Believe Housing Limited (202000694)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000694

Believe Housing Limited

17 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 resident complains about:
1. The landlord’s failure to respond to an email about a rent payment.
2. The landlord’s handling of an insurance claim for damage to carpets and

vehicles.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp in the property
The landlord’s response to a request to be re-housed whilst works were carried out.
The landlord’s handling of a repair to a radiator.
The landlord’s handling of a repair to a boiler.

Jurisdiction

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident has stated that he had been complaining about damp for years. He said that the landlord had carried out works to address damp previously, but they had not helped.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
The Ombudsman has been provided with a complaint response dated May 2019, in which the landlord addressed concerns that the resident had about damp at the property for a number of years. This appears to be a stage one response, setting out the resident’s option to escalate the matter in the conclusion of the letter. There is no indication that the resident escalated the issue to stage two, and therefore, as the complaint has not completed the landlord’s complaint process, the issues and time period this complaint relates to fall outside of this Service’s jurisdiction.
However, the resident made a further complaint about damp in October 2020. This complaint did complete the landlord’s complaint process, with a final response being issued November 2020. Therefore, the matters and time period addressed in this complaint (mainly relating to mould and damp issues raised in October 2020) can be considered in this investigation.

Background

The landlord’s decant procedure sets out that in most cases decants would take place when the type or level of work to a property prevents the tenant remaining in occupation.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out categories for repairs, which describes emergency repairs as ‘any defects that put the health, safety or security of properties, customers or anyone else at immediate risk.’ These would be responded to and made safe within 24 hours. An example of emergency repairs is given as total loss of heating between 1 November – 31 March.
An appointable repair is described as ‘a repair that can prevent immediate damage to the property and/ or overcome inconvenience to customers.’ These would be carried out within 20 working days from the time a repair is reported to the completion of the work. An example of an appointable repair is given as partial loss of heating.

Summary of events

Complaint one – The landlord’s failure to respond to an email about a rent payment and the landlord’s handling of an insurance claim for damage to carpets and vehicles.

On 25 February 2020 the resident had a discussion with landlord staff members and handed them letter (along with photographs) that gave a chronology of several issues he had experienced with the contractors and capital works programme that was taking place, for example, vehicles blocking off the road, excessive noise, and damage to his vehicles. The letter concluded ‘I will continue with recording work and actions by people until [the capital work programme] is complete. After that I am still in 2 minds what to do with these complaints and issues.’
He emailed the landlord on 5 March 2020, stating ‘I wish to voice my utter disgust at the way my family are being treat by your so called capital investment program.’ He noted that he had provided photographic evidence but had not been contacted about it. He said that his satellite dish had been thrown on the grass. The resident said that he had never known a company drag out work as long as the contractor had. He said that he wanted the complaint to be recorded as he planned to ‘take it much further.’
The landlord responded the next day stating that it had received his complaint and would get back to him. After further emails from the resident chasing up, the landlord clarified the resident’s concerns with him, and then advised on 18 March 2020 that these would need to be dealt with as an insurance claim. The landlord sent him an insurance claim form on 20 March 2020, which he returned at the beginning of April 2020 detailing damage to carpets, and two cars.
The landlord acknowledged the ‘recent claim’ in a letter dated 4 May 2020. The resident responded stating that he had originally raised the matter on 25 February and therefore this was not a ‘recent claim’.
Separately, on 24 April 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to explain that he had been furloughed and was awaiting payment from HMRC. Due to this his rent payment would be around two weeks late. He said ‘If this is ok could someone please confirm this please.’ On 30 April 2020 the resident made a formal complaint as no one had responded to his 24 April 2020 email, explaining that he had now paid the rent, and this had caused him financial hardship. He also referenced his dissatisfaction at how his insurance claim was being dealt with.
The landlord provided a stage one response dated 6 May 2020. It said that due to human error, while 24 April 2020 email was responded to that same day, it was sent to the wrong (internal) email address. It apologised for this and said that the matter had been fed back to the staff member.
In relation to the delays with the insurance claim, the landlord explained that as the resident had instructed solicitors to pursue a claim against it under the disrepair protocol, when it received the damage report on 25 February 2020 it first needed to check with its legal team as to how the damage claim should be handled, and then sent the claims form on 20 March 2020. The letter stated that as had been previously explained, due to the Covid-19 restrictions the investigation could not proceed as home visits were not possible, but once the restrictions were lifted it would carry out a full investigation.
The resident responded asking for his complaint to be escalated. He said that there was no proof of the email being sent to the wrong address and he did not accept the human error explanation. He also did not agree that the delay with the insurance claim was caused by the landlord checking with its legal team, as he was aware that this only took two days. He also said that a home visit wasn’t required ‘as it’s mainly outside…and I have proved what I have said beyond a reasonable doubt.’ As a resolution he wanted ‘…compensation for the ignorance of my financial difficulties and I want my claim dealt with ASAP.’
The landlord provided a stage two response on 4 June 2020, to which it attached a copy of the email trail from 24 April 2020 showing that the reply was sent to the wrong address. It said, ‘Please again accept our apologies for this mistake, it was a genuine error and we have spoken to the person who made the mistake.’ However, it would not provide compensation for this.
The landlord accepted that there was a delay in sending the claim form after seeking advice from its legal team and recognised that it could have kept the resident better informed during this time. It apologised for this and offered £25 in compensation. It also explained that all visits for insurance claims were put on hold due the Covid-19 pandemic, and that the resident’s particular claim needed to be investigated jointly with the contractor. As the contractor was currently operating a reduced service and had furloughed some members of staff, it was unable to do so at that time. It said, ‘Once our insurance service can be fully reinstated, I assure you we will visit your home as soon as is possible.’
On 7 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident declining his claim.

