Clarion Housing Association Limited (202107827)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107827

Clarion Housing Association Limited

16 December 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 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant, return to his property, and request to be reimbursed for his lost items and costs from being decanted as a result of a leak.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a three-bedroom flat in a block of similar properties. Although the landlord did not report any vulnerabilities when asked by this Service, the resident advises that the vulnerabilities in his household include his wife’s insulin-dependent diabetes.
On 3 February 2021, a major leak was reported to the landlord from the main roof of the resident’s block of flats. No time was given for this other than the resident mentioning that the landlord was informed of the leak at midday.
At around 5.30pm on 3 February 2021, according to the landlord’s records, the power company advised the landlord that the power to the resident’s block would need to be switched off, as the water was affecting the main incoming electrical supply there.
The landlord’s records also showed that 12 properties were affected by the leak. These included the resident’s property and it noted that, as a tenant of the landlord, it was obliged to follow its decant policy to find suitable temporary alternative accommodation for him.
In a subsequent email, the resident recalled that he was initially advised by the landlord at around 5.30pm on 3 February 2021 that he might need to decant, and this was confirmed around 5.50pm on that date. He recalled that he was given a number to call by it for more information, but when he called the number the adviser had no information and advised the resident to call back in 30 minutes.
As no call–back was received, the resident called the landlord’s above number again at 7.00pm on 3 February 2021. He was advised by the landlord that it was trying to sort something out and it requested that the resident give it more time to do so.
At around 9.30pm on 3 February 2021, the resident reported that his local councillor arrived at his block and spoke over the telephone to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. They advised it that there were people with disabilities and families with children who needed to know what was happening. The councillor was advised by the landlord that, unless the resident had family he could stay with, he would need to wait until the temporary alternative accommodation was arranged by it. As England was in the middle of a corona virus lockdown and the resident and his wife had been shielding, however, he noted that staying with relatives was not a feasible option for them.
The resident further recalled that “Not a member of [the landlord] came out to check that [he] w[as] ok and sort matters out. It shouldn’t have been up to [the resident], and our local councillor to chase when the problem was not [tenant] caused.”
In a later internal email, a member of the landlord’s staff who was involved in the decant recalled that, on 3 February 2021, two of its staff members arrived at the address of the leak while the local councillor was there, and that the councillor left after the staff members confirmed to them that the decant accommodation had been arranged. The resident was decanted into a hotel.
In his subsequent email, the resident recalled that, at around 12.15am on 4 February 2021, he was advised which hotel he was staying at by the landlord, and he arrived there by 12.30am on that date. After some initial confusion about whether he had to pay for this up front, he was in his room by 1am.
The landlord’s records showed that, on 4 February 2021, the resident made several calls to the landlord regarding obtaining access to a fridge to store his wife’s diabetes insulin medication in. He was advised to use the hotel’s fridge, but he reported that this was not possible as his wife’s medication needed to be with her at all times. The records noted the landlord liaising with the hotel to see if any hotels did have fridges in the rooms, however it was noted that there were none and so the resident was advised that the landlord would call him about this on the following morning.
The landlord’s records confirmed that, on 4 February 2021, as the hotel’s kitchen was closed, the resident was to be given £15 per person in the form of vouchers for food to comply with its decant allowance. The resident nevertheless advised the landlord that he needed hot meals due to a medical condition, and so he was given £15 per person in cash to cover this for £30 in total.
In his subsequent email, the resident recalled that there was some confusion, as the landlord advised the resident to come downstairs to get the above decant allowance money, as it was outside the hotel. When the resident went downstairs, he reported that there was nobody there. It was then confirmed, when he called to chase this, that the landlord was outside the other hotel that it was using as decant accommodation.
The landlord’s records confirmed that, on 5 February 2021, the resident was moved to the other hotel that it was using to decant him, where the kitchen was open and food was being served.
The landlord’s records then showed that, on 5 February 2021, the landlord rang the resident to advise him that neither of the hotels that it was using had fridges in the rooms, but that he could purchase a small mini fridge and it noted that he had done so.
