Basildon Borough Council (202014143)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014143

Basildon Borough Council

4 August 2021

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 refers to:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a collapsed ceiling at her property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for items damaged by the ceiling collapse and loss of earnings to attend repair appointments.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is also the local authority. The property is a flat within a block of flats. The complaint was raised by the resident and, at times, by her representative. For clarity, this report will refer to both the resident and her representative as ‘the resident’.
On 18 August 2020, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had raised concerns about some outstanding roof repairs. It confirmed it would provide a response by 25 August 2020.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 August 2020 and explained the following:
1. She said she had initially reported a leak into her property over a month ago, but nothing had been done. She had reported this again more recently and her ceiling in her bedroom had now collapsed. She added that the kitchen ceiling also looked like it was also going to collapse.
2. She was told that a roofer and asbestos contractors would attend on 25 August 2020, but they did not arrive. After some follow-up phone calls, she was told that the repair job was cancelled due to the bad weather. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord did not tell her beforehand.
3. She explained that the exposed asbestos in the ceiling was a health hazard, and the continuous rainwater was causing more damage to the property. She added that her bed was ruined and she was currently sleeping on her sofa. She asked the landlord to send a roofer to the property to assess the damage. She also wanted compensation for her damaged items and her loss of earnings to attend repair appointments during this period.
4. She added that she currently had a lodger who had damaged two doors in the property out of frustration due to their medical conditions. She was not coping well with the lodger in the property as he needed medical attention.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns on 27 August 2020 and said that it would consider these and respond in due course.
The resident responded on 27 August 2020 and expressed concern that the landlord was not taking action. She was concerned about the asbestos in the ceiling and the risk to her health. She explained that due to the hole in her bedroom ceiling, she had needed to remove her belongings from the bedroom, which was an added inconvenience. She had taken time off work to be at home for appointments which did not happen. She asked the landlord to call her to arrange for work to commence. She said that she would also be pursuing this matter with her local councillor and seeking legal advice.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 12 October 2020 and explained the following:
1. It upheld the resident’s complaint due to the unacceptable delay in completing the work to her ceiling. It said that it had received the report of a roof leak affecting her property on 21 September 2020; following this, it arranged an appointment on 25 August 2020, but the contractors could not gain access to the property. A temporary repair was carried out on 4 September 2020. It confirmed that scaffolding was required, and the work was arranged for 28 September 2020. It apologised for the delay in carrying out this work.
2. It added that its specialist engineers had attended on 18 August 2020 and made safe the ceiling. A supervisor was due to attend on 8 October 2020 to inspect the damaged ceiling, however, the resident had not confirmed via email that this was convenient and the appointment was cancelled. This inspection was due to take place on 12 October 2020. It had scheduled to remove and reinstate 18 square metres of the damaged ceiling, which was scheduled for 2-4 November 2020. The landlord advised that the resident could escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaints process if she remained dissatisfied with its response.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 1 November 2021 for the following reasons:
1. She did not feel that the landlord or its contractors knew what they were doing and explained that the situation had caused significant stress and inconvenience. She added that no one had contacted her regarding her complaint, and she only knew of the previous response through contact with her local MP. She reiterated that she had needed to sleep in her living room or at friends’ houses for over four months.
2. She added that the landlord’s response did not make sense. It had stated that it received the report of a roof leak on 21 August 2020 but sent an engineer on 18 August 2020 to repair the ceiling. She could not remember the exact date the roof leak was reported but said that there had been at least two occasions of missed appointments.
3. She was not informed that the contractors wished to carry out work on 28 September 2020 and the work had not yet been completed. She explained that there had been a lack of communication from the landlord regarding appointments. She said she had responded to all appointment confirmation emails sent and had spent considerable time on the phone following up on these matters. She felt that there was also a lack of communication between the landlord and its contractors and felt that the landlord should provide the direct numbers for the contractors to prevent unreturned phone calls.
4. She was concerned that the work to reinstate the ceiling was due to take place, but the landlord had not carried out the other repair work to the roof and there was a good chance that the ceilings would be damaged again. She confirmed that she would be raising a public liability claim against the landlord for the damage caused to her bedding and curtains due to the ceiling collapse and for the damage caused to her floor by the landlord’s contractors.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 1 December 2020 and explained the following:
1. It apologised that the resident had not received its stage one complaint response when it was sent. It confirmed that this was sent on 12 October 2020.
2. It acknowledged that the delay in the repair to the roof leak was unacceptable and had held up repairs to the internal parts of the property. it apologised that this had not been fully resolved. It confirmed that the roofers attended on 19 November 2020 and the works to the roof had been completed. The internal works to the resident’s ceilings were due to commence on 8-10 December 2020.
3. It confirmed that the resident had reported that her ceiling had collapsed on 18 August 2020 and the ceiling was made safe that day. It apologised that it had not raised the roof repair job at that time. The repair to the roof was then raised on 21 August 2020 and should have been attended to that day, but the contractor failed to attend and this was rescheduled for 25 August 2020 where a temporary repair was carried out. The landlord confirmed that a £20 missed appointment payment had been credited to her rent account for this failed appointment.
4. It confirmed that the information provided in its stage one response regarding an appointment on 4 September 2020 was incorrect. It apologised for the administrative error and said that the repair was raised on 4 September 2020 and scheduled for 19 September 2020, where a temporary repair was carried out. It confirmed that any calls made to its repairs number were automatically routed directly to its contractors, who handled existing repair queries. It added that the resident could contact its contractors directly if she had any further issues.
5. It confirmed that the complaint was upheld due to the significant delays in completing the roofing works, which caused further delays in repairing the internal parts of the property. It confirmed that if the resident remained dissatisfied, she could escalate her complaint to stage three of its internal complaints process.
The resident responded the following day and explained:
