Citizen Housing (202232565)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232565

Citizen Housing

1 May 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of a flood at the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the decant accommodation offered.
3. The associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat in a low-rise block. The resident experiences mental health concerns and the household includes the resident’s daughter who is her carer, and her grandchild who has a diagnosis of autism.
The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint on 2 December 2022. The resident said that the property had flooded in September 2022, following a flash flood, and the landlord had not assisted her fairly or sympathetically. The landlord temporarily decanted (moved) her from the property, but she said that she was not informed of her new destination until late in the evening on most days. She said that she returned to the property but there were outstanding repairs required which the landlord had not yet arranged. She asked it to complete the repairs and requested compensation because of this.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 2 March 2023. It apologised for the delay in providing a response. It said:
1. The flood occurred on 7 September 2022. It attended the property on the same day and the resident advised she had somewhere to stay that evening, so the landlord did not arrange a temporary decant.
2. A surveyor inspected the property on 21 September 2022 after the property had time to dry out. The resident returned to the property the following day.
3. A surveyor inspected the property again on 7 February 2023 and 27 February 2023 to assess the repairs required but was unable to access the bedrooms because the resident’s belongings covered the area.
4. The landlord’s accommodation specialists arranged the temporary decant. The landlord was unaware that the resident had occupants living with her and so it originally arranged accommodation for 1 person. It apologised for this error but explained that it had offered accommodation based on the household records.
5. Residents are responsible for purchasing their own contents insurance policy and it advised her to consider this for the future.
6. It offered £160 compensation which included £60 for dehumidifier running costs and £100 for the impact that the decant period would have had on the resident.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 2 March 2023. She felt that the complaint was not resolved, and she wanted a response to the outstanding repairs required to her property. The landlord contacted her on 3 March 2023 to understand the reasons for escalating the complaint. She said that she was not paid any costs for expenses during the decant period and that her housing officer was not helpful. She said that the front door was in a poor condition and may have contributed to the flood damage. She added that the rent team continuously contacted her about rent arrears but that she did not have money to pay the rent because of paying for electricity costs to run the dehumidifier.
On 31 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. It was unable to complete the outstanding repairs to the bedrooms because the resident needed to clear her belongings to allow access and it asked her again to do this.
2. It would raise works to remove and replace the hallway flooring and skirting board, and to replace the lounge skirting board. It said it was not responsible for replacing the lounge flooring.
3. It would inspect the front door following the resident’s concerns.
4. It apologised that the resident felt she had not received the support expected from her housing officer and said it had passed the comments to a senior manager.
5. The rent team would continue to support her with paying her rent and it reiterated that it had offered £60 compensation towards the dehumidifier running costs.
6. It had already paid £260 in October 2022 for any expenses incurred during the decant period. Its further offer of £160 compensation awarded at stage 1 remained appropriate.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and said that there were outstanding repairs. The complaint became one that the Ombudsman could investigate on 4 January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the flood to the property affected her health. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme. This Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
It is evident that the resident is currently experiencing issues regarding a second flood which occurred after the landlord’s final complaint response. The Ombudsman cannot investigate matters that did not go through the landlord’s internal complaint process. The resident may wish to log a new complaint for the landlord to investigate these concerns and have the opportunity to put things right. She may then bring that complaint to the Ombudsman as a new case were she to be unhappy with the landlord’s final response. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme. This investigation will focus on the events that occurred following the September 2022 flood which were addressed in the landlord’s final complaint response on 31 March 2023.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a flood at the property

On 7 September 2022, the resident reported that her property had flooded with rainwater. The landlord responded appropriately on the same day, in line with its response time for an emergency repair (for which it is obliged to attend within 24 hours to make the property safe). A plumber assessed the cause of the flood, which was believed to be an overwhelmed drain following a flash flood. An electrician ensured the property was safe. It arranged to deliver 2 dehumidifiers and an appliance to vacuum the flood water to help dry the property.
On 8 September 2022, the resident asked how the landlord would respond to the leak and what repairs it would undertake. It contacted her on the following day to explain that a surveyor would attend the property on 13 September 2022 to assess the damage. It advised her to remove any water-damaged flooring and to raise her bed and sofa on bricks to prevent any further damage to her belongings.