In the resident’s subsequent email, he recalled that he called the landlord for an update on 6 February 2021 and was advised that he would be at the hotel for the next week. The resident recalled that he then “Heard nothing on 07 &08 so in the dark. Do not recall any contact on 09/02/21 except a Text message advising us to be at our property for 9am on 10/02/21.”
The landlord’s records showed, however, that there was contact between the resident and the landlord during the period of the decant, either by telephone, text or voicemail, and that the resident was made aware of how long he would be staying in the hotel and when he needed to be back in his property to allow access to the electrician. It also noted that it had called and left him a voicemail on 6 February 2021 to check that he had food, called him on 7 February 2021 to inform him of the above need to give access to the electrician, and explained that his food and parking costs could be claimed back from it with receipts.
In a later internal email, a member of the landlord’s staff who was involved in the decant wrote that they spoke to the resident while he was at the hotel, that he asked about damage to the food in his property’s fridge/freezer, and that they advised to make a claim for this on his contents insurance.
The landlord’s records from the time of the decant included details of the need for a fridge for medication for his wife’s diabetes, however there was no record of any conversation with him being advised to claim for the damaged food in the fridge/freezer of his property on his contents insurance.
The landlord’s records confirmed that the resident returned to his home on the morning of 10 February 2021, and that he called the landlord at 10.18am, and at 12.47pm as it did not call him back, to explain that he and his wife had arrived to find all of the food in the fridge/freezer had been spoiled due to the power being off all week, so that they had no food. They also advised that they had no money to buy any more food.
The landlord’s records showed the resident then called it back again at 2.55pm on 10 February 2021 having just been cut off when trying to chase up the issue. The records noted that the resident and his wife were extremely unhappy that they kept being promised call-backs by it but were not getting them. The landlord apologised and assured him he would get a call “this afternoon”.
At 4.07pm on 10 February 2021, a note on the landlord’s records said “if tenant calls back they are to email in how much the food costs. I have been advised this…These tenants are elderly and on a low income”.
At 5.04pm on 10 February 2021 the landlord’s records noted that the resident had called it again and was unhappy at not being called back by it. The notes stated “Will email costs but what do they do in the meantime? Can they be cb asap”.
No further calls between the parties were recorded on 10 February 2021 in the landlord’s records.
On 11 February 2021, the landlord’s records showed that the resident called it at 11.11am asking to speak to somebody, as he was promised a call-back on the previous day. The landlord’s notes confirmed that the resident was again advised he would receive a call-back from it. No further calls between the parties were recorded on the landlord’s records on that day.
As mentioned in the resident’s subsequent email, and discussed in the landlord’s later records, as he had received no response from the landlord and had no money to buy food, on 11 February 2021 the resident pawned two rings of sentimental value. The photograph that he provided of the receipt for this that was attached to the above email confirmed that he received £70 from the pawnbroker. The amount to retrieve the rings was £111.96.
On the 12 February 2021, the landlord’s records showed that the resident called in to it again, as he had still not received a call back from it. The notes stated that he was “very unhappy” and felt he and his wife had been treated “very poorly”. He was advised to email in the costs of the lost food to it.
On 19 February 2021, the landlord’s records showed that the resident called in to it once more and was “angry” that he had had no reply to his above email to it with the costs of the lost food. He was advised to send this to it again after checking the email address.
The landlord’s records showed the resident’s above email was then logged by it on 24 February 2021. The email was requesting reimbursement of a total of £450.31 for the following items:
1. £253.06 – Food from fridge/freezer.
2. £21.99 – Mini fridge.
3. £15.00 – Adapter for mini fridge.
4. £10.00 – Hotel parking.
5. £10.00 – Increased telephone costs.
6. £25.00 – Satellite TV (1 week).
7. £3.30 – TV licence.
8. £70.00 – Pawning of two rings.
9. £41.96 – Interest on pawning of two rings.
On 1 March 2021, the landlord’s records showed that the resident called in to it and was unhappy that he had still not heard anything back regarding compensation for the above items. He was advised this would be chased up by it.