1. She was happy the complaint had been upheld but was not satisfied with the £20 offered by way of apology by the landlord in relation to a missed appointment. She explained that she had made a liability claim against the landlord for the bedding and soft furnishings damaged by the ceiling collapse. However, she acknowledged that the liability insurance claim could take up to 90 days and there was no guarantee it would pay out.
2. She said that £20 was not enough to cover the wages she had lost that day or her loss of earnings during the repair works. She asked for financial compensation from the landlord in view of the stress and inconvenience caused.
On 13 December 2020, the resident submitted a public liability claim form to the landlord for the damages caused to her belongings due to the ceiling collapse and leak. She said that the total replacement costs for her bedding, bed, flooring and curtains were approximately £1200.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 21 December 2020. It said that it would arrange for a panel to meet within 20 working days to consider the complaint and provide a response within a further 20 working days.
The landlord issued its stage three complaint response on 10 February 2021 and explained the following:
1. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and the time it had taken to complete the repairs to the resident’s ceiling and roof. It offered £200 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused and the water damage to the resident’s floor. It also offered £240 compensation for the 16 weeks she was without the use of her bedroom whilst she waited for the repairs to be completed.
2. It confirmed that its insurance team received the resident’s claim on 18 December 2020 and were in the process of collating the information required to make a decision. It noted that civil claims for damage were not governed by legal timescales and can take some time to process. It explained that its insurance team aimed to deal with such claims within 120 days where possible.
3. It confirmed that the final repair works to the roof were scheduled to take place on 10 February 2021. Once it was able to return to a normal service following the Covid-19 restrictions, it would book the final work to paint the ceiling in both the resident’s bedroom and kitchen.
The resident responded to the landlord on 17 February 2021 and explained that she felt the compensation offered was still too low. She said that she had spent £650 to purchase a new bed and bedding and the cost of replacing the flooring in her bedroom would be around £500. The landlords current offer was £440, and there was no guarantee that the liability insurance claim would pay out. This would mean that she would be at least £700 out of pocket. She said that she would be seeking further advice before accepting the offer.
The landlord responded to the resident’s compensation claim in February 2021. It offered the resident £600 towards the cost of damages to her belongings and explained that due to the age and type of the items it had offered 50% or their replacement value.
The landlord emailed the resident on 3 March 2021 and asked whether she would be accepting its offer of £440 for the inconvenience caused by the delays to her ceiling repairs. The resident responded on the same day and explained the following:
1. She did not feel that the landlord’s offer of £600 in response to her compensation claim was enough considering that her out of pocket expenses were approximately £1250 and this did not include the additional time she had spent dealing with this matter, time she had taken off work to attend appointments or the overall stress caused.
2. She said that she had been told by the roofer that further work was needed and her kitchen ceiling still needed painting following the damage. She felt that the landlord should replace her roof, as it was doing to other properties nearby. She believed that the landlord should be offering £1500 for her out of pocket expenses and time taken off work for missed appointments as well as another £500 for the stress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord emailed the resident on 18 March 2020 and explained the following:
1. It confirmed that £600 had been offered by its insurance team for replacing the bed, flooring and bed linen. This took into account the age and original cost of the items. The offer of £600 at 50% of the replacement costs was considered generous as the bed and flooring were over ten years old. It advised the resident that she could seek legal advice if she did not want to accept the current offer.
2. It explained that it would not compensate the resident for the time she had taken off work to be available for repair appointments as it would be the responsibility of the resident to provide access to the property for repairs. it explained that a missed appointment payment of £20 was credited to the resident’s rent account for an appointment on 8 October 2020. It had no record of any other missed appointments but invited the resident to provide the dates of appointments she believed to have been missed and it would investigate this further.
3. It had reviewed its offer of compensation for the inconvenience caused and increased its offer to £300, in addition to the £240 offered for the loss of use of her bedroom. It noted that the resident’s rent account was currently in arrears; in view of this, it said it would credit the compensation into her rent account once she had confirmed that she accepted this offer.
4. It confirmed that the repairs to the roof and painting of the bedroom and kitchen ceiling had now been completed on 2 February 2021 and 5 March 2021 respectively. It confirmed that there was no current plan to replace the roof at the property but it would notify the resident of any future planned works. It reiterated that if the resident remained dissatisfied, she could approach this Service.
The resident responded on 22 March 2021 and explained the following:
1. She reiterated that she felt the landlord’s offer of £600 for the cost of her damaged items and flooring was too low as she would not have to replace these items if the landlord had carried out the repairs when she first reported the leak. She expressed concern that she should not be out of pocket as the issue was not her fault.
2. She added that she had not been able to use her bedroom for around 17-18 weeks, not 16 as the landlord had stated. She also said that she was not able to use her kitchen during this period as the kitchen ceiling was also in danger of collapsing. She expressed concern that the £20 offered for a missed appointment was less than a third of her wages for a day. She added that there had been two or three missed appointments but could not provide the dates of these. She also believed that occasions where contractors turned up but could not complete work as other repairs had not been completed should also be classed as missed appointments.
3. She said that there were still some outstanding repairs to her kitchen walls which were unfinished including damage caused to the top of one wall. She believed that the landlord should send someone to inspect the work completed by its contractors.
The landlord sent a further email to the resident on 30 March 2021 and explained that its position regarding the insurance pay-out had not changed. It explained that its response to the resident’s request for compensation remained at £300. It took into consideration the information she had provided about her loss of bedroom for 18 weeks and increased its offer to £270 in respect of this issue. It added that the kitchen ceiling did not collapse and it had not been made aware that the resident was unable to use her kitchen during this period. Whilst there were some repairs needed, these did not amount to a loss of use of this room. It confirmed that it would not offer further compensation for this. It acknowledged that the resident had now cleared her rent arrears and confirmed it would pay any accepted compensation directly to the resident. It added that it would attend the property on 12 April 2021 to inspect the loft and kitchen for outstanding repairs. it confirmed that this was its final offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a collapsed ceiling at her property.