Complaint two – The landlord’s response to reports of damp in the property and a request to be re-housed whilst works were carried out.

On 7 October 2020, during an unrelated repair visit, it was noted that the bedroom at the property had mould on the wall. On 13 October 2020 the landlord spoke with the resident’s wife about carrying out investigations into the cause of the mould, and the possibility of decanting the family because of the disruption this may cause. In the meantime it would carry out a fungicidal wash and stain block.
On this same date the resident emailed the landlord with a formal complaint. He said that a number of years ago he had complained about the damp, but the landlord had said that this was down to condensation and fitted a vent unit. The resident stated, ‘The vent has done nothing and the damp has got worse.’ He also said that he had previously asked to be moved while works were carried out to his property but was told that the landlord would not do this. However, he had now been informed that he was to be moved while works were carried out to his home. He felt that the landlord ‘moved the goal posts’ to suit itself.
The landlord provided a stage one response dated 28 October 2020, in which it noted that the resident’s complaint about damp had been investigated and addressed in May 2019, and the complaint was not upheld. Two contractors had attended to assess the situation and found it was caused by condensation. A number of works were carried out to alleviate this at that time. It noted that no other reports of damp had been made by the resident, and this issue was not included in the disrepair claim he was currently pursuing. Mould in the bedroom had been found earlier that month during unrelated works, and this was being addressed and investigated on 2 November 2020. The vent unit would also be serviced.
Regarding the decant, the landlord noted that the works that were being carried out when the resident asked to be decanted previously were external, and therefore there was no requirement for a decant. The more recent works were internal and could cause a degree of disruption and an unsafe environment, and therefore a decant was appropriate.
The resident escalated his complaint on 28 October 2020, disagreeing that two contractors had said the issue was caused by condensation in 2019. He said ‘As for the so called independent survey done, this was done by a person who openly admitted not being an expert on damp as many as other things.’ The resident said that he had his own survey carried out which identified that damp was present. He said the works that were carried out, such as the application of anti-fungal paint, had made no difference, and the vent unit had not helped either. He said that there was no roof insulation which was exacerbating the issue.
Regarding the decant, the resident said that there had been a risk to his family due to the previous external works, as these had severely affected his children’s mental health, and, ‘There was other risks like damage to me by falling signs, damage to my cars etc. all risks reported and ignored by believe housing’ He also said that in fact the bedroom had been uninhabitable for years because of the damp.
On 3 November 2020 the resident emailed the landlord setting out what he would like to happen to resolve his complaint, as follows:
1. Rent arrears be written off ‘for the conditions that we have been forced to live in over the years.’
2. Revision of the insurance claim, ‘as this was not allowed due to believe housing’s incompetence of actually dealing with the claim when they were supposed to.’
3. Rehomed in a larger property.
4. Compensation for worry, anxiety and stress
A stage two response was provided on 12 November 2020. Regarding the comments about a lack of loft insulation, the landlord stated that a recent inspection had confirmed that this was present, and had been so since the resident had moved in. The vent unit had also been inspected and was working. The landlord referenced an inspection of the property that it had carried out on 9 November 2020 and a programme of works that would be taking place following this. During the inspection the bedroom was tested for dampness and it was found that the walls were dry. The landlord said ‘To further help alleviate any ongoing concerns you may have regards this issue an independent surveyor will attend…’ The surveyor would remove the inner brickwork in parts to allow an intrusive survey to be carried out to test for dampness or condensation related issues, and if any recommendations were made the landlord would carry these out. The landlord concluded that there had been no service failure and declined to pay the compensation the resident had requested for stress and anxiety.
On 16 November 2020 the resident called the landlord to ask about the decant that had been mentioned. The landlord explained that as no further works were required to the bedroom wall, this was not necessary.

