Catalyst Housing Limited (202005511)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005511

Catalyst Housing Limited

23 December 2020

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 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 to be reimbursed for personal possessions which were damaged following a burst pipe at the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a fixed-term assured shorthold tenant of a housing association. The tenancy commenced in 2019.
  2. Section 2(6) of the Tenancy Agreement states: “We will insure the structure of the Premises against loss or damage by fire and other risks, which we think should be covered. Your personal belongings and furniture will not be covered by our insurance policy and you must obtain your own contents insurance.”
  3. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. At its second stage it states an appeal may not be considered if relating to policy or procedure, or if the reason is a request for compensation where this has already been offered in line with the Compensation Policy.
  4. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states it can consider compensation where urgent repairs are not attended within timeframe or where residents are required to leave their home temporarily. It does not consider compensation where the matter was beyond its control, or it is to compensate customers for items and circumstances that should be covered by their own home contents insurance.

Summary of events

  1. In Summer 2020 the resident’s property was affected by a burst pipe, which it is not disputed was fixed the same day. The landlord has noted the burst pipe was not the fault of either party and was responded to immediately. In June 2020, the resident was decanted with other affected residents while works were carried out, then returned to her home in August 2020. The landlord reimbursed costs incurred for parking, mobile data and electricity bills.
  2. In July 2020, the resident submitted a list of expenses for the replacement of clothing, furnishings and furniture totalling £1,106.99. The landlord reviewed this internally, then informed the resident the claim for damaged belongings as a result of water damage needed to be processed via personal contents insurance.
  3. The resident asserts that the landlord was liable for her damaged possessions, it has a responsibility to compensate all residents, and it continuously informed her and affected neighbours that they would be reimbursed for any valuables damaged due to the burst pipe.
  4. In the landlord’s final complaint response of 21 August 2020, it advised the resident it was unable to reimburse her for damaged goods. It explained it is responsible for insuring the building against damages, and it is residents’ responsibility to insure their personal belongings through home contents insurance. It explained it had offered assistance and sought advice concerning damaged personal belongings but had never stated it would reimburse these. It invited the resident to provide anything stating otherwise.
  5. The landlord has offered a one-off payment of £200 towards the damages and in recognition that decanting the resident during lockdown was far from ideal.
  6. The resident responded stating that at no point did the landlord say she would have to claim from her own insurance, and she would have said from the start that she had no insurance.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause and liability for the burst pipe, but it can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
  2. In accordance with the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for repairs in relation to pipes supplying water and heating. In this case, it is not disputed the landlord remedied the burst pipe on the same day it happened. This demonstrates it met its repairs obligations in a swift manner.
  3. The landlord reviewed information from the resident when she raised possessions damage, then referred to the requirement to have contents insurance. This was in accordance with Section 2(6) of the Tenancy Agreement stating tenants “must obtain your own contents insurance,” that the resident accepted on signing the tenancy.
  4. The landlord maintained this position when responding to the complaint and explained it had never stated it would provide reimbursement. This is in accordance with the Compensation Policy, which states the landlord does not compensate for items and circumstances that should be covered by home contents insurance. The response to the resident’s contention that she would be reimbursed for possessions damage was also reasonable, as this Service has seen no evidence showing she was misled, and a reasonable opportunity was provided to supply further information to support her assertion.
  5. By offering £200 in relation to the damages and decant, the landlord has been empathetic and has exercised appropriate discretion in line with the Compensation Policy, which allows for some compensation where residents have been required to leave their home temporarily.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for personal possessions which were damaged following a burst pipe at the property.

Reasons

  1. It is not disputed that the landlord remedied the burst pipe on the same day it happened, and after the resident advised of her damaged possessions, the landlord acted reasonably and in line with policies when responding to her complaint and request to be reimbursed for personal possessions.
  2. There is no evidence to support the resident’s contention that the landlord led her to believe she would be reimbursed for personal possessions.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to re-offer the resident the £200 it offered towards the decant and damages, if it has not already paid this.