During a conversation with her housing officer on 13 September 2022, the resident told the landlord that she was unable to remove the flooring herself. It told her that the housing team could not respond to her concern and the resident agreed to contact the surveyor directly. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have referred her concerns to the surveyor or the repairs team itself rather than putting the onus on the resident. The landlord’s departments should not work in silo but instead share information between teams to provide a better service to its residents.
On 13 September 2022, the surveyor inspected the property. They found that the outside drains were working properly and that the resident had not removed the flooring as requested on 9 September 2022. On 14 September 2022, the landlord again asked the resident to remove the flooring. During this conversation, the resident said that her, her carer, and her grandchild had disabilities and she was unable to remove the flooring. The landlord said that she needed to remove the flooring by the following week, or it would end the temporary decant accommodation. The resident’s MP later contacted the landlord on 15 September 2022 and said that the resident had disclosed that she was unable to remove the flooring herself because of the physical strength and tools required.
The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it considered the resident’s comments about being unable to remove the flooring herself and the impact this may have caused to her health. It was aware of the resident’s health needs but it did not offer any reasonable adjustments to help the resident to remove the flooring. It instead applied pressure to the resident to remove the flooring herself and added further distress to her at a challenging time by threatening to end the decant accommodation. This was despite knowing the property was not fit for habitation as it had provided the temporary decant accommodation because of the flood damage. This was not appropriate.
The landlord mentions reasonable adjustments within its equality, diversity, and inclusion policy but this only refers to adapting communication methods and not for the services it provides. The landlord should have a separate reasonable adjustments policy in place which should apply across its services. As the landlord was unable to provide this, it would suggest that either it does not have a reasonable adjustments policy, or that there was a lack of training and understanding within the organisation regarding that policy.
On 21 September 2022, a surveyor inspected the property and found that the resident had removed the flooring. The landlord confirmed that the property was fit for habitation and the resident could return to the property on the following day.
The landlord has not provided any evidence that it raised any repair jobs prior to the resident returning to the property. This was not appropriate as it resulted in the resident reporting outstanding repairs upon her return to the property. If the landlord had inspected the property and raised works for any outstanding repairs before the resident returned, this would have reassured the resident that it was committed to putting things right for her. Instead, its inaction understandably caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
It has been difficult for the Ombudsman to assess the landlord’s handling of the outstanding repairs due to its poor record keeping. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 September 2022 and said that her front door was in a poor condition and there were holes in the walls in the hallway and lounge. It is unclear what action the landlord took at this stage.
The landlord’s repair logs show that it inspected the door on 5 October 2022 and that the door was not waterproof. There were no further works raised regarding the front door until the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 (several months later) and said that she thought that the poor condition of her front door caused the flood damage. The landlord then arranged for an inspection of the front door as part of its complaint commitment. It is unclear whether the inspection later took place.
The resident said in her complaint that she had previously reported the poor condition of the door. The landlord’s repair logs show that the resident reported an issue with rainwater coming through the front door on 22 April 2021. The logs show that the landlord completed the repair request on 7 May 2021, but it is unclear what repairs were completed, if any.
Similarly, the landlord’s repair logs state that it contacted the resident on 11 October 2022 about her reports of holes in the walls. Its notes state that it put the works on hold as the resident requested for all repairs to be completed at the same time. The landlord’s repair log marked the repair as complete but it is unclear whether the work was ever completed.
On 26 September 2022, the resident also reported that her flooring was damaged. The landlord inspected the flooring on 5 October 2022 and returned to measure the hallway on 13 October 2022. It asked her on 21 October 2022 to clear the hallway of her belongings in preparation for any works. It also arranged an asbestos survey for 26 October 2022. The survey confirmed that asbestos was present.
The landlord has a ‘duty to manage’ asbestos, as specified by regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. It requires the landlord to take reasonable steps to identify, maintain records of, protect residents to exposure from, and execute a management plan for asbestos. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) warns ‘don’t remove asbestos unnecessarily – removing it can be more dangerous than leaving it in place and managing it’. It only recommends the removal of the asbestos if it is extensively damaged, and it is impossible to encapsulate it.