Complaint three – The landlord’s handling of a repair to a radiator and a boiler.

The resident has stated that on 11 February 2021 he reported a leaking radiator to the landlord, and was given an appointment for 23 February 2021. The next day the resident made a formal complaint about the leaking radiator, which he said had caused the floor to go black and rotten, and the wall was soaking wet causing his curtains to fall down. He said that the fire in the living room only worked sporadically and so he couldn’t get the room warm, referring to his two young children with asthma.
The landlord attempted to contact the resident by telephone, but when it was unable to do so emailed him letting him know that it had booked the radiator and fire repairs for the first available appointment, 1 March 2021 (seemingly unaware that there was already an appointment booked in for this).
The resident replied and said that 1 of March was ‘ridiculous’ and his carpet was already black and soaked. In a further email of 17 February 2021, the resident complained that there was an issue with the boiler pressure. In response the landlord asked the resident if the boiler was not working, and said that if this was the case it would arrange an emergency call out. The resident responded but did not reference the boiler or the offer of an emergency call out.
On 1 March 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and said ‘I would like to add that my boiler pressure is not working and the plumber has confirmed that. Please add these to my complaint…’
The landlord provided a stage one response that same day. It noted that the repair was reported on 11 February 2021, and as the resident did not receive a call back he made a formal complaint the next day. The landlord then tried to call him on a number of occasions but was unable to make contact, so wrote to him advising that the next available repair appointment had been booked for both the radiator and the fire, which was 1 March 2021. The landlord acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with this time frame but explained that due to Covid-19 it was only carrying out essential work inside of homes. One radiator not working would fall under the non-essential category and would not usually be attended to, but it had taken on board the resident’s concerns and arranged an appointment in this case. The landlord said that this was within the standard timeframe of 20 working days, and as the leak was containable it was not deemed an emergency repair.
Regarding the boiler the landlord noted that it had spoken to the resident on 17 February 2021 when he reported this and offered to arrange an emergency appointment. The resident had then said that it was working, but not as it should be. The landlord explained that the pressure in the boiler would drop when there was a leak (as there was with the radiator) and once this was repaired the pressure in the boiler would return to normal.
The issue with the boiler’s pressure was repaired that same day.
The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 9 March 2021, on the basis that the work to the radiator was essential as it was a danger to health, and that the landlord’s policy ‘…clearly states that emergency repair is a complete loss of heating – from November to March.’
The landlord’s 16 March 2021 stage two response reiterated its previous explanation about the radiator repair. It said that on 17 February 2021 the resident had been offered an emergency call out for the boiler but he declined this. Once the radiator was repaired the issue with the pressure would be resolved. If there were any other issues with the boiler these should be reported as a repair.

