Derby Homes Limited (202114093)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114093

Derby Homes Limited

25 April 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1.     The complaint is about:

1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a leak.
2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

2.     The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, a semi-detached house. The landlord maintains and manages the resident’s house on behalf of the local authority.

3.     On 11 September 2020 the resident reported a water leak into his kitchen.  The landlord’s records show that the resident and the other joint tenant have vulnerabilities and the wet room at the property is the only bathing facility.

4.     The landlord carried out a temporary repair to the resident’s shower on 16 September 2020. Work to fix the leak was completed by the landlord on 5 November 2020 when tiles in the shower were replaced and sealed. The resident’s position is that he told the landlord that the shower continued to leak after the temporary repair. The landlord’s position is that it has no record that the resident reported that the leak was continuing after the temporary repair on 16 September.

5.     On 28 June 2021 the resident complained to the landlord about the time it had taken the landlord to fix the leak. He also asked to be compensated for damage to wall coverings and flooring in his kitchen caused by the leaking shower between the date the leak was reported and the date the leak was finally fixed. The resident’s complaint was submitted to his landlord 7 months and 23 days after the repair was completed,

6.     On 29 June 2021 the landlord formally acknowledged the complaint and told the resident that it would be investigated at stage 1 by a complaints officer. In July 2021, the complaints officer informed the resident that, in line with its complaints policy, his complaint would not be considered because it had been made more than 6 months after the leak had been fixed. The resident was advised to claim under his home insurance policy. The resident was also told that for several reasons, including postponement of the date of the final repair by the resident, his complaint was unlikely to succeed even if it was considered.

7.     The resident requested escalation of the complaint. This request was refused by the landlord because the complaint itself had been rejected. In February 2022, prompted by the Ombudsman, the landlord sent a formal letter to the resident explaining why it would not consider the complaint and why it concluded that it was not liable for the damage. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman seeking compensation for damage caused by the leak.

Assessment and findings

8.     The Housing Ombudsman Scheme provides for cases to be ruled out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction on the grounds that the issue complained about was not raised with the member landlord within a reasonable timeframe. Typically, this timeframe is six months from the point that the issues occurred. It is consistent with this approach that member landlords will also include similar time related exclusions to their own complaints policies and the landlord in this case is no exception, with the six-month timeframe for bringing a complaint clearly set out in its complaints policy.

9.     This approach is also consistent with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, that provides overarching guidance for all member landlord’s in how to manage complaints. The code provides for complaints to be excluded in certain circumstances, though it also requires landlord’s to ensure that the complainant is provided with a clear written explanation of the decision to exclude the complaint, together with signposting to this Service in the event that they remain dissatisfied.

10. The resident’s complaint was raised nearly eight months after the issue was fully resolved by way of completing the repair following the leak. As such, the landlord was entitled to rely upon the exclusion detailed in its complaint policy and refused to raise the resident’s concerns as a complaint.

11. As the landlord had the right to exclude the complaint, this investigation will not carry out any further investigation of the substantive issue. It would be inconsistent with this Service’s dispute resolution process and the complaint handling code to allow landlord’s to exclude complaints in certain circumstances and to then investigate those same issues and potentially find fault with how the landlord acted.

12. It is noted however that the landlord, having ruled the complaint outside of its complaints policy did give limited feedback on the leak repair issues raised by the resident. It confirmed the relevant dates for the initial report, temporary repair and full repair. It also confirmed that it had no record of the resident having made further reports about any further leak issues between the date of the temporary repair and the full repair. It was helpful that the landlord provided these limited details as it gave the resident a measure of clarity about how the landlord viewed the substantive issue, despite its decision to exclude the complaint.

13. Whilst the substantive issue has not been assessed, the landlord’s complaints handling has been considered through the Ombudsman’s investigation process. The resident requested that a formal complaint be raised on 28 June 2021, and it initially acknowledged this as a stage one complaint to be referred for a formal response. However, on 8 July 2021, it emailed the resident confirming its decision to not consider the complaint. This email stated that the issue had not been raised as a complaint within six months and confirmed that it would not be considered under its complaints process.

14. The resident was dissatisfied with this response from the landlord. He responded to the landlord stating that he felt that its decision was ‘unfair’ as he felt the complaint was ‘valid regardless of time’. In response the landlord emailed (12 July 2021) to state that it saw no reason why the resident could not ‘have submitted his claim sooner’. It also said that had it been able to consider the complaint through its process it was ‘highly unlikely’ based on the facts of the case that ‘your claim would be upheld’.

15. Whilst the landlord was entitled to rely on the timescale criteria when excluding the complaint from its complaints process, there are concerns about how it progressed the case to this decision. It did not signpost the resident to the Ombudsman at this stage, which would have been both reasonable and appropriate. There is also no evidence that it considered whether the resident had ’exceptional circumstances’, as required by the complaints policy. It stated that it saw no reason why he could not have raised his complaint sooner but did not enquire as to whether exceptional circumstances might exist.

16. Following prompting by the Ombudsman, the landlord provided the above details. Its letter of 15 February 2022 said that the resident had been in contact with it for other reasons following the repairs in November 2021 and it therefore saw no reason why this issue could not also have been raised. It said therefore that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting bringing the case within the complaints process. It also signposted to this Service.

17. As such, the landlord put right its earlier failure to follow an appropriate process when excluding the complaint from its complaint process. Nonetheless, an overall determination of service failure has been identified here as the resident experienced time and trouble in pursuing the issue with the landlord and then with this Service. An amount of compensation consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for minor service failure has been ordered below to reflect this determination.

Determination (decision)

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about a leak.  

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Order

20. The landlord to pay £50 compensation to the resident for the identified complaints handling failures.

21. The landlord to evidence compliance with the order to this Service within 4 weeks of this determination.