The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Believe Housing Limited (202217781)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217781

Believe Housing Limited

8 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to her floor caused by a leak.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The landlord’s records note that the resident suffers from anxiety, depression and psychological distress.
  2. The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 June 2022 to report a leak that was caused by a burst pipe under her concrete floor. The landlord attended on 21, 22 and 23 June to carry out works to remedy the issue. The leak damaged the resident’s sitting room carpet and wooden flooring in the hallway. The vinyl kitchen floor was also affected. The resident asked the landlord to replace the flooring and was signposted to making a claim on its insurance.
  4. The resident submitted an insurance claim on 10 July 2022 which was declined by the landlord on 21 July. The resident submitted a further insurance claim on 17 March 2023 which was declined on 26 May. The claims were declined on the basis that the leak could not be foreseen and the landlord acted within its timescales. On 11 September the resident advised this Service that she had moved to a new property and that she no longer required our assistance.
  5. The resident made a stage 1 complaint, not seen by this investigation, to the landlord about damage caused by the leak. It acknowledged receipt on 1 August 2022. It issued its stage 1 complaint response on 12 August, as follows:
    1. It raised a job to attend the leak reported on 20 June 2022 but this was cancelled because the resident contacted it again on 21 June to say she could not locate the stop cock to turn off the water supply inside the property. It attended that day and confirmed that because the leak was under the concrete floor hot and cold pipework would need rerouting.
    2. The resident called the landlord again 22 June to say the leak continued even though the stop cock had been turned off. It attended that day to isolate the water after it discovered that a washer had become loose within the stop cock.
    3. It also raised an appointment for a diagnostic survey for 23 August to inspect the property for damp.
    4. It had complied with its policy to respond to make safe emergency repairs within 24hours.
    5. It had posted an insurance claim form to the resident on 30 June to claim for damage against her property.
  6. The resident made a further stage 1 complaint on 21 October 2022 regarding the smell of damp coming from under the floor. She said she could not afford to replace the flooring, especially because she planned to move. If she could not move, she requested her floor be restored to its earlier condition.
  7. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 9 November 2022, as follows:
    1. Its repairs policy set out that floor coverings and carpets not in communal areas were the responsibility of the resident to fit and maintain.
    2. It carried out a damp assessment on 9 November and concluded that the floors did not show signs of damp. However, it identified that some plasterwork was required and that an appointment had been made for 1 December.
    3. The insurance claim had been denied. It provided information on how the resident could pursue a move through its housing register.
  8. Following intervention from this service the resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 19 January 2023. Although she acknowledged the leak was “no one’s fault” she wanted the landlord to replace the flooring because she found it difficult to meet the cost herself, particularly as she wanted to move.
  9. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 1 February 2023 to advise that it declined to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its process because it had already assessed the insurance claim and explained the outcome. There was no new information or evidence to prove it had been negligent.  It also added that it should have advised the resident she could appeal the outcome of the insurance claim. It apologised that it did not do so and offered £50 compensation.
  10. The resident contacted this Service on 9 February 2023 regarding the amount of compensation following the landlord’s final response.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure says that floor covering and carpets (not in communal areas) are the responsibility of the tenant.
  2. The landlord’s complaints, compensation and compliments policy (complaints policy) says:
    1. Residents must request to escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the process within 10 working days of the date of the stage 1 written response.
    2. When making a request to escalate their complaint a resident must set out what part of the complaint the landlord has not investigated, what part of the response they disagree with and why, and what it can do to resolve the complaint. If they do not, it reserves the right to refuse escalation of the complaint on the basis that it will not know what more to investigate. It will explain why it will not review the complaint and confirm in writing that the complaint will be closed. The closing letter will signpost the resident to this Service.
  3. It will work closely with its business and risk assurance team where in addition to a complaint, there have been any claims for personal injury or damage to belongings.

Scope of the investigation

  1. Paragraph 40 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “a complainant may withdraw the complaint at any time, but the Ombudsman must be satisfied as to the circumstances and may make whatever enquiries they see fit, before ceasing consideration of the complaint. The Ombudsman may investigate any complaint duly made but withdrawn.”
  2. On 11 September 2023 the resident advised this Service that she had moved to another property and therefore no longer needed our assistance. This Service has considered the circumstances of the complaint and has exercised its discretion to investigate the complaint.
  3. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord, and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the landlord’s insurers. However, it has assessed whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s request was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Request for compensation

  1. Shortly after the leak occurred on 21 June 2022 the resident contacted the landlord regarding the damage caused to her flooring and requested it be replaced. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure set out that floor covering and carpets in the property were the resident’s responsibility. Its records show that it did not consider the leak had arisen through any negligence on its part. Furthermore, in her telephone call with the landlord on 19 January 2023 the resident confirmed that she considered the leak was “no one’s fault.”
  2. Given that there was a question mark over liability it was appropriate that the landlord provided the resident with an insurance claim form on 30 June 2022. The resident submitted her claim on 10 July. The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 September to advise her of the outcome, setting out its reasons.
  3. In its final complaint response of 1 February 2023 the landlord went further to try to assist the resident by offering the support of the neighbourhood’s team to identify grants and/or benefits that may help the resident pay for new flooring. It also provided an update on her housing application and invited her to make contact should she need further support.
  4. The resident made a second insurance claim on 17 March 2023, after the landlord had issued its final response on 1 February. The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 May and advised her of the outcome and the reasons for its decision.
  5. In its telephone call to the resident on 25 January 2023 the landlord confirmed that the resident should have been advised that she had the option to appeal the outcome of the insurance claim. It apologised and offered £50 compensation which was equivalent to the amount she sought through the claim. The offer was reiterated in its final complaint response of 1 February.
  6. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord:
    1. Assisted the resident to make an insurance claim and offered to give support regarding grants to help with the cost of replacing the flooring.
    2. Provided an update on her housing application and offered assistance should it be required.
    3. Advised the resident of the outcome of her insurance claim, explaining the reasons for its decision.
    4. Acknowledged its failure to provide information on the insurance claim appeals process. It appropriately restored the resident to the position she might have been in were it not for its failure.
  7. Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 12 August 2022 appropriately set out what the resident should do, in line with its complaints policy, to escalate her complaint should she remain dissatisfied.
  2. On 21 October 2022 the resident made a further complaint, this time about the smell of damp from the floor. An internal file note dated 27 October shows that the landlord considered how best to respond. It noted that the resident did not exercise her right to escalate her initial complaint of 12 August within 10 days of its response. It concluded it could not escalate the complaint to stage 2 at that time because the resident had not provided information to enable it to do so. This was in line with its complaints policy and its decision was therefore reasonable.
  3. However, the landlord failed to communicate its decision making process to the resident in either its acknowledgement of 27 October 2022 or its stage 1 complaint response of 9 November. This was inappropriate because when the resident contacted this Service on 6 January 2023 she believed she had already escalated her complaint to stage 2. It therefore failed to manage her expectations appropriately, which caused confusion.
  4. Following 3 telephone calls to the resident during January 2023 the landlord issued its final complaint response on 1 February. It declined to escalate the complaint to stage 2 and set out its reasons. It signposted the resident to this Service should she remain dissatisfied. Its response was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy.
  5. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident about its decision to open a second stage 1 complaint rather than escalate to stage 2. This caused distress to the resident which was inappropriate. This amounts to service failure and the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge this or put it right.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. Under paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its response to the resident’s request for compensation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £100 for the distress caused by its complaint handling failure.
    2. Write to the resident to apologise for the complaint handling failure.

Recommendation

  1. Re offer it’s offer of £50 compensation if this has not already been paid.