On 3 March 2021, the landlord’s records showed that the resident called it again advising that he had been told he would receive a call back on 1 March 2021 and had then not heard anything from it. The notes stated that the email had been indexed incorrectly by the landlord’s contact centre. The call was escalated, and the resident was transferred through to another member of its staff.
The landlord’s above member of staff initially advised the resident that he would be reimbursed for his above claim to it for the cost of the food, along with the cost of the parking, fridge and adapter, but that he would not be reimbursed for the other costs that he had claimed. However, later in the call the member of staff made internal enquiries and then advised the resident that they had given him incorrect information. The landlord would instead only reimburse the parking and fridge costs, and everything else would need to be claimed for on the resident’s contents insurance.
The landlord’s records stated that the resident was “very upset” at this news and advised that he did not have contents insurance and that he would not claim on this even if he did, as he believed the landlord was at fault for not maintaining the property.
The landlord’s records confirmed that no return call was made by the parties following the above escalated call on 3 March 2021, but that around an hour later the member of staff raised a stage one complaint and contacted the resident via email. The email confirmed that the resident would be reimbursed £46.99 for the above costs for the mini fridge, adapter and parking. The email also stated that food losses could be claimed for either via contents insurance or via a compensation claim authorised by the landlord’s customer solutions team. It further stated that a “customer complaints process” had been raised to review the compensation claim for all costs, except for those that had already been authorised above.
On 7 April 2021, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident. It stated that the response team that provided reactive repairs had attended the leak and resulting loss of power at his property within the timescales in the service level agreements that it had for emergency and day-to-day repairs of 24 hours and 28 days, respectively. This was because the above issues were made safe on the same day that they were reported on 3 February 2021 and roof leak repairs were completed and power was restored on 11 February 2021. Although it apologised for any inconvenience that the resident might have experienced.
The landlord also stated that the required processes and procedures were followed in line with its decant policy. It confirmed that the costs of the fridge, adapter and parking to the resident had been authorised for reimbursement to him, and that it could also look at reimbursing him for the excess telephone charges if proof of these was provided to it.
The landlord advised that all other damaged items that had been claimed for would usually be referred to the resident’s contents insurer but that, if the resident believed that the landlord was responsible for the damage, then a liability claim could be submitted to the landlord’s insurance manager. It advised that it had already sent some details of this over to the insurance manager, and that the resident was also required to provide them with a list of damaged items, estimated costs, how the damage occurred and why he thought it was liable for such an insurance claim, together with any receipts for the items.
The landlord apologised that the resident had been given incorrect information about compensation. It advised it had provided feedback to the customer support manager about the resident’s experience and that this would be addressed directly with the member of staff who had given the incorrect information, in order to improve its service in line with policies and procedures.
The landlord additionally made an offer of compensation to the resident totalling £200, which was broken down into:
1. £50 – Delay in responding to the complaint.
2. £50 – The impact experienced to include distress and inconvenience.
3. £50 – Repeated failures to reply to letters or return telephone calls.
4. £50 – Misinformation provided about the compensation and insurance claim process.
In an email to the landlord on 21 April 2021, the resident confirmed that he would like to escalate the complaint to the final stage two of its complaints procedure. He advised that the landlord’s insurance manager had confirmed that his above losses were not covered by its buildings insurance. The resident wrote, however, that he instead believed the landlord’s “neglect in maintaining the building was at fault” for his losses.
The resident also explained that the reason that he “had to pawn two of [his] wife’s ring[s] left to her by her mother and another by [his] grandmother” was because they had arrived home and all the food had been spoiled due to the electricity being off. He had therefore rung the landlord, as they had no money to buy any food due to having to pay for lunches during the decant and for the fridge, adapter and parking. The landlord had not returned his calls despite him ringing it several times and explaining that this was urgent.