Assessment and findings

Complaint one

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident has stated that it is not the insurance claim itself that he is complaining about, but how this was handled. He explains ‘After several issue [with the contractor carrying out the capital works programme] believe housing must have been notified and decided to visit me. I provided detailed problems with photographic evidence, the managers from believe were not bothered. They took my file and photos away and didn’t even bother to contact me back, not even out of common courtesy. Then I took the matter further and it was delay after delay.’
He is unhappy with the length of time it took the landlord to consider the insurance claim he made and says that it was declined on the basis that too much time had passed, which he states was the landlord’s fault, pointing out that he raised the issues before lockdown began.
In relation to the 24 April 2020 email, the resident has explained that he was extremely worried and anxious about not being able to pay the rent on time, and states that he ‘suffered severely’, detailing a number of medical conditions that were affected by the situation. When he received no response to his email, he panicked, and paid the rent. He states ‘it was my daughters 18th birthday a week or so after that and I couldn’t get her much, also I couldn’t get other things that I needed and basically making that rent payment was scraped together. I couldn’t go and see anyone for help and I felt so alone and isolated.’
To resolve these matters, he would like the landlord to pay him compensation for the distress and anxiety he suffered, and for the issues he had with its contractors which led to the insurance claim.
The resident’s letter detailing all the issues he had experienced with contractors concluded by stating ‘I will continue with recording work and actions by people until [the capital work] is complete. After that I am still in 2 minds what to do with these complaints and issues.’ From this, it does not seem that he was asking the landlord to take any specific action at that point. Rather this suggests that he would decide how he wanted to pursue the issues once the works were complete. There was no reference to any compensation or insurance claim. In light of this, and as the matters were discussed in person, it was not wholly unreasonable that the landlord did not provide a response at that time, although it perhaps would have been more customer focused had it written to acknowledge the letter.
Neither does the resident refer to compensation or insurance claims in his 5 March 2020 email: The first reference to such matters is made in emails of 17 March 2020 (further detail on these below). This does make the landlord’s reply to the formal complaint somewhat confusing, as it stated in this that there was a delay in sending the insurance claim form from 25 February 2020. However, as above, there is no indication that the resident asked to make an insurance claim on 25 February 2020 or following on from this.
It is in the resident’s 5 March 2020 email that he specifically makes a complaint. The landlord acknowledged this the following day and said that it had requested further information and would get back to him. However, there is no evidence that it did so until the resident emailed again on 13 March 2020 chasing up the issue. It seems from the information that’s available it was at this point that the landlord contacted its legal team. It then emailed the resident on 17 March 2020 asking what issues remained unresolved and to clarify what overall resolution he was seeking, as it was of the understanding that the matters had already been discussed on site with the resident.
The Ombudsman considers that it was reasonable for the landlord to make these further enquiries to establish what it was that the resident was seeking, given it was not entirely clear from the letter or 5 March 2020 email. However, there was some delay here on the landlord’s part in following up the matter after it received the resident’s 5 March 2020 email.
In reply on 17 March 2020 the resident stated that as an outcome he was seeking compensation for damage to his property, anxiety caused to his children, and ‘everything else.’ The landlord then asked if there was any ongoing claim for the damage to cars and the carpets. The resident explained that there was not and said that he would rather deal with these matters without putting in a claim if possible. He stated that he wanted compensation for damage to his belongings. The landlord explained that it would look into matters further, but that it was likely that this would be for its insurance team.
