. The resident did not take the landlord’s advice and chose to deal directly with the contractor. Consequently the repairs and associated compensation became a matter between the resident and the contractor’s insurer and outside the control of the landlord and jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a temporary decant whilst remedial works were carried out following the leak

This Service is aware that the resident has confirmed that the insurer paid her £5,500 to cover temporary accommodation whilst the remedial repairs were completed. The resident has advised in email communications with the landlord that she did not use this payment to secure such accommodation as she stated that no accommodation suitable for the disability needs of her family was available for less than £10,000.
This Service recognises that the landlord considered that the resident was dealing directly with the contractor’s insurer and therefore it was not responsible for any repairs, and delays thereof, to the property. This reasoning was sound. It did not follow however that because the resident had received payment for temporary accommodation, that the landlord, as a local authority, held no responsibility for ensuring that the resident was adequately housed.
The landlord has acknowledged that the resident made it aware on 2 August 2020 that she was unable to find temporary accommodation that met the disability needs of her household. The landlord was then contacted by the resident’s MP on 6 November 2020 and the insurer on 9 November 2020 to advise that the resident needed to be moved to temporary accommodation for the duration of the remedial repairs. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s request for temporary accommodation or to contact from the contractor’s insurer regarding arranging temporary accommodation.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage three complaint response that it had advised the resident on 10 December 2020 that it was unlikely that it would facilitate temporary accommodation as the damage had been caused by a “third party”. The damage had in fact been caused by the landlord’s contractor, acting on the landlord’s behalf. This advice was therefore unreasonable and contrary to its landlord obligations. The landlord’s response was particularly unreasonable given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the potential impact on her from having to remain in the property during works.
On 11 June 2021 the resident advised the landlord that she was struggling to access her wet room in her wheelchair due to the raised ‘lip’ that had been created to the threshold of the room by the removal of the kitchen flooring. She clearly stated that her disability needs were not being met in the property due to ongoing repairs. However there is no evidence that the landlord responded to this report.
The landlord failed to respond to requests from the resident, insurer, MP, and local councillor to consider temporarily decanting the resident to accommodation that met her specific disability requirements for the duration of the works. As a minimum the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have carried out an assessment of the resident’s living conditions and whether her disability requirements could be adequately met in her property with temporary adaptations such as a ramp into the wet room.
The landlord failed to follow its own policies and procedures for decanting the resident due to major works. Its own policy states that the area housing office should have managed the application process and liaised with the housing options team. The landlord failed to do this and instead attempted to pass its responsibilities to another local authority department.
Whilst the landlord acknowledged in its stage three complaint response that it had missed the opportunity to consider temporary accommodation to accommodate the disability needs of the family, it did not provide adequate redress for the issue and this has been further considered below. The landlord failed to recognise the heightened impact of its failure to respond to the resident’s request for temporary accommodation. She was required to remain in the property for a prolonged period of time whilst works were carried out.

