Bromsgrove District Housing Trust Limited (202010431)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010431

Bromsgrove District Housing Trust Limited

20 April 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. the landlord’s collection of rent relating to the property in March 2021;
   2. the amount of compensation offered in relation to a flooding incident in August 2020;
   3. the amount of compensation offered in relation to a second flooding incident in October 2020.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

4. The resident has advised this service on 17 March 2021 that the landlord collected rent for the property after the date on which the resident had left the property, which he has reported to the landlord. It is not evident, however, that a formal complaint regarding this issue has been made to the landlord, nor has the complaint been progressed through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
5. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint regarding the collection of rent in March 2021 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. If the resident makes a formal complaint, progresses it through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and is dissatisfied with the outcome, he will not be prevented from then bringing the complaint to this service.

Background and summary of events

Background

6. At the time of the complaint, the resident was an assured tenant at the property of the landlord and had been since 11 December 2019. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a one-bedroom semi-detached bungalow.
7. The tenancy agreement entitles the resident to the use of the property. It also notes the landlord is responsible for maintaining, amongst others, the floors, walls, and drains.
8. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy.
9. The landlord operates a repairs policy. The policy notes that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the drains and access to pathways. The policy also notes that in the event a repair means the resident cannot remain at the property, the landlord will offer alternative accommodation and pay for removals/reasonable costs. Additionally, urgent repairs must be attended to within 24 hours.
10. The landlord operates a compensation policy. The policy notes that where the landlord decants a resident due to a flood, this will either be to a hotel or an alternative property of the landlord. In such instances, the resident will not be liable for the hotel costs but will remain liable for the rent on their property. The landlord will also pay a food allowance of £20 per person per day. A resident may also claim compensation for disturbance and loss of the use of their property. The compensation will be calculated as the daily rent multiplied by the number of days decanted. Additionally, the disturbance compensation is calculated as 20% of daily rent for each bedroom lost, 10% of daily rent for loss of garden, and 20% daily rent if decanted from a house to a flat. Additionally, if the alternative accommodation is 3 miles or more from the original accommodation, the landlord will pay travel costs of £20 per person per week.