The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 state that ‘if existing asbestos containing materials (ACMs) are in good condition and are not likely to be damaged, they may be left in place; their condition monitored and managed to ensure they are not disturbed.’ Therefore, so long as there is no damage, the landlord acted appropriately by allowing the ACM to remain in place and monitor them.
The asbestos report recommended that one section of the hallway tiles should be removed, and a second area should be monitored and managed. The landlord contacted the resident on 16 November 2022 and said that it needed to remove the loose tiles in the lounge and seal the floor in the hallway. It asked the resident to confirm when she could remove her belongings from these areas so that it could complete the works.
It is unclear why there was a delay between when the landlord received the asbestos report on 26 October 2022 and when it contacted the resident to discuss the next steps on 16 November 2022. If it had responded sooner, it may have reassured the resident of its intention to resolve the concerns with the tiling. The delay would have understandably caused frustration to the resident.
Within the resident’s complaint escalation to the landlord, she said that the asbestos tiles had cracked, and she was concerned about the risk to her health. The landlord is ordered to inspect the property to re-assess the condition of the tiles and to arrange a further asbestos survey if required.
Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint, the landlord arranged for its surveyor to assess the outstanding repairs required to the property. It contacted the resident on 15 December 2022 and said that it would arrange the inspection. It was good practice to keep the resident updated. It later inspected the property on 7 February 2023. This further delay added to the overall time that the resident was waiting for the landlord to complete the repairs to the flooring. The landlord has not provided any evidence to explain why the delay occurred.
The surveyor identified a list of outstanding repairs that were required which included replacing the flooring in the hallway, replacing 4 loose tiles in the lounge, and replacing the skirting boards in both rooms. It raised the works on 17 February 2023 which again meant there was a further delay in repairing the flooring. This was not appropriate.
The skirting board in the lounge was replaced on 16 March 2023, which was 19 working days after the works were raised on 17 February 2023. While the resident was unhappy that the landlord would not replace the lounge flooring, the landlord had appropriately assessed the flooring and found it was the resident’s responsibility to replace it.
The surveyor’s inspection noted that it needed to remove the hallway flooring before it could then replace the skirting board in the hallway. The resident said that she was unhappy that she had to remove her belongings in the hallway before it could do the repairs. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to clear the area of personal items. This was in line with its repairs and maintenance policy, where it states that clearing personal items in preparation for works is the resident’s responsibility.
At the inspection on 7 February 2023, the surveyor agreed to return to inspect the flooring in both bedrooms as they could not access the rooms during the inspection. The landlord then contacted the resident on 3 occasions to ask her whether she had cleared the bedrooms so it could inspect them. It attempted to inspect the bedrooms on 27 February 2023 but was unable to access the property. At the time of the landlord’s final complaint response, it had still been unable to inspect the bedrooms. The landlord has evidenced its attempts to arrange the inspection of the bedrooms before it could arrange to complete any required works. This is not considered as a failing of the landlord.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it advised her to allow access to inspect the bedrooms. It said it would ask its contractor to contact her to arrange an appointment to remove the hallway flooring for repairs to take place. It offered £160 compensation with £100 of this in recognition of the impact of the flood and the decant period. It also awarded £60 in response to the resident’s energy costs for the dehumidifiers. The landlord’s compensation framework awards £5 per day for dehumidifier running costs. There were 2 dehumidifiers running for 12 days, but the landlord calculated the award based on the costs of only 1 dehumidifier. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay a further £60 for the running costs of the second dehumidifier.
The resident said in her complaint to the landlord that she was unhappy that she was being contacted by the income team to pay arrears on her rent account. She said that she was unable to pay her rent because of paying for the increased energy costs caused by running the 2 dehumidifiers. The landlord explained that it had offered compensation towards this amount, although as identified in this investigation, it had only paid the costs of 1 dehumidifier. It said that its income team would continue to offer support to her in managing her rent account. This was an appropriate response.