The landlord’s complaint handling

This Service notes that the response timeframes outlined in the landlord’s complaint procedure are not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which state that stage one complaint should be responded to within 20 working days as opposed to 21 calendar days as outlined in the landlord’s policy. This Service acknowledges that the landlord is a local authority which also has non-landlord functions. It does not follow however that this should absolve it of its responsibility to resolve complaints related to its landlord function within the timeframes outlined within the Code. This Service holds all member landlords to the same standard, and therefore local authorities should handle complaints about its landlord function by reference to the Code.
This Service also notes that whilst the landlord purports to operate a two-stage complaints process, this in effect involves three stages – stage one, stage one review, and stage two Chief Executive review. As explained, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord is operating a single complaints process for both its landlord and non-landlord functions.
The information on the landlord’s website currently states that stage one complaints should be responded withing ten days and stage two complaints within 20 days. This indicates that the landlord’s current complaint procedure aligns with the Code. It is also observed that the landlord, in its self-assessment against the Code of 3 March 2023, stated that its “complaints policy clearly states our target response times and are aligned with the Complaint Handling Code”. The landlord’s Complaint Policy is not however published on its website and therefore a recommendation has been made that the complaint policy is published giving full transparency about its current complaint handling procedures.
The landlord states within its complaints policy that “It should be noted that the Housing Ombudsman insists that all complaints are made in writing”. This is a misinterpretation of the Ombudsman’s approach – the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code described a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made”, this includes complaints made verbally. Indicating that complaints should be made in writing in this way, and that this advice has been given by this Service, may dissuade many residents from exercising their right to complaint and thus means the complaint process is not fair.
In its stage one and two complaint responses, the landlord advised the resident that because she had decided to make a claim on the contractor’s insurance, this was now a private matter. The landlord stated it was unable to influence the insurer’s handling of the claim and associated repairs. This was a reasonable statement. As stated earlier in this report, the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction over the conduct of insurers. Therefore, we are unable to consider the management of the repairs carried out under the instruction of the insurer or the payment of any compensation associated with the claim. The resident may wish to seek legal advice or contact the Financial Ombudsman Service if she feels the matter was not handled correctly by the insurer on the matter.
The landlord, in its 2 July 2021 stage one complaint response, offered the resident £260 compensation including £210 for delays in carrying out the kitchen repairs between 28 July 2020 and 30 June 2021. It did not make clear to the resident why it made the offer of compensation when it has consistently stated within its communications that it was not responsible for the delays on the part of the insurer.
The Ombudsman does not consider that the level of compensation offered by the landlord offers sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The resident states that she had difficulty accessing the wet room for 33 weeks from the date that she requested a decant from the landlord on 6 November 2020, until the works to her property were complete on 30 June 2021. The evidence demonstrates that the resident did not explicitly advise the landlord that she could not access the wet room until 11 June 2021, however the landlord would have been aware of this had it assessed the residents decant request. Therefore, this Service considers that the landlord should pay the resident 10% of her rent for the period she was without the use of her wet room, this amounts to £465.
The landlord’s procedure states that complaints involving more than one of service “in line with good practice, and Ombudsman guidelines, one response should be issued on behalf of the council” and “[only] in exceptional circumstances should separate complaints be issued”. In this case, contrary to its own policy, the resident and her MP were advised on three occasions that she was required to make a separate complaint to the homes and communities department with regards to her concerns that she was not offered a decant to temporary accommodation.
On 9 August 2021 the resident, in her escalation request to stage three of the complaints process, asked the landlord to deal with the matter as one complaint due to her being “a very very unwell person”. She stated that it was unfair of the landlord to expect her to follow two complaints and she felt the landlord was trying to make her “go away or give up” by making the process difficult for her. On 11 August 2021 the resident’s MP also expressed confusion about why the landlord was insisting that the resident contact a separate department to complaint about part of her complaint.
Landlord’s have a responsibility to make their complaint processes as straightforward as possible. Given the vulnerabilities of the resident and the closely related nature of the complaint issues, it was not reasonable that the landlord insisted that a separate complaint was raised. Doing so placed an unnecessary burden on the resident and created barriers to successful complaint resolution adding to her distress and inconvenience.
On 17 August 2021 the landlord sent the resident a holding response advising that there would be a delay in its investigation into her stage three complaint. Whilst it is good practice to keep residents updated, the landlord should have provided a timeframe when the resident could expect a response in order to manage her expectations. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage three complaint 47 working days after the resident requested the escalation, 19 days outside of the timeframe outlined in its complaint policy. The apology and £75 compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable in acknowledgement of its failings on this issue.
The landlord’s complaint process is not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord’s insistence that the resident pursue a separate complaint regarding its failure to consider her request for temporary accommodation made it unduly difficult for the resident to pursue her complaint. She faced added challenges in pursuing two separate complaints due to her disabilities and the landlord did not consider this. The landlord failed to provide a final response within the timeframe outlined in its own policy but did acknowledge this and provided financial redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak following the installation of a new boiler;
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a temporary decant whilst remedial works were carried out following the leak;
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord has not refuted that the leak was caused by the improper installation of a new boiler by its contractor. It contained the leak on the same day it was discovered and provided the resident with reasonable advice regarding making an insurance claim. As the resident chose to deal directly with the contractor and its insurer, the landlord is not responsible for the subsequent handling of the repair or compensation request.
The landlord failed adhere to its own processes for managing the resident’s request for a temporary decant whilst her property was being repaired and failed to acknowledge or consider the request. The landlord’s housing management team failed to communicate effectively with the homes and communities’ function of the local authority and failed to ensure that the resident was accommodated temporarily in a property that met the disability needs of herself and her household. As a result, the resident’s experienced difficulty accessing to her wet room for a period of 33 weeks.
The landlord’s complaints process does not adhere to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The process has three-stages as opposed to the two stages recommended by this Service, and the timeframes outlined in the policy do not adhere to the Code. The landlord failed to act in line with its own complaints policy when it insisted that the resident make a separate complaint regarding the handling of her request for temporary accommodation. This made the process unduly difficult for the resident to raise a complaint despite making it clear that the process was having a particularly stressful impact on her due to her disabilities.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £1,715 comprising:
1. £465 for the period where the resident’s access to her wet room was made more difficult;
2. £500 for distress and inconvenience;
3. £250 for time and trouble;
4. £500 for complaint handling failings.
5. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £475 for compensation related to this complaint. If the landlord has already paid the resident this amount, this should be deducted from the amount ordered and the landlord should pay the resident the remaining £1,240. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service within four weeks of this report.
The landlord to carry out a review of its compensation policy including whether a resident is expected to make a claim on the landlord or contractor’s liability insurance in the case of damage to personal property. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to this Service within three months of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not done so within the last six months, the landlord to review staff training materials and conduct staff training making clear to all relevant staff that:
1. Complaints may be made verbally as well as in writing.
2. Where complaints involve more than one service area, they should be handled jointly to reduce the distress and inconvenience on the resident.
3. Holding responses should include a timeframe during which the resident can expect a formal response.
If it has not already done so, the landlord is strongly urged to consider implementing a separate housing complaints policy which complies with the Code and to publish in full its most recent version of its complaint policy on its website.