Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (202015889)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015889

Berneslai Homes

29 July 2022

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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of it being at fault in relation to a collapsed ceiling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 9 April 2007.
3. On 15 October 2020, the resident reported a collapsed ceiling to the landlord which arranged for operatives to attend the property that evening. The room was then declared out of bounds and the residents were told not to enter it. The following day the landlord attended the property and started investigating the damage and making repairs. It was noted that support was also given to the resident and her family after the ceiling’s collapse.
4. The resident subsequently made an insurance claim and appeal to the landlord’s insurers for damage caused as a result of the ceiling collapsing, however both were rejected due to non-negligence.
5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 March 2021 about the ceiling collapsing. She believed the landlord was at fault for not inspecting the ceiling as it knew the structure of the ceiling, age and risk of it coming down. The resident stated that she had been informed by her neighbour that the ceiling was replaced before she moved in. She felt the landlord should have taken more care to inspect the property and monitor it.
6. The landlord issued its stage one response on 22 March 2021. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns and explained that when a property becomes empty, work is carried out to ensure the property is safe, secure and clean. Prior to the resident moving in this would have been completed in 2007. It explained that tenants are responsible for maintaining the property and must report any repairs as it did not carry out routine inspections of properties. It stated that it had seen no evidence to suggest the resident had raised concerns of the ceiling, and had she done so it would have carried out an inspection and undertaken any repairs required. The landlord concluded that it was not at fault for the ceiling collapsing.
7. Following this, the landlord attended the resident’s property on 27 May 2021 to discuss the details of her complaint. The resident had made them aware that she did not accept the outcome from the insurance claim and believed compensation should be paid due to the rejected claim. She had also reiterated the landlord ought to have been aware of the likely collapse.
8. Subsequently it issued its stage two response on 22 June 2021. The landlord reviewed:
   1. Repairs reported and carried out since 2005.
   2. Repairs carried out during the void period of 2007.
   3. Its compensation policy.
   4. Its records retention schedule.
9. In review of the above the landlord reiterated to the resident that it was unable to find any evidence to support the claims that the ceiling had previously collapsed or had to be replaced. The landlord informed the resident that it would not be upholding her complaint.
10. As the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she referred the complaint to this Service for adjudication. The resident informed this Service that she would like to be compensated for damages.

Assessment and findings

11. The resident says her possessions were damaged as a result of the ceiling collapsing and was unhappy that the landlord’s insurers rejected her claim for damages.
12. It is important to note it is not within this Service’s remit to definitively decide on the outcome of the insurance claim. However, we can assess whether the landlord kept to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and acted and responded reasonably.
13. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Section 11 implies repair obligations for landlord tenants. It states, “In a lease to which this section applies (as to which, see sections 13 and 14) there is implied a covenant by the lessor— to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house.”
14. This is also stipulated in section 3 of the tenancy agreement, which states the landlord will maintain the structure of the resident’s home. In this case, as the ceiling is considered a part of the structure, the landlord is responsible for repairs and the structure of the property.
15. The evidence shows that when the landlord was informed of the collapse it responded the same day and made attempts to repair within a reasonable period of time.
16. The resident expressed she felt her family was put in danger due to the lounge ceiling collapsing and was informed by a neighbour that a similar incident happened in the property prior to the start of her tenancy. She also felt that the landlord should have been aware that the ceiling could collapse, and it could have prevented this.
17. The landlord considered the resident’s concerns and reviewed its repairs database to see what repairs had been carried out since 2005. It states that the evidence did not show any prior repairs to the lounge ceiling or reports of the issue.
18. This Service has reviewed the evidence provided. It shows prior to the resident’s tenancy during the void period, on 12 July 2007 a plasterer was required to replaster the ceiling and basement cellar, but this did not state which ceiling this was in reference to. It shows that other repairs relating to the kitchen had been completed.
19. The repairs history also shows that the resident had reported repairs to the kitchen ceiling in July 2014 which was completed, and no further work was required.
20. The landlord stated the resident had not previously made it aware of any issues concerning the lounge ceiling, and this Service has not seen any evidence to suggest that the resident had made such reports.
21. While this Service acknowledges the resident’s concerns and understands that it would have cause her distress, the information seen shows there is no evidence to suggest the landlord should have foreseen the collapse of the ceiling or should have continually monitored it to ensure it was safe.
22. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that it is strongly advised for residents to insure the content of their homes. In this instance the resident did not hold any contents insurance. When the resident inquired about the replacements of her damaged items, the landlord was proactive in informing her that she could submit an insurance claim through its insurers, however there was no guarantee it would be approved.
23. It is understood that the resident’s insurance claim for damages was denied, and she had requested the landlord to compensate her. The landlord considered its compensation policy but stated that it would not compensate for damage.
24. This Service has reviewed the policy to see if the landlord adhered to its guidelines. The compensation policy does not set out how it deals with damage to property, as these claims are dealt with through its third-party insurance claim process. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord was positive in considering its compensation policy and considered matters appropriately.

Determination (decision)

25. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of it being at fault in relation to a collapsed ceiling.

Reasons

26. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord ought to have known the ceiling would collapse, the resident had not previously reported any concerns for the landlord to investigate; and the landlord responded reasonably to the complaint.