Your Housing Limited (202207068)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207068

Your Housing Limited

14 December 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of leaks in the property.
2. The residents decant and compensation payments.
3. Boiler repairs.

Jurisdiction

This Service understands that part of the resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s handling of repairs to his boiler, which he said had left him without heating during the winter months of 2020.
The landlord’s stage two response confirmed that after reviewing the repair history, the repairs dated back to 2020 but a complaint was not raised at that time and should have been raised within six months of the incident occurring.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme confirms that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matter arising.
Therefore, in accordance with Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the complaint relating to the boiler repairs is not one in which the Ombudsman can investigate further.

Background

On 6 October 2021 the resident reported a leak at his property. On 25 October 2021 the landlord issued a works order, on a 21-day repair, to investigate and resolve the leak.
A second job was raised on 28 October 2021 after the landlord confirmed that the job should have been raised as an emergency. An operative attended on 29 October and confirmed that there was a leak behind the toilet, which “looked to be coming from the base of the soil stack” and the boxing around the toilet needed to be removed for further investigation.
On 11 November 2021 the resident complained to the landlord and said that his property was uninhabitable as sewage and contaminated water was leaking into his property and damaging his flooring. He confirmed that the issues had been reported from an early stage and let to get progressively worse.
On 15 November 2021 the resident notified the landlord of the damage to his property and personal items.
On 18 November 2021 an operative attended the resident’s address. The job was passed to a manager to raise an emergency job for a drainage and cleaning company to attend before the leak could be located. The operative confirmed that sewage was coming up from the bath and toilet and the drainage company was required on site straight away.
The resident was decanted into a hotel on 19 November 2021.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 2 December 2021 and confirmed that:
1. Drainage contractors attended on 19 November 2021 and utilities services were called to assist with a blockage in the main drain.
2. A full hygiene clean was completed and carpets removed.
3. It would return to assess the property to ensure that it had captured all repairs.
4. It understood that it had been an incredibly stressful and upsetting time for the resident.
On 13 January 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that due to the amount of work required in his property, it would assist the resident with a permanent move to an alternative property. It offered sincere apologies for the inconvenience that had been caused to the resident, in addition to:
1. £2,150 to cover replacement items for personal possessions damaged because of the leak.
2. A rent credit of £890.56 (11 weeks rent) from when the first report of the leak was made, to being decanted from the property.
3. Fitting new carpets in the new property as a gesture of goodwill.
4. Not charging rent for the new property until it could be occupied.
The resident remained unhappy with the response and on 9 June 2022 said that:
1. Expenses should have been paid promptly and directly to support with living costs while decanted. After much chasing, the money was paid onto a rent account and not directly to him.
2. He was caused hurt, frustration, stress and upset by the landlord failing to promptly pay after he lost all possessions and accepted an offer which was substandard and did not recognise the trauma and inconvenience caused.
3. The landlord refused to provide dates of rent arrears and had not honoured its agreement to waive rent at the new property until the gas was connected.
The landlord responded at stage two of its complaints process on 5 July 2022 and said:
1. It agreed that the issue with the soil stack should have been resolved much earlier, and the boxing around the toilet should not have prevented the operative from investigating further.
2. A payment of £825 was credited on 25 May 2022 to recompense the daily food allowance during the decant period.
3. As the resident did not have contents insurance, a payment of £2,150 was made directly to the resident on 21 May 2022 for damage to personal items.
4. A £208.14 credit was applied to cover the rent at the new property until it could be occupied.
5. It had no records to confirm the resident or any one from universal credit had requested information regarding rent arrears.
6. It was confident that the compensation payment (which included rent credits and carpeting at the new property) of £5,166.06 was fair and justified.
In bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint and the handling of the compensation payments.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that emergency repairs are “a serious risk to customers or their home.” It aims to attend within 24 hours. Routine repairs pose no immediate risk and are undertaken and completed within 21 calendar days.

Leaks

The landlord acknowledged that it should have attended the leak sooner than it did, but it is unclear why the repair was initially logged incorrectly as a routine repair and not an emergency which it later confirmed it should have been. In addition, the landlord confirmed that the boxing around the toilet should have been removed much sooner to investigate the soil stack but has not explained why this was not done. The landlord should have decided on a reasonable course of action and carried out any next steps a lot sooner, especially as a significant amount of damage was being caused to the resident’s property. As a result, the matter was left to get progressively worse and was not attended by the drainage company for 32 calendar days after the initial report.
The landlord acted appropriately within its complaint responses by acknowledging that it should have addressed the leak sooner. To put right the detriment that the failing caused the resident, the landlord:
1. applied a £890.56 credit to the resident’s rent account at the property from the date that the leak was first reported, until he was decanted, which totalled 11 week
2. paid compensation of £2150.50 for damaged property
3. applied a £208.14 credit to cover the rent for the new property until it could be occupied.
4. paid £1092.36 for carpets at the new property
This was a reasonable approach to take, and recognised that the resident was unable to use, or enjoy his property during that period.
Having said this, landlord’s complaints policy confirms that it will “identify improvements when things have gone wrong” however, despite acknowledging its failings, it has not evidenced that it considered what measures it was going to introduce to prevent similar failings in the future. Therefore, the landlord has not demonstrated that it learned from this complaint.
Overall, the landlord acted reasonably in acknowledging and apologising for its failings with the repair, and offering to remedy the detriment to the resident with the rent rebate and compensation for belongings. Therefore, a finding of ‘no maladministration’ is found. However, as it has not demonstrated that it ‘learned from outcomes’, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, a recommendation is made below.

