Cotman Housing Association Limited (201914754)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914754

Cotman Housing Association Limited

28 March 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

In their form and email to the Housing Ombudsman Service, the resident has complained:
1. The landlord has not compensated the resident for damages caused by a boiler leak in January 2019.
2. The resident is charged a different amount to other residents of similar properties on the same road.
3. The landlord has not compensated the resident for continued distress since August.
During the landlord’s complaint procedure the resident has complained about:
1. The handling of the hotel accommodation while the kitchen electrics were not available.
2. The landlord’s gas contractor’s service.
3. The handling of the repairs related to the leak.

Jurisdiction

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.
Paragraphs 39(a) and 39(g) state:

“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,

g. concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase;”

The complaint about the resident’s rent was not included in the complaint which concluded the landlord’s complaint procedure on 10 July 2019 and which led to this case. Furthermore, complaints about the level of rent charged are outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman Service. Therefore this aspect of the resident’s complaint cannot be investigated.
Also, as a result of paragraph 39(a) about the concerns about the unspecified ‘continued distress’ since August cannot be investigated in this case. The complaint in this case relates to a leak in February 2019 and the formal complaint concluded in July 2019 with the final response. The complaint was then brought to the Housing Ombudsman Service in February 2020. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions after the July 2019 final response (ie from August onwards) then these would first need to be investigated and responded to by the landlord before the Housing Ombudsman could investigate.

Background

The jurisdiction section above sets out how the main concerns raised in the resident’s correspondence with the Housing Ombudsman Service are outside our jurisdiction at this time. However the resident did provide the details of the formal complaint which resulted in the July 2019 final response.
Therefore, the resident’s complaint to the Housing Ombudsman about the landlord’s decision to not refund all costs (despite refunding the cost of the fridge freezer contents), together with the resident’s complaints raised during the formal complaint have been used as the basis of this investigation.
These concerns have been summarised in the complaint definition above. The resident themselves provided a clear summary of their complaint in their March and May 2019 emails.
In turn the landlord has provided in-depth first and final responses to address each of the issues as listed by the resident. Therefore this assessment is focused on whether there is sufficient evidence to support the responses and whether the landlord was reasonable in its efforts to resolve the dispute.

Assessment

Hotel accommodation

The resident’s boiler leaked on 31 January 2019 therefore they were moved to hotel accommodation that day.
There is a dispute about the resident having to check out on the 12 February but the electrician not attending until the afternoon Therefore the resident is dissatisfied the landlord did not pay for additional accommodation, or refund them for meals they could not prepare at home.
The landlord has highlighted how the resident checked out around midday and that the electrician attended by 1330. However it is relevant that the resident did not know exactly when the electrician would attend as it was only listed as an ‘afternoon’ appointment.
However, despite this, it is important to note that had the electrician (or any other contractor) attended an emergency repair on the day the repair was reported there would be a period where the resident would be unable to use the kitchen, as these repair visits cannot be immediate. Therefore it was not unreasonable for the landlord to end the hotel accommodation on the same day the electrician was due to make the property safe.

Gas contractor

The resident’s focus during much of the complaint was on the conduct of the landlord’s gas contractor. The resident complained:
1. The leak was the result of poor–quality work to the boiler a week before the leak.
2. The contractor did not provide the repair reports for its February repairs in time for the resident’s own contractor’s inspection; and the resident did not recognise the signature on the report.
3. The contractor did not identify a gas safety risk with the boiler, and as such their expertise with any repair is questionable.
4. The gas contractor contacted the resident in April 2019 when the resident had asked that they do not do so, and such there was a data protection breach.
It is not possible to say what caused the leak on 31 January. The landlord’s reports, and the resident’s independent inspection, do not state what caused the leak.
The landlord’s final response has provided an explanation of the boil part faults that led to the repairs and to the leak. It has stated that as the item is under mains pressure it would have leaked earlier than a week after the first repair had it been broken during the repair.
The Housing Ombudsman Service cannot determine the cause of a leak. Instead we assess whether the evidence available to the landlord at the time of the complaint supports its response. In this instance it has arranged the Head of Gas Operations (ie a senior, experienced member of staff that was not previously involved in the repair or complaint) to review the information. Furthermore there is no other expert evidence, whether from other contractor’s or the resident’s own inspector, that provides an alternative or contradictory explanation. Therefore the explanation given in the final response was a reasonable response to the complaint that the leak was caused by the earlier repair.
The landlord has upheld the complaint that the contractor did not provide the requested documents in good time. A more significant concern is that the landlord has also upheld the complaint that the contractor had signed the customer reports following the 4 and 25 February repair visits.
The landlord has explained how these documents are not legal documents in the way a gas safety report may be, and that it has taken this issue up with its contractor. Therefore the resident’s complaint has been used to identify a serious failure in the landlord’s / its contractor’s process. However this is a clear failure that will have understandably severely damaged the resident’s trust in the landlord.
The resident has complained how their own inspector found a gas safety risk with the boiler. The landlord’s final response explains how the annual gas safety inspection differs from a gas service. The most notable point is how the annual inspection is a visual inspection and must ensure compliance as far as is practical. Whereas a gas service is specific only to the item being serviced and so goes into more detail with the manufacturer’s instructions.
As above the Housing Ombudsman Service cannot determine whether a gas safety inspection has been carried out correctly. We can only assess how the landlord has responded to any concerns it has received and the evidence it has relied upon. In this instance the landlord responded by arranging the relevant repair to the boiler following the resident’s own inspection identified the possible risk. It also investigated how the difference between its inspection and the resident’s inspection occurred. Again it relied on a senior member of staff that had not been involved and who was appropriately qualified (the Head of Gas Operations) and, most importantly, provided a clear explanation. This explanation could always be challenged by the resident or their inspector, however no such challenge was presented to the landlord.
The resident arranged their own inspector to visit in May 2019. They had arranged to attend with the contractor so that any repairs could be actioned immediately. The resident was happy for this however they did not want direct contact from the contractor. However the contractor contacted the resident in April to confirm the appointment.
Complaints about the incorrect use of personal data are for the Information Commissioner’s Office, therefore this aspect of the complaint about the contractor’s conduct is outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman Service.