On 10 May 2021, the landlord’s records showed that, during the final stage two complaint investigation, the landlord made the following notes after a telephone call with the resident on that date. It recorded that the resident and his wife were unhappy “…because they had to pay for [a] fridge for [the resident’s wife’s] medicines they had no money when [they] returned to [the] property and calls in to [the landlord] were not returned before end of the day. [The resident] advises they had to pawn rings to get money for victuals. I advised that we would not have been able to arrange for a loan or anything like that if we had called back, and they should have contacted the local authority for an immediate hardship loan – [the resident and his wife were] not happy no-one told them they could do this. I advised we were not social services and they may have been able to help them.”
On 2 June 2021, the landlord issued its stage two final complaint response. It noted that the reasons for the resident’s dissatisfaction and outstanding concerns were that “you feel the leak was caused by [the landlord’s] lack of preventative maintenance” and “Costs incurred during the decant left you with no funds when you returned to the property.”
It noted that the outcomes that the resident was seeking to resolve the complaint were for the landlord to accept liability for the leak at his property, and for the landlord to compensate for the loss of items in the resident’s fridge/freezer.
The landlord in response stated:
1. It was satisfied that the stage one complaint response was both fair and reasonable and that, where service failures were identified, compensation was awarded according to the landlord’s internal compensation policy.
2. The response team confirmed that they only carried out reactive maintenance, and arranged for items that were past the point of repair to be replaced, with stock condition surveys carried out for the planned investment team to arrange for major replacement works at the end of the lifecycle for items such as roofs.
3. The landlord’s insurer viewed the leak at the property as a one–off, not foreseeable event, and so they had advised that the landlord was not liable for this. As the resident had challenged this, the landlord referred the claim to its liability experts, who also deemed that the landlord was not liable for the leak.
4. That the resident’s decant from 4 to 11 February 2021, and the communication that he had received from it for this, were carried out in line with its service level agreements, for which he had received a £30 cash decant allowance for hot meals and a hotel providing breakfast and evening meals from 5 February 2021. The landlord added that it contacted him about this either via telephone or in person on 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 February 2021, and that it was not usually possible for it to arrange pre-paid parking in unplanned decants, but that it had explained to him that parking and food costs could be claimed back from it with receipts.
5. It apologised that the resident had not been called back after he arrived home, and it noted that this had already been acknowledged and compensated for in the stage one complaint response.
6. It added an additional £25 compensation for the delay in responding to the resident’s stage two final complaint and, as £200 compensation had already been offered to and refused by him in the stage one complaint response this made a total of £225 that it awarded him. This was described as being “In recognition of the issues and service failures that [the landlord] had identified with [the resident’s] complaint.”
The resident then complained to this Service that the landlord had only reimbursed £46.99 of his £450.31 decant costs, as it had not covered his lost food, pawned rings, extra telephone expenses or satellite television and television licence, and it had not admitted liability for these. He stated that he sought all of the costs and an admission of liability from it to resolve his complaint because he considered that its non-maintenance of his building resulted in the leak and loss of power that damaged his property’s contents, although we explained to him that we would be unable to obtain an admission of liability. The resident also confirmed that the landlord had paid the £225 compensation that it had awarded him into his rent account, which he had not agreed to.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s insurer has determined that the leak at the resident’s property was not foreseeable, and that the landlord was not liable for any losses that the resident incurred as a result of the leak. The insurer referred the claim to liability experts who also deemed that the landlord was not liable for this. This Service is not able to comment on whether the landlord was liable for the resident’s losses, as it does not fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to do so. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise to determine or award damages for liability in the way that a court or insurer might, and we also do not have jurisdiction to consider complaints about insurers. Therefore, we cannot look at whether the landlord was liable for the losses the resident incurred.
This Service is, however, able to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant that occurred as a result of the leak, as well as the compensation that it awarded to him for this, and whether these were handled in line with the landlord’s decant and compensation policies.
The leak and the resulting loss of power at the resident’s property on 3 February 2021 were attended by the landlord within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that responsive repairs are divided into two main categories: emergency and non-emergency day-to-day repairs. The initial attendance to make safe the leak and loss of power was classed by it as an emergency repair, and the subsequent roof leak repairs and restoration of power were classed by it as non-emergency day-to-day repairs.