On 18 March 2020 the landlord emailed the resident explaining that it had now had further advice on the issues raised from other teams. The email stated, ‘I’m informed that as most of the issues are around claims and compensation this is going to have to be dealt with by our Insurance team, and they will contact you further to discuss the process and what we need from you regarding this to help with the claim.’ The resident was then sent an insurance claim form on 20 March 2020.
The evidence demonstrates that the resident had not initially wanted to make an insurance claim, but the landlord advised that this would be the correct process to follow, and then sent him the claims form very shortly. The Ombudsman would usually expect a landlord to at least consider whether there is any evidence that it had been at fault for any claimed damage to a resident’s property / belongings, and not refer them straight to an insurer. It is not clear from the information available whether or not the landlord did so in this case.
The claims form that the landlord sent on 20 March 2020 stated that it took an average of 28 days to investigate a claim from the date of receipt of the completed form. Therefore, the resident may have reasonably expected his claim to be determined in this timeframe. However, the landlord then clearly explained in its 4 May 2020 acknowledgment of the completed form that due to the Covid-19 situation claims were taking longer than usual. Further, the matter needed to be investigated jointly with the contractor, but again due to Covid-19 this was not possible. The letter said, ‘As soon as restrictions allow, I will commence enquiries with [the contractor].’
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted appropriately here, warning the resident that there would be a delay (which was understandable given the Covid-19 situation at that time). While the resident has said that when he first raised his concerns at the end of February 2020 there were no Covid-19 restrictions in place and so this should not affect his claim, it is the case that he did not actually submit an insurance claim until after restrictions had come into force. To some extent this can be attributed to the landlord not getting back to his 5 March 2020 sooner. However, even had it responded within a week (which the Ombudsman would consider a reasonable timeframe), it is extremely unlikely that the matter could have been investigated before the 16 March 2020, when government advice was to stop non-essential contact and travel, or even before the countywide lockdown was announced a week later. Therefore, while there was a short delay on the part of the landlord, the Ombudsman finds that this was unlikely to have affected the outcome of the matter.
Further, although the resident has said that the claim was disallowed because of the time taken by the landlord to deal with it, this is not the reason set out in the claim decision letter dated 7 July 2020. This explained that that no further investigations would be carried out into the alleged damage to the resident’s car as this was not reported to the contractor at the time. The letter said ‘If this had been reported directly to the site manager at the time, an immediate investigation would have commenced. Due to the length of time that has elapsed between the alleged incident and the point at which it was referred to believe housing, we are unable to corroborate that the damage occurred at that point in time.’
The resident’s letter from February 2020 sets out a timeline of issues, in which he describes events on 7 and 12 of February 2020 that he believed led to damage to his car. No reference is made to these matters being reported to the contractor. The Ombudsman has also seen evidence that when contacted about the insurance claim, the contractor stated that at no time had damage to the cars been reported to it.
In relation to the alleged damage to carpets, the letter said that this was not being considered as the issue formed part of the disrepair case that the resident was pursuing. Therefore, as above, the delay in the landlord’s handling of the matter did not have an impact on the outcome of the claim, as the delay was not the reason it was declined.
In relation to the 24 April 2020 email about the resident’s rent payment, the landlord has provided a copy of the email of the same date that it sent in response. This shows that the email was sent to the wrong email address. The landlord has said that this was human error, and the Ombudsman considers this to be an accurate and reasonable explanation. While this Service appreciates that the resident was anxious about his rent payment, the error does not warrant a finding of service failure.