Summary of events

11. It is not disputed that following torrential rain at the site on which the property is situated, there was a flooding incident on 17 August 2020. The flood water entered the property and the resident was subsequently decanted into a hotel on the same date. Based on the landlord’s correspondence with this service, it arranged for a surveyor to attend the site on 18 August 2020, and remedial works were carried out between that date and 13 September 2020. It is also not disputed that the resident returned to his property on 14 September 2020.
12. It is evident that during the period of the decant, the resident’s possessions were placed in storage by the landlord. Following the return of the possessions, the resident reported to the landlord that two lamps were missing. The landlord carried out an investigation with the removal team as to what had happened to the lamps but could not determine their whereabouts. As a result, on 22 September 2020, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the missing lamps, which the resident subsequently accepted.
13. On 29 September 2020, the landlord queried with the resident if his issue had been resolved. The resident confirmed there were no further outstanding issues, but that he was dissatisfied with the situation and requested that the landlord make a “gesture of goodwill.” The landlord noted it had already paid £100, however the resident advised that the decant had caused him “extreme emotional stress and put pressure on our general health.” He subsequently advised that “the gesture of goodwill … would be a months’ rent reduction.” The landlord advised that in order to consider the request, it would log the issue as a formal complaint.
14. Based on the landlord’s notes, a second flooding incident occurred on 25 October 2020, however, while the flood water entered the front of the property, the extent had been minimised by sandbags outside the property and it did not require the resident to be decanted. The landlord’s notes also state it attended the site on 26 October 2020 along with the local authority to investigate the cause of the flood and determined it had been caused by excess water entering the site due to a blocked drain in the adjoining road. It subsequently communicated to the resident that its investigation was still ongoing. The resident subsequently advised that his desired outcome was to be relocated to an alternative property.
15. On 29 October 2020, the resident reiterated his request that the landlord make an offer of compensation. Based on the landlord’s notes, following an internal meeting on 3 November 2020 it agreed to provide the resident with alternative accommodation and offer £1,500 in compensation as a gesture of goodwill. It subsequently arranged a face-to-face meeting with the resident on 4 November 2020 to attempt to informally resolve the complaint, which it followed up with a written communication on 6 November 2020. It explained that the drainage at the site had been adequate, but that excess water from the adjacent road had overwhelmed the drainage system. It also advised it had appointed consultants to determine how onsite drainage can be improved and was liaising with highway authorities to prevent the issue from reoccurring. It confirmed it would offer the resident alternative accommodation and pay for all removal costs. It advised that usually it would not be able to rehouse residents if their rent account was in arrears, but that it would do so on this occasion if the resident reduced his arrears to below £500. It also offered £1,500 compensation as a goodwill gesture.
16. The resident subsequently advised he was dissatisfied with how the landlord had handled the situation and that he felt unsupported. He again advised that the stress had affected his health, and that he had felt unsupported when at the hotel during the decant period. He expressed further dissatisfaction that the flooding issue had also reoccurred and expressed concern that the site had not been correctly designed to cope with flooding. As a result, he requested £10,000 in compensation. The landlord advised it would need to discuss the request with its Chief Executive Officer prior to being able to respond. It also requested that the resident provide further information about how he reached this amount.
17. The landlord provided its stage one response on 23 November 2020. Regarding the flooding, the landlord reiterated it had not been at fault and that the site has adequate drainage for surface water on site, but the flood was caused by excess water as a result of blocked drains in the adjoining road. Regarding the second flooding incident, the landlord accepted there had been service failure, as while it had mitigated the impact of the flood by installing sandbags in the area, it did “not provide an interim measure quickly enough to provide a barrier against potential further flooding.”
18. Additionally, while it acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction at the service he had received during the decant, it found no service failure as it had provided the resident with emergency accommodation in line with its obligations. It noted that it had decanted to the resident’s chosen hotel, and while the restaurant at the hotel had been closed due to COVID, which had caused additional stress to the resident, it had reimbursed him for his meals, and subsequently moved him to a different hotel with an active restaurant.
19. The landlord further confirmed that it had agreed to his request to be moved to alternative accommodation and that it would pay for the cost of moving. It also reiterated its offer of £1,500 compensation as a goodwill gesture. Regarding the resident’s request for £10,000, it noted it had not received any further information from the resident to justify this amount. The resident subsequently requested that his complaint be escalated.
20. The landlord provided its stage two response on 9 December 2020. It advised that “as far as possible, [it] has exercised a duty of care by providing and paying for alternative accommodation during this time,” and that it had “responded swiftly, effectively, and with genuine concern for your welfare.” It reiterated that it would be commencing improvement works shortly, and that the relevant external agencies were also carrying out works. It reiterated that, while it had not acted in time to fully prevent the impact of the second flood, it did not consider itself responsible for the floods, and that its offer of £1,500 had been a reasonable gesture of goodwill. As a further gesture of goodwill, however, it increased its offer of compensation to £2,500 and also offered to refund the rent paid during the decant period (being £416.60). Regarding the resident’s request for £10,000, the landlord advised that as a registered charitable organisation, it had “a responsibility to ensure monies are spent appropriately and with basis. I am sorry but your request for £10,000 does not meet this standard and I am unable to meet your expectations on this point.”
21. The resident has advised this service that he has accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation and that he has subsequently moved into the alternative accommodation.

