Midland Heart Limited (202223563)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223563

Midland Heart

12 February 2024

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 following a leak affecting the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damages to her personal belongings following the leak.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her belongings being moved from the hotel she was decanted to.

Background

The resident held an assured tenancy with the landlord and lived in a 1-bedroom flat.
On 9 September 2022 the resident reported an uncontrollable leak into her property from the flat above.
On 27 September 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. She was dissatisfied that:
1. The landlord did not attend her property straight after she reported the leak.
2. She lost belongings due to damages from the flood and was unhappy with the lack of support from the landlord.
3. There was mould in her property prior to the flood.
4. Her car was broken into whilst she was decanted, and she did not feel safe to return to the property. She wanted to be moved to alternative accommodation.
The resident phoned the landlord to add to her complaint on 11 October 2022. However, landlord records do not show what the resident raised. Given the timeframe it is likely this was about the resident’s belongings being moved from her decant hotel.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 21 October 2022. In summary it said:
1. The leak was not the resident’s fault and was an accident. Its plumber and electrician attended within 24 hours of the report.
2. It was unable to compensate the resident for the loss of her belongings.
3. There was a delay in repairs being completed whilst the resident was decanted.
4. It should have communicated better when the resident was in the decant accommodation.
5. The landlord held no records about her concerns of personal belongings being moved in the hotel she was staying at.
6. It was unable to investigate the reports of mould as these dated between 2019-2021. The resident had not reported this within the past 6 months.
7. It offered £270 compensation including £100 for poor communication, £100 for delays completing repairs and £70 for inconvenience caused.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 23 October 2022. She felt the landlord had not correctly maintained records about her belongings being moved when she was in decant accommodation, a deep clean had not taken place, mould was in the property, and she did not have contents insurance. She asked for an alternative option to claim money back for her damaged possessions and said she would not return to the property and would seek alternative accommodation.
The resident terminated her tenancy, and it ended on 20 November 2022. She did not move back to the property after being decanted to the hotel.
On 28 November 2022, the landlord issued a stage 2 final complaint response. In summary it said:
1. A basic clean had been carried out but it did not paint the property following the plastering.
2. It was unable to conclusively say whether the repairs were completed to the expected standard and upheld this part of the complaint.
3. It should have completed an inspection of the property before repairs were completed.
4. It could not compensate the resident for damage to her belongings as per the reasons in its stage 1 response.
5. It amended its compensation offer to £890 inclusive of the £270 already offered. It awarded an additional £300 for its failings when completing the repairs, £100 for its poor record keeping, £50 for not referencing the resident’s concerns about her car being broken into until stage 2, and £170 for poor communication and inconvenience.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 29 January 2023. She felt the compensation was not reflective of the distress caused. She felt she had no option but to end her tenancy as the repairs were not completed sufficiently. To resolve the complaint, the resident is seeking a higher award of compensation, the landlord to write off her rent owed from the time of the flood, and further support to take action against her neighbour about the leak.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Part of the resident’s complaint included historic mould issues in her property between 2019-2021. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 6 months of the matters arising. Records suggest that the resident stopped reporting the matter from 2021. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not consider historic damp or mould in the property as part of the investigation. However, the resident’s concerns of mould in her property following the leak will be referred to in the assessment.
In her complaint, the resident advised that her car window was smashedin the residential car park whilst she was decanted and raised safety concerns. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about a resident’s accusations about vandalism of her car as this would be a matter for the police. It is noted that the landlord awarded the resident £50 compensation for not responding to this complaint point within its stage 1 complaint response. However, as this has not been referred to the Ombudsman and does not fall within the scope of this investigation, it will not form part of the assessment.

The landlord’s response following a leak affecting the resident’s property.