Complaint two

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident has stated that he had been complaining about damp for years. He said that the landlord had carried out works to address damp previously, but they had not helped.
The landlord’s stage one response dated 28 October 2020 noted that it had responded in May 2019 to a formal complaint about damp, and the complaint was not upheld. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer to this, as the Ombudsman would not expect it to carry out another investigation into issues that had already been addressed via the formal complaint process. Further, as the landlord’s complaint policy sets out, it would not usually investigate a complaint which was not reported to it within six months of the issue occurring. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider any reports of damp that had occurred since then.
It did check its repair records and noted that no issues with damp had been reported to it since the May 2019 complaint. The Ombudsman has reviewed the repair records, which support this statement: There are no reports of damp after 2019 until mould was identified by the landlord in an unrelated repair visit on 7 October 2020. It was at this point that the landlord was required to take action to investigate and address this.
The evidence available shows that it did so, carrying out a mould wash to the wall on 2 November 2020 (there was some delay to this as the family had Covid-19 symptoms and had to isolate), and an inspection being carried out by a Ventilation Specialist on 3 November 2020. The email report of this dated 6 November 2020 noted that the property was cold and not very well ventilated (via opening windows). The vent unit was running, but when the new roof had been installed it had covered the vent in debris, which had possibly affected its performance. The unit had been turned up and would be serviced. The email said that the insulation had also been ‘ruined’ by the roof works, and should be replaced. The report noted that condensation within the property had improved dramatically since the initial assessment in 2019, as now only one room was affected, whereas in 2019 it had been an issue in most rooms. The humidity throughout the property was also at around 55-60%, whereas it had been between 65-75% in 2019.
The Ventilation Specialist concluded ‘I think a combination of the new roof which has limited the ventilation and also damaged the PIV unit along with the property not being well heated and purge ventilated (i.e. opening windows in the mornings for a short time) has led to the continuation of problems, particularly upstairs.’
Another visit was carried out to the property on 9 November 2020, which was attended by a surveyor. It was explained to the resident’s wife during this visit that the landlord would remove some plaster to expose the brick work on the affected wall, take some damp readings and then replaster. This would determine whether the issue was caused by condensation, penetrating damp or a problem externally. The landlord would then formulate a plan of action once this was confirmed. The debris would be cleared from the loft, and new insulation installed, and the vent unit would be serviced.
The surveyor took damp meter readings on the bedroom wall, which showed that it was dry. However the humidity reading indicated condensation. The surveyor noted that it was cold inside the property.
A further record from 14 November 2020 refers to a visit by an independent surveyor on 11 November 2020. Holes had been made in the wall in the bedroom, and the plaster was dry. A sample was collected and both the plaster and the brick were dry. It was therefore determined that the mould was due to condensation and not dampness. This Service has also seen a copy of the structural report detailing the findings of the inspection which concluded that any mould that may be present was not caused by penetrating damp.
This Service notes that the resident has questioned the abilities and impartiality of the Ventilation Specialist that attended the property. He says that no surveyor attended and also states that the finding that the air vent was working was a lie. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s views here, it is satisfied by the above evidence that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the cause of mould to the bedroom wall, and rule out any repair issue (such as penetrating damp). The Ombudsman requested a copy of his own surveyor’s report that the resident referred to having in his correspondence with the landlord, which he states confirmed that there was damp at the property. The resident has explained that this was from several years ago and he no longer has a copy.
The landlord also raised works to wash down the walls and service the air vent to try and address the condensation issue. The loft clearance, renewal of loft insulation and servicing of the vent were all carried out in December 2020. This Service notes that the resident had previously been given advice on reducing condensation in 2019. In light of the above, there was no service failure on the part of the landlord here.
In relation to the decant, the reasons that the landlord gave in its explanation for its decision around this were in line with its descant’s policy. As the works that were being carried out when the resident requested a decant did not prevent him from remaining in occupation, the landlord’s decision was reasonable.