Assessment and findings

22. It is evident that due to the flood, the resident was unable to use the property, and that as per the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy, it had a responsibility to carry out repairs as a result of the flood. It is not disputed that following the initial flood, the landlord appropriately commenced repairs to the property and surrounding area within 24 hours, in line with its repairs policy. Whilst the repair works took 28 days to be completed, this service has not been presented with any evidence to suggest that the landlord unduly delayed with its repair works.
23. The landlord’s repairs policy, along with its compensation policy, also requires that in instances such as this, it decant the resident to an alternative accommodation, which can include a hotel. It was therefore reasonable that given the immediacy of the need to decant, it rehoused the resident in a hotel and it was appropriate that it liaised with the resident to choose the most suitable hotel.
24. While the Ombudsman understands that this must have been incredibly stressful for the resident, and that the lack of a functioning restaurant would have added to that stress, given the COVID restrictions in place at the time this was outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord’s agreement to reimburse the resident for meals, along with the subsequent change of hotels to one with a functioning restaurant was also appropriate in the circumstances and in line with its obligations as set out in its repair policy. While the Ombudsman would consider it best practice to remain in contact and provide updates wherever possible during this period, and the resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the level of contact, it is not evident that the level of communication over this period constituted a service failure.
25. It was also appropriate and in line with its obligations as set out in its repair policy that the landlord arranged and paid for the storage of the resident’s possessions during the decant period. Following the resident’s reports that the landlord had misplaced two lamps, the landlord appropriately investigated the issue and made a reasonable offer of compensation to replace them.
26. The landlord’s compensation policy notes that when a resident is decanted, it can offer the resident compensation calculated according to the formula set out in the policy. Whilst some elements of the compensation are dependent on whether the cause of the decant was due to the fault of the landlord, the main calculation is based simply on there being a decant for any reason. It is not evident that following the decant, the landlord raised the possibility of compensation (aside than for the missing lamps). When the resident raised the possibility of further compensation, the landlord initially contested that it had already made a satisfactory offer of compensation (i.e., the compensation relating to the missing lamps). Based on the Ombudsman’s calculation using the formula in the landlord’s compensation policy, the £100 offered by the landlord was considerably less than the compensation under the policy. Furthermore this offer was specifically in respect of missing belongings, rather than compensation in relation to the decant. It would have therefore been helpful for the resident had the landlord signposted the resident to the policy to help them understand their options, which it did not do in this instance.
27. Following the resident’s further requests for additional compensation, it was appropriate that the landlord raised the request as a formal complaint in order for it to be investigated formally. The landlord also kept the resident updated that its response was delayed due to its ongoing investigation and internal discussions.
28. Following its investigations and discussions, given the distress caused to the resident, it was appropriate that the landlord arranged a face-to-face meeting with the resident to initially discuss his concerns and its offer of compensation. The amount offered at this time exceeded the amount based on its compensation policy. Given that the resident had expressed a desire to be relocated, it was also appropriate that the landlord agreed to this (something it was not required to do under its repairs or compensation policies) and kept him updated during its search.
29. Whilst it is not disputed that the landlord undertook repair works following the initial flood incident and subsequently put in place some protective measures such as sandbags, as well as instructing a surveyor to identify improvements to the site, given that a second flooding incident occurred, it is evident that the immediate preventative measures put in place were not sufficient. It was appropriate therefore that the landlord accepted service failure for this in its stage one response.
30. The resident has expressed his concern to this service that the site was not designed with adequate drainage and therefore the landlord was responsible for the floods. The Ombudsman does not, however, have the surveying expertise to analyse the efficacy of the flood plans for the site. Additionally, it is not evident what entity was responsible for the site and the planning and development stage. The Ombudsman’s investigation is limited to the response of the landlord to the resident’s reports of flooding. Based on the evidence provided to this service, the landlord satisfied itself that the site drainage was adequate for the service water from the site, and it also appropriately liaised with surveyors and the local authority to determine that the cause of the flood was excess water from the adjacent road flooding. The landlord appropriately set out the steps and outcome of its investigation in its stage one response, and it was reasonable that the landlord subsequently found that it had not been responsible for the cause of the flood.
31. Following the resident’s request for £10,000 compensation, the landlord appropriately requested that he provide a breakdown of how he had reached this amount. It is not evident that the resident subsequently provided any additional information. Given that this figure is greatly in excess of the compensation calculated under the landlord’s compensation policy, it was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not offer this amount on the basis it had not received any further information to justify it. It appropriately explained this reasoning in its stage one response.
32. Given the significant distress caused to the resident throughout the flooding incidents, following the resident’s request for an escalation of his complaint, it was appropriate that the landlord offered additional goodwill compensation, in addition to a refund of the rent paid by the resident during the decant period (which it was not required to do under its compensation policy). It was also reasonable that it explained its obligations as a registered charity to use its funds appropriately and as such, the amount of compensation requested by the resident could not be justified.
33. The offer of compensation is described as being a ‘goodwill payment’ and as such it is not evident what amount relates to the decant, or the second flood. Taking into account all of the circumstances, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the total compensation amount is reasonable to compensate the resident for both issues. Whilst the resident had requested a significantly higher amount, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s offer was appropriate and proportionate to the circumstances of this case.

Determination (decision)

34. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding compensation for the flooding incident in August 2020.
35. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the flooding incident in October 2020.

Reasons

August 2020 flood

36. The landlord appropriately decanted the resident and began repair works in accordance with its responsibilities. While the resident was dissatisfied with his experience at the hotel, it was beyond the landlord’s control that the restaurant was closed due to COVID restrictions. The landlord also appropriately investigated the cause of the flood and articulated its findings to the resident, and it was reasonable that it found it was not at fault. While it failed to initially address the issue of compensation, this was not to the extent that it caused a service failure and it subsequently made appropriate offers of compensation following further discussions with the resident.

October 2020 flood

37. It is evident that while the landlord made some attempts to mitigate the effects of any further immediate flooding incidents, these were not sufficient, and it was therefore appropriate that the landlord admitted service failure in its stage one response and made a reasonable offer of compensation. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this was a reasonable offer of compensation in the circumstances of this case.