The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord would be responsible for repairs needed to the roof structure, internal walls and ceilings. All repairs are given a priority, which sets out when the work should be carried out. The landlord should attend an emergency repair, where there is an immediate danger to a resident, within 24 hours and make the property safe. Follow-on repair works may be required after this initial appointment. Where the repair is not an emergency, the landlord should complete the repair at the convenience of the resident within 28 days. The landlord’s compensation policy states that if a room in a tenant’s home is uninhabitable, because of repair work being undertaken or because of disrepair the landlord would provide the resident with compensation of £15 per week per room that they cannot use.
In this case, the landlord has admitted that there was an unreasonable delay in completing repairs needed to the resident’s property following her ceiling collapse in August 2020. It is not clear from the evidence provided when the resident first reported the issue to the landlord, however it is noted that the follow-on repair works to the resident’s property were not fully completed until March 2021. The resident was put to a great deal of time and trouble in dealing with the aftermath of her ceiling collapse and it is reasonable that the landlord should offer some compensation towards the inconvenience caused, despite it being entitled to direct her to make a separate insurance claim for compensation for her damaged items and flooring.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by carrying out the required works and awarding £300 compensation in view of the inconvenience caused by the delays.
The Ombudsman agrees that the length of time it has taken the landlord to resolve the issue is not sufficient and does warrant financial compensation for the delays in identifying and resolving the issue, which caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman considers that there was a major impact on the resident and the amount of £300 is sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience caused in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. This amount is also in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (published on our website) which states that amounts in this range are suitable where there is considerable service failure by a landlord, for example a resident repeatedly having to chase responses, necessitating in an unreasonable level of involvement by that resident, or failure over a considerable period to act in accordance with policy and to address repairs.
The landlord has also acted reasonably by offering a further £270 compensation in line with its compensation policy for the 18 weeks the resident was without the use of her bedroom due to the collapsed ceiling and leak. The landlord would not be obliged in this case to offer the same compensation for the resident’s claim that she was unable to use her kitchen during this period. Whilst the damage to the kitchen ceiling is likely to have caused some uncertainty for the resident, who understandably feared that this would also collapse, there is no record of any repair issues which made this room unusable. There is also no record that the resident told the landlord the kitchen was unusable at any point, until after the kitchen ceiling had been repaired.
For the reasons set out above, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £570 as previously agreed if it has not already done so, as the finding of reasonable redress was found on this basis. It is also recommended that the landlord takes steps to improve its communication with residents regarding repairs, ensuring that they are kept suitably updated of the expected timescales and any delays.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for items damaged by the ceiling collapse and loss of earnings to attend repair appointments.