The repairs and maintenance policy states that, for emergency repairs, the landlord should complete works to make the property safe, or temporarily repair this, within 24 hours and that it should complete non-emergency day-to-day repairs within 28 calendar days. It therefore demonstrated that it attended these within a reasonable timeframe by making the leak and loss of power safe at the resident’s property on the same day that these occurred on 3 February 2021, and by completing repairs to the roof leak and restoring power there eight calendar days later on 11 February 2021, in accordance with the policy.
The landlord was informed by the power company at around 5.30pm on 3 February 2021 that the power would need to be switched off at the resident’s building due to the leak there. The resident was informed around that time that he might therefore need to decant from the property, and this was confirmed to him as definite by it at around 5.50pm on that date.
The resident was informed which hotel he would be decanted to at around 12.15am on 4 February 2021, which was within a reasonable timeframe of approximately six-and-a-half hours since the decant was confirmed to him by the landlord at around 5.50pm on 3 February 2021. This was considering the circumstances of this being an emergency repair, for which the power company had told the landlord that the power would need to be switched off so that a decant might be needed approximately 20 minutes earlier at around 5.30pm on the same day.
This is also in light of the landlord’s decant policy permitting it to provide the resident with hotel or bed and breakfast accommodation for such unplanned emergency temporary decants as his, including for up to one to three nights in a hotel during out of hours or at the weekend until a full assessment can be made on the next working day.
The resident was provided with a telephone number to call about his decant by the landlord on 3 February 2021, and contact was made by it with the resident via telephone, text and voicemail throughout the period of the decant on 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 February 2021, according to its records. Although the resident reported that the landlord had little or no information at first when he called it while the decant was being arranged on 3 February 2021, this was not unusual in an emergency situation. Once the landlord had more information, the resident was made aware by it on the above dates of how long the stay would be, when he could return to the property, and the time and date that he would need to be at the property to allow access to the electrician if required, which was reasonable.
When the resident advised the landlord on 4 February 2021 that his wife had diabetes and would need hot meals and a fridge to store her medication, the landlord responded to him on that date by offering him £30 cash to cover the cost of hot food. It then agreed, on 5 February 2021, to reimburse the resident for the cost of a mini fridge when it was established by its enquiries with them on 4 February 2021 that neither of the hotels that it was using had any fridges in the rooms. As the kitchen was not open in the original hotel, the resident was moved to the second hotel where food was being served on 5 February 2021.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about his wife’s medical condition was therefore reasonable. This is because it provided him with cash to pay for hot food for this and sought a room with a fridge for her medication on the same date. The landlord also agreed to reimburse the resident for a mini fridge and moved him and his wife to a hotel where food was being served on the following day, which it did at short notice for an unplanned emergency temporary decant.
For the period from the initial decision to decant the resident on 3 February 2021, up to and including the resident’s stay at the hotel until 10 February 2021, the landlord’s above actions were reasonable and in line with its decant policy’s requirements for it to suitably accommodate and pay for his and his wife’s food. However, the decant policy also covers the return to the resident’s permanent property in section 6.5, and when it refers to discretionary disturbance payments it states: “Claims can be for costs incurred when moving out and returning to the permanent property.”
The landlord’s decant policy also includes a section relating to elderly and vulnerable tenants. Section 8 of the decant policy states: “Additional assistance may be provided to elderly residents over 70 years of age or, at [the landlord’s] discretion, any other resident assessed to be particularly vulnerable or frail and in need of additional help and support. This may include residents that have a diagnosed mental health problem, or who are in receipt of a care package or have an additional medical condition.”
The landlord’s decant policy continues…“In extreme circumstances, decanted tenants (particularly those identified as vulnerable), may be decanted into accommodation which causes an initial period of financial hardship. If the Customer Support or housing teams are notified of persons in hardship, they should:
1. Consider whether to make a referral to the Tenancy Sustainment or Welfare Benefits team
2. Advise tenant about using their local support network (e.g., food banks)
3. Staff should not give residents cash and the customer payment process should be used instead”.
On his return to the property on 10 February 2021, the resident and his wife rang the landlord, as they reported that they had no food due to the food in their fridge/freezer being spoiled while the power supply was off. They also told it that they had no money to buy food due to the extra expenses they had incurred due to having to pay for a fridge, adapter, parking and for lunches while decanted at the hotel. The resident had already made the landlord aware of his wife’s diabetes, and of the need for hot food for this, during the early days of the decant on 4 February 2021, and this was noted on the landlord’s decant records. The resident was therefore advised by the landlord on the afternoon of 10 February 2021 that he would receive a call back from it about the lack of food.