The resident remained unhappy that the landlord would not pay compensation towards her damaged belongings caused by the flooding. The landlord advised within its complaint responses that it was not responsible for paying for any damages as it would expect the resident to make a claim through her home contents insurance.
While this advice was correct, it would have been appropriate for it to have established whether she had such insurance and, if not, it should have signposted her to make a claim to its insurance team. This Service cannot assume the outcome of such an insurance claim, but it would have been appropriate for it to do this given the resident had alleged that damage was caused by the landlord’s negligence. This action would have helped reassure the resident that it was listening to her concerns. The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with details of how to make a liability claim to its insurance team.
Considering the failings identified within this investigation, the landlord is ordered to pay a further £350 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays, its failure to consider a reasonable adjustment based on the resident’s vulnerabilities and for its poor record keeping.

The landlord’s handling of the decant accommodation offered

The resident reported the flooding to the property on 7 September 2022 and she said that she needed somewhere to stay. Operatives attended on the same day and the landlord’s repair logs state that the resident then said she had somewhere to stay that evening. It therefore did not arrange any temporary decant accommodation that day. While the resident disputes this, it was reasonable for the landlord to have not considered an emergency decant based on this evidence.
On 8 September 2022, the resident requested temporary decant accommodation. The landlord referred the request to its insurers who provided decant accommodation. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s decant procedure. A hotel booking was made for 1 person because the landlord did not have any records of occupants living with her. She contacted the landlord on the following day and advised that she could not stay at the hotel as there was nowhere for her carer and grandchild to stay.
While the resident was unhappy that she was initially not provided with accommodation for the whole household, the landlord explained that it did not have any records of the occupants. The landlord acted appropriately by requesting the occupants’ details and it updated its insurers to provide a family room for the household.
The resident later provided identification for the occupants on 13 September 2022. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have updated its occupancy records at this time, but it is evident that it did not do this because it later asked her to add the household members in its stage 1 complaint response on 2 March 2023. This would have understandably added further distress to the resident as she had already provided the requested evidence to the landlord.
Nevertheless, the landlord liaised with its insurers to ensure that the decant accommodation offered was accessible for the family by being either ground floor or having a lift. It also tried to ensure that its insurers sourced hotels in an area close to the grandchild’s school. When it could not find any nearby decant accommodation, it considered the provision of paying for taxis which was a reasonable approach.
The resident told the landlord that her mental health deteriorated because of the decant process and she said that she did not have any money to buy food. The landlord acted appropriately by making a referral to children’s social care to ensure that the family had the correct level of support.
The resident was unhappy with the level of support offered by the housing officer. She said that the housing officer often ended phone calls with her. The landlord’s communication logs showed that on occasions where it needed to gather information to respond to the resident’s queries, it outlined it would end the phone calls but would later call her back. This Service has not seen any evidence to suggest that calls were ended inappropriately. Nevertheless, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by passing her comments to a senior manager to investigate and it apologised for her dissatisfaction.
In the landlord’s decant procedure, it states that it will pay discretionary costs during the decant period. The resident stayed in hotels with breakfast provided for 14 nights between 8 September 2022 and 21 September 2022. The decant procedure states that it will pay up to £30 per day for a family with 1 or more children when breakfast is provided. On 13 October 2022, the landlord paid the resident £260 for daily allowance costs during the decant period. It has not explained how this amount was calculated, in line with the decant procedure. It is unclear whether its calculation was explained to the resident which is a failing. The landlord is recommended to provide an explanation of how it calculated the daily allowance costs.
The decant procedure states it will pay the daily allowance costs weekly during the decant period. The landlord has confirmed that it paid the costs after the decant period had ended, which is not in line with its procedure. The resident told the landlord during the decant period that she had no money to pay for food and yet it did not arrange to pay the costs to her at the time. This is a failing.
The landlord is ordered to pay a further £150 compensation in consideration of its failure to appropriately follow the decant procedure and for the distress and inconvenience this would have understandably caused the resident.