Decant and compensation

Policies

At the time of the complaint, the landlord did not have a decant policy in place and referred to its compensation policy when dealing with such matters.
Its compensation policy, in place at the time of complaint confirmed that disturbance payments may be made for permanent moves and was designed to cover the costs of moving.
It would offer discretionary compensation if the whole home was rendered uninhabitable, and always aimed to offer temporary accommodation. Levels of compensation included current rent and an allowance to contribute towards the costs of meals and drinking water which it recommended as £15 per day.
It confirmed that it would normally offset any compensation or goodwill payments made against any arrears or debts, and only in exceptional circumstances payments may be made directly to the resident.

Assessment

The evidence shows that the landlord acted appropriately by arranging a decant for the resident. The resident was decanted on 19 November 2021, for approximately 55 days.
From the evidence provided, there were occasions when the landlord was not as responsive as it should have been in providing the resident with answers to his queries specifically in relation to his entitlement to claim a daily allowance during the decant period. This Service is aware that a decant is likely to cause distress and worry due to the uncertain and temporary situation.
The resident asked the landlord on 17 December 2021 if he was able to claim a daily allowance, but there is no evidence that the landlord explained the process, or confirmed if the resident was entitled to a reimbursement. There is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with any reassurance on the matter, to alleviate any further distress, and lacked empathy for his situation, and the concerns he raised. As the allowance was intended to contribute towards the costs of meals and drinking water, it would have been reasonable to have been provided promptly, so that it could be used when these costs were incurred during his hotel stay. The evidence confirms that the resident was still requesting a response in relation to the allowance in May 2022, and meant the resident expended time and effort in trying to obtain answers over a prolonged period which was unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage two response confirmed that the resident was credited with £825.00, onto his rent account, to recompense his daily allowance for what was out- of-pocket expenses. However, it concluded its response by confirming that the £825.00 was offered in recognition of the delay in resolving the issue with the soil stack, and for the inconvenience this caused. These two explanations as to what the £825 was for are confusing.
Considering both points in turn; the landlord’s decision to offset the out-of-pocket expenses, though in accordance with its compensation policy at the time, was unsympathetic and inflexible, particularly as the resident had raised concerns regarding his financial situation. The landlord’s compensation policy confirmed that in exceptional circumstances, payments may be made directly to the resident. It would have been a fair and reasonable response for the landlord to have considered its policy, and applied some discretion in the circumstances, to mitigate the impact on the resident. That it did not was unreasonable in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman’s position is that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately to any existing financial arrangement between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears. This is particularly the case when the resident has incurred out of pocket expenses as a direct result of the landlord’s actions or inactions. Therefore, this Service has ordered the landlord to pay the resident £825.00 as a daily allowance of £15, for the decant period of 55 days.
It was confusing that the landlord confirmed in the same stage two response that the £825.00 was made in recognition of the delay in resolving the leak to the soil stack, as well as the inconvenience this caused. This Service has calculated that the resident’s daily allowance of £15, for a period of 55 days is equal to £825.00. It is reasonable to expect a landlord to provide a breakdown of a compensation figure, detailing all elements that had been considered when reaching an overall figure. This shows that the landlord has fully considered the impact of its failing and considered a proportionate figure. Its communication regarding this compensation amount was unclear and is likely to have exacerbated the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord confirmed that the compensation payments, totalling £1923.70 (excluding £2,150 paid directly to the resident for damage to personal items and £1092.36 for laying carpets in the new property) would be offset against the residents rent account(s) because he had arrears. The resident disputed this and despite requests for the landlord to provide dates of when arrears were accrued, it was unable to provide them. The resident confirmed that he received the full housing entitlement through universal credit, which was paid directly to the landlord, and therefore, it is understandable that he questioned why he had arrears on his account.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s point that he had made several attempts to clarify the matter and that records had been deleted was cursory. It is unclear if this is because the landlord did not have the rent records to interrogate to allow it to formulate a response, or whether it missed the opportunity to clarify the matter before sending its stage two response. Had it done so, it would have satisfied itself and the resident that the rent account was correct, and that it had acted reasonably, in accordance with its policy in offsetting the compensation. Its brief response lacked empathy to the resident’s concerns, resulting in him feeling like he was being “ignored” and eroding his confidence in the landlord’s ability to put things right.
This Service considers what is fair and proportionate in the circumstances. It was reasonable to expect the landlord to have considered the distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident during this time. This investigation does not consider that a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate in the circumstances, as its offer was not proportionate in recognising the detriment that was caused to the resident in its handling of the compensation and the substantive issue. In addition, the resident expended an unreasonable amount of time and effort in trying to resolve the matter. Therefore, this Service finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the decant and compensation payments.
It is apparent that without a clear decant policy and procedure, the landlord’s ability to effectively manage the decant was hampered, resulting in confusion for the resident. This Service is encouraged that the landlord has sought to address this by implementing a decant policy in November 2023, and therefore will not make a further order on this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the decant and compensation payments.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £975 made up of:
  1. £825 for the costs incurred while decanted.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused in relation to the landlord’s handling of the decant and compensation.

Recommendations

Complete a review of its overall management of this case to identify any lessons learned. This should include a review of its processes into prioritising repairs.
It is recommended that the landlord assesses its internal record keeping practices against the landlord’s data retention policies and recommendations of this Service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.