The resident rang the landlord back several times on that day, as he had received no call back from it as it had agreed. One of its records on 10 February 2021 noted that, if he called back he should be told to email in the costs of the food that was lost to it. There was a further note of the resident having been advised this when he called back, and the landlord’s note quoted “Will email costs but what do they do in the meantime?”. However, he did not receive a call back from it on that day.
The resident called the landlord back on the following day and he was again told he would receive a call back. He called it back again on 12 February 2021, as he had still not received a call back from it. The landlord’s records noted that the resident was very unhappy, and that he believed he had been treated poorly by it, however no complaint was raised or action taken by it for this, and the resident was advised to email in a list of the food losses to it.
As noted above, the landlord’s decant policy advises during decants that, if it is notified of persons in hardship, it should consider whether to make a referral to its tenancy sustainment or welfare benefits team, and advise the resident about using his local support network e.g. food banks. Despite the resident nevertheless making the landlord aware that he and his wife were vulnerable due to her diabetes, including her resulting food requirements, and in financial hardship from the decant, at no point was the resident signposted to any local support networks and no referral was made to either its tenancy sustainment or welfare benefits teams. This was contrary to the decant policy and was likely to have unnecessarily caused them further distress and inconvenience, in addition to any they incurred from the decant.
During the landlord’s final stage complaint investigation, the record of a conversation with the resident included it as saying that it advised him that it would not have been able to arrange for a loan or anything similar if it had called back when he returned from the decant. It instead told him that he should have contacted the local authority for an immediate hardship loan, and it noted that he was not happy that no one told him he could do this, but that it advised him that it was not social services and they may have been able to help him. Even though this note recorded that the resident was not happy that nobody had advised him about this option, the resident’s dissatisfaction with this lack of signposting was not addressed in the landlord’s final stage complaint response.
The landlord had also previously demonstrated that it had the discretion under its decant policy to have offered £30 cash for hot food to the resident for his wife’s diabetes on 4 February 2021 during the decant. This option nevertheless does not appear to have been considered by it for the resident when he returned to the property from the decant on 10 February 2021 and told it that he required such assistance from it again in similar circumstances. It was inappropriate for the landlord to have not considered this when it did not suggest any alternative help with food to him either.
The landlord also has a vulnerable residents policy. Amongst the aims of this policy, it includes the aims for it to:
1. “record any vulnerabilities on the residents contact record and keep this up to date
2. use all available information to identify if a resident is vulnerable
3. take account of known vulnerability factors in the provision of services and in decisions around tenancy management and enforcement
4. assist vulnerable residents in accessing additional services that they may need...
5. consider any additional needs due to the vulnerability and where appropriate vary our service delivery to ensure vulnerable residents still receive the same level of service
6. make appropriate referrals to [the landlord’s] own advice and support and tenancy sustainment services to provide enhanced support where appropriate to do so
7. refer to statutory agencies and other external partner support agencies where appropriate
8. make safeguarding referrals whenever needed”.
The landlord’s notes indicated that the resident and his wife might have been vulnerable and so have needed it to have provided them with the above additional assistance, services and referrals to other agencies required by its vulnerable residents policy for this when they returned from the decant. This is because its records included references to the resident’s wife having diabetes and a requirement for hot meals due to a medical condition, needing a fridge to store medication, and being “elderly and on low income”.
The landlord was also aware that, as a result of the leak and loss of power at the property, the resident and his wife had just experienced an unexpected life event that had resulted in them having to leave their own home temporarily, and that on their return they had no food due to the food in their fridge and freezer being spoiled while the power was off. They also reported to it on returning that they had no money due to the extra expenses they had incurred during the decant. All of these factors were potential indicators of vulnerability and therefore the landlord should have followed its vulnerable residents policy in relation to them. As the landlord did not adhere to this policy or consider exercising its discretion to provide further assistance under its decant policy, this was a failure on its part towards the resident and his wife.