Repairs relating to the leak

An electrician was due to attend the property to make the electrics safe on 8 February. They did not attend until the 12 February. The landlord has agreed there was a failure and explained how an incorrect use of its repair procedure resulted in the double booking. The booking was made direct with the electrician and not through the relevant system and so the electrician was also allocated other, conflicting jobs. The Housing Ombudsman Service Dispute Resolution Principles ask that landlord’s ‘learn from complaints.’ In this instance the specific explanation of the failure, together with the follow up training for relevant staff, demonstrates the landlord has met this principle. Furthermore during this period the resident was in hotel accommodation (31-12 February) therefore while there was some inconvenience due to the extended hotel stay, the alternative accommodation did mitigate the impact of the delayed appointment.
The resident has complained the landlord delayed arranging repairs to the property after it had been certified as having dried out following the leak. The landlord has upheld this complaint and has not challenged that there was a failure. The delay was from 19 February (when the drying out equipment was removed) until 18 March (when the works were ordered) and May when the works were completed.
Part of this delay relates to another part of the complaint about the repairs after the leak. The resident has complained there was an unmanaged asbestos risk as a contractor (16 April) declined to complete repairs to the living room ceiling as there was no asbestos report for the artex.
The landlord has explained to the resident how there was a sample and report for the hallway ceiling and how, given this was the same material and age as the living room ceiling, the report can be taken to apply to both rooms. This is as set out in the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. Therefore the landlord gave a reasonable response to the concerns about asbestos in the property. Furthermore the landlord was correct to highlight how it needed to learn from the complaint and improve the asbestos training for its contractors. It had already acknowledged the excessive time taken to complete the repairs this visit related to.
The landlord has also upheld that the complaint that the final appointment on 13 May was not attended and the landlord failed to notify the resident in advance the contractor could not make this date.

Reported damaged belongings

The resident has explained they are seeking £900-£1000 for damaged belongings. The landlord has explained however it will not pay for damaged belongings as it does not consider itself liable. The landlord advised all residents are advised to arrange their own contents insurance for incidents such as this, and that it provided details of its own insurer should the resident wish to claim with them.
This was a reasonable response to the claim for damages. The Housing Ombudsman Service cannot determine liability for disputed damages. However the landlord was correct to say that all residents are advised to arranged their own contents insurance. In cases where the landlord may be liable the resident’s own insurer can then make a claim against the landlord’s insurer for any costs it has incurred in paying to cover the resident’s costs. Landlords are not automatically responsible for costs that result from leaks.
The resident has explained that as the landlord paid to cover the contents of a fridge freezer this in turn sets a precedent for it to cover the cost of other damaged items. However landlords can seek to resolve a dispute through various offers of redress and action. Furthermore landlords will look to support their residents, and its offer of support in one area does not then mean it is obligated to provide support in any other area claimed.
Therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to direct the resident to make a claim with their own contents insurance given all residents are advised to have insurance in place.

Compensation

The landlord has upheld a number of the resident’s complaints around the conduct of the gas contractor and the time taken to complete various repairs.
The landlord has sought to rectify these issues and learn from the failures and resulting complaint, as set out above.
The landlord has also offered the resident:
1. £440.04 for: the cost of food while at the hotel; dehumidifier electricity; fridge freezer contents.
2. A new lounge carpet as a gesture of goodwill at £390.
3. £250 for the distress caused by the service by the gas contractor.
4. £250 for the inconvenience of the service provided by the landlord.
The resident’s costs have therefore been refunded. The landlord has also offered a total of £890 (compensation plus the carpet) that are discretionary payments. The Housing Ombudsman Service Guidance states:

“Awards of £700 and above – Remedies in the range of these amounts are used in recognition of maladministration / severe maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant. Remedies in this range will be appropriate when there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant”

Therefore the landlord has made an offer of redress for the failures listed above that the Housing Ombudsman Service considers a satisfactory response. There was a range of failures across the landlord’s service areas in its handling of the leak and repair. Therefore it merited the significant response it has received. It is also important that the range of learning opportunities the landlord has taken from this complaint do result in the training/changes the landlord has stated it will.

Determination (decision)

I can confirm:
1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint about the claim for damaged belongings.
2. The complaint about the rent level is outside the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
3. The complaint about the ongoing distress caused by the landlord’s service since August is outside the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
4. The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress for the failures identified in the handling of the hotel accommodation.
5. The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress for the failures it identified in the service of the gas contractor.
6. The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress for the failures it identified in the repairs related to the leak.