Complaint three

In his complaint to the Ombudsman about this issue, which he made the same day that he made his complaint to the landlord, the resident stated that the fire did not work in the living room at the property, and the radiator burst, leaking all over the floor. He said that he reported this to the landlord on 11 February 2021 and was told the earliest someone could attend was 23 February 2021. This left him with no heat in the living room, with three young children with health issues.
It is noted that in his complaint to the landlord of that same date, and his follow up correspondence, he did not reference having an appointment for 23 February 2021, but instead said that when the radiator leak was reported to the landlord, ‘I was told someone was going to ring back the following day once she had spoken to a colleague and she never did.’
It is also the case that the information that the landlord has supplied makes no reference to an appointment of 23 February 2021, and all records show that repairs were carried out on 1 March 2021. The Ombudsman therefore asked the resident for clarity on this issue, and he explained ‘A person came out after around 12 days after reporting the incident and fixed the radiator – upon fixing the radiator the plumber seen the boiler was not working correctly this was in the morning. Another workman came in the afternoon and fixed the fire. Then another workman came on the evening and fixed the boiler – the March appointment was then not needed because of the emergency boiler repair on the evening.’
It seems that there is some discrepancy between the resident’s version of events, where all repairs were made around 23 February 2021, and the landlord’s, where these repairs were completed on 1 March 2021.
It is assumed that the radiator must have been leaking for some time for the floor to be ‘black rotten’ and the curtains to have fallen down, but there is no indication in either the landlord’s records or the resident’s own correspondence that the landlord was made aware prior to 11 February 2021 of any issues with the radiator, or with the fire. Therefore, it was from the date of the initial report, 11 February 2021, that the landlord was obliged to address the repair.
At the time of the repair being reported, the UK was in the third national lockdown, which meant that many landlords were carrying out emergency repairs only. As noted in the background section of this report, the landlord’s repairs policy sets out that an emergency repair would be something such as total loss of heating (between 1 November – 31 March). An example of an appointable repair was given as partial loss of heating. In this case, the repair fell under a partial loss of heating, as the issue was in the living room only, and so was not classed as an emergency. The resident stated in his correspondence with the landlord that he stopped the leak by turning the radiator off, so again this was not an emergency as it was a ‘containable leak.’
The landlord has explained in its response to the complaint that while this repair did not fall under the emergency category (and so would usually not be attended to during Covid-19 restrictions), it had taken the resident’s situation into account, and attended anyway. This demonstrates that the landlord was making adjustments for the resident’s specific situation, and concerns about his young children.
The policy timeframe for appointable repairs was 20 working days: As stated above, the resident reports that all repairs were completed around 23 February 2021, whereas the landlord’s records suggest the date these repairs were made was the 1 March 2021. While the Ombudsman is unable to account for this discrepancy, both dates fell within the 20-working day timeframe, and so the discrepancy itself does not impact the matter.
While this Service can understand and empathise with the resident’s desire to have the issues repaired quickly, especially given he had young children, there was no service failure on the part of the landlord here as it carried out the repair in the appropriate timeframe for a partial loss of heating. However, this Service might have expected to see an offer of temporary heaters made to the family while they awaited the repair. There is no indication that this happened.
The issue with the boiler pressure was also repaired within the 20-working day timeframe required (having been reported on 17 February 20210). There is no indication that the boiler was not working during this period, and the resident did not take up the landlord’s offer of an emergency call out. Again, there was no service failure here.

Determination (decision)

In line with section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration on the part of the landlord in relation to:
1. The landlord’s failure to respond to an email about a rent payment.
2. The landlord’s handling of an insurance claim for damage to carpets and

vehicles.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp in the property
The landlord’s response to a request to be re-housed whilst works were carried out.
The landlord’s handling of a repair to a radiator.
The landlord’s handling of a repair to a boiler.

Reasons

Complaint one

It would have been better had the landlord acknowledged the resident’s February 2020 letter in writing but given that he was not making a complaint or compensation claim in this, the Ombudsman does not consider this to be a service failure.
There was a short delay from 5 March 2020 on the part of the landlord in addressing the resident’s concerns, but ultimately this did not impact the outcome of the claim. The landlord offered £25 in compensation, which was reasonable. It would have been good practice had some consideration been given to assessing his request for compensation prior to referring to the insurance process, but it is not clear whether this happened. Again, in the overall context of the case this is not so serious a shortcoming as to warrant a service failure.
The landlord has provided evidence that the resident’s April 2020 email was responded to, but that the wrong email address was used in error. While the Ombudsman understands that these matters were frustrating and upsetting for the resident, the landlord’s decision not to award compensation was reasonable in these circumstances.

Complaint two

The landlord attended the property in good time to carry out inspections following on from the concerns about mould identified in October 2020. The inspections found that the issue was related to condensation, rather than damp caused by a repair issue. The landlord then carried out a number of works to help alleviate the condensation, such as servicing the vent unit and renewing the insulation. The landlord’s explanation and decision on the decant was in line with its policy.

Complaint three

All repairs were attended to within the correct timeframe, and so there was no service failure on the part of the landlord. It would have been customer focused to have consider providing temporary heaters for the resident while he was awaiting the repairs, if these were available.

Recommendations

Before referring such matters to an insurance claim, the landlord should consider whether there is any evidence that it had been at fault for any claimed damage to a resident’s property / belongings.
The landlord should consider offering temporary heaters in situations where there is a loss of heating.