As the landlord did not return the resident’s calls about the lack of food on returning from the decant as promised on 10 to 11 February 2021, and it had also not signposted him to other organisations that may have been able to help with this, the resident felt he had no choice but to pawn two items of sentimental value in order to get money to buy food. At this point, the resident had been told by it to send in a list of the food items he had lost along with their cost to it, and so he was expecting to receive compensation for them. The landlord later admitted that the resident had been given misinformation regarding this process, and that it would not compensate the resident for the loss of food, which was inappropriate.
In its stage one and two complaint responses of 7 April and 2 June 2021, respectively, the landlord acknowledged its failures towards the resident in the following areas. Its delay in responding to the complaint, failure to return calls, giving of misinformation, and the distress and inconvenience caused, and it offered him a final total of £225 compensation for these failings. The landlord’s compensation for these failures was reasonable, as this was in line with the recommended amounts in the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. These both suggest awards of between £50 to £250 where there has failure including incorrect information, a lack of the landlord taking responsibility for its services, and it not acting in accordance with its policies.
However, the identified further failure above that the landlord did not act in accordance with its decant or vulnerable residents policies were not recognised by it at the time or subsequently, which was not reasonable. This was because it did not signpost the resident to other local support networks that may have been able to help with either a hardship loan or other alternative, or assist him directly again itself for his and wife’s lack of food and her medical condition when they returned from the decant. Nor did the landlord acknowledge this failure on its part at a later date with proportionate compensation for this, even though the resident raised this with it during the final stage two complaint, in either its stage one or final stage two complaint responses.
The resident made the landlord aware that he was suffering from financial hardship to buy food on returning from the decant for his wife’s medical condition. By not considering whether the resident could be assisted with this by it again, or signposted to other sources of help, the landlord was not following its decant policy.
By also not further investigating whether the resident and his wife could potentially be classed and assisted as vulnerable for the above reasons, the landlord was additionally not following its vulnerable residents policy.
In light of the above, the landlord has been ordered below to apologise to and pay additional compensation to the resident for its further failures in his case. As he has requested his £450.31 decant costs from it to resolve his complaint, and it previously paid him £46.99 during the decant and paid £225 into his rent account, it has been ordered to pay him £200 additional compensation in recognition of his remaining £178.32 decant costs and any unnecessary further distress and inconvenience caused to him by this.
This is in light of the landlord’s compensation policy’s and this Service’s remedies guidance’s above recommendations for such failings. It has also been ordered below to review its staff training needs in light of the resident’s case to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above failures in the future.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s decant, return to his property, and request to be reimbursed for his lost items and costs from being decanted as a result of a leak.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged and offered reasonable remedies to the resident for the following failures. The delay in responding to the complaint, the impact experienced including distress and inconvenience, the repeated failures to respond to letters and telephone calls, and the misinformation provided about the compensation and insurance claim process.
However, there was additional failure on the landlord’s part that was not recognised by it with reasonable remedies. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its decant policy and this had an adverse impact on the resident. This failing, and its impact on the resident and his wife, was not addressed by the landlord in either of its complaint responses. The landlord also failed to follow its vulnerable residents policy. This failure additionally had the potential to further adversely affect the resident and his wife. This is because the landlord did not consider providing them with the further assistance with the lack of food or money to obtain this that was reported to it on the resident’s return from the decant, despite its knowledge of his wife’s medical condition requiring this.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to and pay an additional £200 compensation to the resident within four weeks for the additional failure on its part to comply with its decant and vulnerable residents policies that was not acknowledged in its complaint responses.
2. Review this case and consider whether additional training is required for its staff’s application of its decant and vulnerable residents policies in light of its review to seek to prevent its failings in this case from occurring again in the future. This should include consideration of this Service’s remedies guidance at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently.
The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.