The landlord’s decant policy says that in urgent situations such as following a flood or fire, there may be a need to move residents temporarily from their homes. This may be necessary where utilities are not available for a prolonged period, or where work is likely to take more than a few days to complete. It adds that in emergency situations, the decant accommodation may be a hotel or bed and breakfast.
When residents are in decant properties, their original tenancy agreement will continue, and customers will continue to make payments for their permanent home whilst they have been decanted.
Information on the landlord’s website about repairs says that an emergency repair includes an uncontainable water leak. In such circumstances, the landlord should attend within 24 hours of the report.
Records show that a plumber and electrician attended the resident’s property within 24 hours of the report of the leak in accordance with the landlord’s policy. Given the electrics in the property were isolated, it was reasonable for the landlord to determine that the property was unsuitable for the resident to stay in.
The resident felt that the landlord delayed decanting her. Records show that she stayed with a friend on the night of the flood and was decanted into a hotel provided by the landlord on the following day (10 September 2022). The landlord’s decant policy says that in emergency situations, it may be more appropriate for residents to stay with family or friends for a short period. As the resident was unable to stay with family or friends longer than 1 night, it was reasonable that the landlord offered to decant her to a hotel until the property was considered habitable.
The landlord identified that before the resident could return to her property, the electrics needed to be reinstated and the property cleaned.
Records show that these works were completed on 3 October 2022 and the landlord intended for the resident to move back to her property on 4 October 2022. However, the resident visited the flat and raised concerns about its condition. She reported the property being mouldy and damp and refused to return. In circumstances where there has been a significant leak and the resident decanted, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to post inspect the property before approving the resident’s return. Further, photos of the property evidenced mould in the property. The landlord should have assessed this and considered whether the conditions were suitable for the resident to live in. This is particularly prevalent given the potential health implications mould can have on residents.
Given the concerns that the resident raised upon visiting the property, it was appropriate for the landlord to extend her decant accommodation for a further 7 days.
The landlord asked for a post inspection to be arranged on 19 October 2022. However, this should have been arranged sooner.
The landlord instructed a further clean of the property, a mould wash, stain block, and painting and plastering works in response to the resident’s concerns. These were completed on 21 October 2022. Although these were reasonable works to address the resident’s concerns, there were delays for these to be completed. Further, the landlord said it was not conclusively able to say whether the repairs were completed to the expected standard having reviewed its records. This was unacceptable and would have caused frustration to the resident.
The resident wanted the landlord to refund her rent from the date of the flood until her tenancy ended. She made the decision to terminate her tenancy in October 2022 due to the landlord’s poor handling of the works following the leak and did not return to the property. However, the resident was liable to pay the rent from when she was decanted up until the tenancy ended in line with the terms of her tenancy agreement and the landlord’s decant policy. Further, when the resident expressed concerns about the condition of the property on 3 October 2022, the landlord extended her stay in the hotel, and she did not return to the property. It would not be appropriate for the landlord to refund her rent.
It is evident that the resident incurred time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates when she was decanted. She phoned the landlord to ask whether her hotel accommodation would be extended as she had not been updated. Although the landlord followed this up and extended the hotel booking for a further 7 days, the resident should not have had to chase this.
In accordance with the landlord’s decant policy, “communication is key to successful management of a decant process; a variety of communication methods will be used depending on the situation and the needs of the residents”. In this case, the landlord failed to provide updates on the progress of the repairs or when the resident could return to the property. It is noted that the complaint responses provided updates on the repairs. However, the landlord should have notified the resident what condition to expect the property to be in and provided an estimated duration of the decant period.
Within its complaint responses the landlord completed a review of its actions following the leak and identified failings. It acknowledged its delays to complete repairs, poor communication when the resident was decanted, failure to complete an initial full clean of the property, and not post inspecting the property. In light of this, it offered a total of £740 compensation. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord identified each of its failings and used its compensation matrix to arrive at a fair level of compensation.
In addition, it apologised to the resident for where its service fell short and acknowledged the inconvenience this would have caused her. The Ombudsman considers the redress offered for its failings reasonable in putting matters right for the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damages to her personal belongings following the leak.

The landlord’s policy says that financial compensation will only be paid where the tenants or residents has suffered significant inconvenience as a result of the landlord or their contractors.
It is not disputed that the flood was caused by a leak from the above flat. The landlord advised that this was an accident caused by the neighbour’s tap being left running.
The resident advised that she lost thousands of pounds worth of belongings in her property due to water damage. However, in accordance with its policy the landlord could not offer compensation for the reported financial loss as it was not at fault for the damage caused by the leak.
The landlord clearly explained in its complaint responses the reasons it could not compensate the resident for her belongings and signposted her to make a claim through her contents insurance. The Ombudsman considers that this was a reasonable response given the circumstances. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her belongings being moved from the hotel she was decanted to.

The resident said the landlord assured her that her belongings could be left in the decant hotel when she went on holiday between 1 October 2022 and 4 October 2022. She complained that during this time the hotel moved her belongings to another location to be stored. It is likely that this matter was raised on 11 October 2022 when the resident contacted the landlord to add to the complaint. However, it was unacceptable for the landlord not to maintain records of the resident raising this matter.
The landlord did not maintain records of the agreement with the hotel being made, or any communication with the resident to confirm the decision. However, when the landlord investigated the complaint, a staff member confirmed they had communicated with the hotel who agreed to keep her belongings in a safe room whilst she was on holiday. The staff member added that they informed the resident of this.
The landlord advised in its complaint responses that it understood that the hotel did not have availability to keep the resident’s items and therefore moved her belongings to storage. However, it was unable to add any further information due to its lack of records on the matter.
There was no report of the resident’s belongings being damaged or lost, but it is noted that the resident would have experienced inconvenience by her belongings being moved into storage without her being aware. Due to the landlord’s poor record keeping and its inability to confirm exactly what happened when responding to the resident’s complaint, it awarded the resident £100 compensation. The Ombudsman considers this offer to be on the higher end of what should be awarded in such circumstances, particularly as the hotel moved her belongings rather than the landlord. However, it is considered a fair offer to put things right for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s response following a leak affecting the resident’s property.
2. Reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her belongings being moved from the hotel she was decanted to.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damages to her personal belongings following the leak.

Recommendations

If the landlord has not already paid the £840 compensation to the resident, it should re-offer the resident the following:
1. £740 for the landlord’s failings following the leak into her property.
2. £100 for the landlord’s record keeping failing when the resident’s belongings were moved from the hotel she was decanted to.
The landlord is recommended to complete pre and post inspections of properties when it decants residents. This is to ensure the correct repairs are identified and completed before the resident moves back.