The resident has expressed concern that the pay out from her compensation claim was not enough to cover the cost of replacing her damaged belongings. She has also raised concern about her loss of earnings during this period to attend appointments and compensation for missed and failed appointments.
The landlord’s tenancy handbook strongly recommends that tenants take out home contents insurance, either by making their own arrangements or by joining the home contents insurance scheme provided by the landlord to avoid the uninsured loss of household goods and contents. The landlord would not be expected to automatically replace lost, damaged or destroyed household goods and contents of a tenant whose property has been affected by an incident such as a leak as tenants are expected to take out insurance to cover such losses.
In this case, the resident has stated that the total cost for replacing her damaged bed, bedding, curtains and flooring was approximately £1250. She raised a claim directly to the landlord and its insurance team offered the resident £600, representing 50% of the replacement cost based on the age of the items reported as damaged. The landlord has demonstrated that it had considered the resident’s compensation claim and explained its position and reasoning behind this figure clearly. This Service does not have the expertise or the authority to make legally binding decisions about whether a landlord has been ‘negligent’ in its handling of the repairs as negligence is a specific legal concept which would be more appropriate for a court to decide. We therefore cannot say whether the pay-out offered by the landlord’s insurance team was appropriate in view of all the circumstances. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she may wish to seek independent legal advice
In general, the Ombudsman would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a complainant for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out. Whilst such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, the tenancy agreement requires the resident to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed, and it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings to attend repair appointments.
The tenancy handbook also states that if a contractor misses a prearranged appointment to carry out repairs to a resident’s property, the resident is entitled to receive £20 compensation on each occasion. The resident has expressed concern that this amount would not cover a full day’s wages, however, to be fair to all tenants the landlord should follow its policy for missed appointments and pay the amount listed in the policy. £20 is in line with the amount paid by other landlords for missed appointments and is therefore considered industry best practice.
There remains a dispute regarding the number of missed appointments in this case and what the landlord considers a missed appointment. The Ombudsman would usually consider an appointment to be missed or failed if the contractor either did not attend or attended but could not compete because of a mistake by the landlord, such as knowingly booking the appointment before other repairs were completed which were necessary for the appointment to go ahead. If this was the case, we would expect the landlord to pay compensation in line with its missed appointments process. However, if the failed appointment was due to an issue beyond the landlord’s control it would not be expected to compensate for this. For example, where a roof repair appointment does not go ahead due to poor weather conditions.
The landlord has paid the resident £20 in line with its policy for one missed appointment while the repair works were completed. However, there is a discrepancy as to which date this payment was for. In the landlord’s response on 1 December 2020, it states that this compensation was paid for a missed appointment on 21 August 2020, however in its response on 18 March 2020 it said this was for a missed appointment on 8 October 2020. This does not amount to a service failure by the landlord. However, the dates of any missed or failed appointments remains unclear from the evidence provided. The resident has been given the opportunity to say if there were any more missed appointments but does not appear to have done so. In view of this, the resident may wish to provide the dates she believes there were missed or failed appointments to the landlord so that this can be reviewed further. The landlord should consider the resident’s reports of further missed or failed appointments and respond accordingly, in line with its compensation policy.
In summary, there has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for compensation for her damaged items and loss of earnings. The landlord has demonstrated that the resident’s compensation claim was considered and has explained its position satisfactorily. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she may wish to seek legal advice. The landlord would not be expected to reimburse the resident for her loss of earnings in this case and has acted appropriately by offering £20 compensation for a missed appointment in line with its policies. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the resident’s reports of further missed or failed appointments and considers paying further compensation in view of these in line with its policies.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a collapsed ceiling at her property, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for compensation for items damaged by the ceiling collapse and loss of earnings to attend repair appointments.

Reasons

The measures taken by the landlord to redress the delays in repairing the roof and ceiling at the property were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
The landlord has demonstrated that the resident’s compensation claim was considered and has explained its position satisfactorily. The landlord would not be expected to reimburse the resident for her loss of earnings in this case and has acted appropriately by offering £20 compensation for a missed appointment in line with its policies.

Recommendations

It is recommended that:
The landlord pays the resident £570 as previously agreed if it has not already done so, as the finding of reasonable redress was based on this being paid.
If the resident wishes to accept the landlord’s offer of £600 towards the cost of her damaged items and flooring, it is recommended that the landlord honours this offer.
The landlord reviews the resident’s reports of further missed or failed appointments once the appointments she considers to have been missed or failed have been provided, and considers paying further compensation in view of these in line with its policies.
The landlord takes steps to improve its communication with its residents regarding repairs, ensuring that they are kept suitably updated of the expected timescales and any delays.