The associated complaint handling

The resident contacted her MP and complained about her landlord. The MP forwarded her email to the landlord and requested that it provide a response to the complaint. It is unclear from the landlord’s record keeping as to when it received the complaint as there are different dates referred to within its evidence provided to the Ombudsman. It logged the complaint on 2 December 2022 and sent a complaint acknowledgement to the MP on the same day. Due to the poor record keeping, this Service is unable to assess whether it logged and acknowledged the complaint appropriately in line with its timescales set out in its complaints policy.
In line with its complaints policy, it must provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of logging the complaint, which would have been 16 December 2022. The policy states it can extend this timescale if needed but that it would provide a clear timescale of when it expects to provide the full response.
The landlord contacted the resident on 15 December 2022 and agreed to delay its complaint response to allow for a surveyor to inspect the property. It did not offer a date of when it expected to provide the response – this was not in line with its policy. Nevertheless, the landlord contacted the resident on 3 occasions between 25 January 2023 and 28 February 2023 about her complaint. It regularly communicated with her about the complaint which was good practice as this would have provided reassurance that it was considering her complaint.
However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have not delayed the complaint response while awaiting the surveyor’s inspection of the property. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time of the complaint stated that a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to a complaint is known. It therefore should not have delayed its response while waiting for the list of outstanding repairs as it should have instead outlined its intention to inspect the property and commit to any repairs that may be later identified. In mitigation, the landlord did explain this preferred approach to the resident in its final complaint response and the resident did express concern at her complaint being closed prematurely.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 2 March 2023, which was 61 working days after it logged the complaint. It explained that it put the complaint on hold while awaiting repairs. Despite the regular communication from the landlord about the complaint process, the delay in providing its response would likely have added distress and inconvenience to the resident. In addition, the landlord’s poor handling of the substantive issues impacted on its handling of the complaint itself.
The landlord did not offer any compensation towards its complaint handling failures within its complaint responses. It offered the above mentioned £160 towards the handling of the substantive issues. It attached compensation payment acceptance forms with each of its complaint responses. The forms had a box for the resident to sign to accept the compensation offered. However, in signing to accept the compensation, it stated that the resident also agreed that she was satisfied with the outcome of the case, and it would close the case and it would not be re-opened.
It was inappropriate for the landlord to refer to the offer in this way as it would have understandably caused confusion her about whether she could accept the offer while progressing the complaint. The landlord is recommended to review its wording of the form and consider removing this statement to show that the complaint can be escalated while also accepting the compensation offered.
Considering the landlord’s complaint handling, it is ordered to pay £50 compensation for the failures identified within this investigation. This is an appropriate award in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there were failures which adversely affected the resident but where there was no permanent impact.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a flood at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the decant accommodation offered.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the associated complaint handling.

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified within this report regarding its handling of the reports of a flood at the property, its handling of the decant accommodation offered and its associated complaint handling.
2. Pay £770 compensation to the resident. This should be paid directly to the resident and not to the rent account. This is made up of:
  1. The £160 it offered within its complaint responses, if it has not already paid this.
  2. An additional £60 for the dehumidifier running costs.
  3. An additional £350 for the failures identified in its handling of reports of a flood at the property.
  4. An additional £150 for the failures identified in its handling of the decant accommodation offered.
  5. An additional £50 for the associated complaint handling.
3. Inspect the condition of the cracked tiles that the resident has reported. It should provide the outcome of the inspection to the resident and this Service. If required, it should then arrange a further asbestos survey.
4. Provide the resident with details of how to make a liability insurance claim to its insurance team.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should draft a reasonable adjustments policy, if it does not already have such a policy in place. It should draft the policy and provide a copy of the draft policy to this Service within this timescale. Once the policy is approved, it should share this with the Ombudsman and publish it on its website. It should also ensure that any relevant training is arranged for its staff. If it already has this policy in place, it should share the policy with this Service, publish it on its website and provide updated training to its staff.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider providing the resident with an explanation of how it calculated the £260 daily allowance costs for the duration of the decant period.
The landlord should consider reviewing the wording of its compensation payment acceptance form and consider removing, or amending, the statement referred to in paragraphs 53-54 to show that the resident can escalate a complaint while also accepting the compensation offered.