Evolve Housing + Support (202107570)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107570

Evolve Housing + Support

22 December 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

The complaint is about the managing agent’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. A defective kitchen window.
2. Defective external floodlights.
3. Door closers causing the doors to slam.
4. Roof leaks causing dampness and damage to the resident’s belongings.
5. A defective communal washing machine and the reported damage caused to the resident’s clothes by the washing machine.
6. A lack of refuse bins for use by residents.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(a) states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion…are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”. In this case, the resident’s complaint about the lack of bins was not considered by the managing agent in its stage 2 response dated 16 May 2022. Therefore, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that this aspect of the resident’s complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Consequently, this Service has not investigated the resident’s complaint about a lack of refuse bins for use by residents.

Background

The resident is a licensee of a housing association landlord. The licence began on 16 November 2020 and is for the resident to occupy a room in a 3-bedroom property. There is a shared kitchen, bathroom and living area in addition to the resident’s private room. The resident’s room is on the first floor at the front of the property.
The landlord’s records show that the resident has emotional health issues and some physical issues such as asthma.
The property was let as furnished, supported housing. The licence agreement states that the landlord appointed a managing agent (referred to in the remainder of this report as ‘the agent’) to act on its behalf to deliver some of its services. The licence agreement states that if the licensee (the resident) feels that the landlord or the agent have broken the terms of the licence or not performed any of their obligations, the resident should first complain to the agent. If the agent fails to deal with the complaint or, in the licensee’s view, continues not to comply with the licence agreement, the resident can refer the matter to the landlord.
The licence agreement states that the resident must report to the agent any repairs or defects for which the landlord or the agent are responsible.
The landlord and the agent signed a management agreement in 2014 in relation to the property and under this agreement the landlord is responsible for:
1. The repair of the structure and exterior of the property, including windows, kitchen units and cupboards, outside doors, internal walls and doors, communal areas including lights and external decorations.
2. Keeping in good repair and working order the installations for space heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas and electricity, including baths, basins, sinks, toilets, heating and electrical wiring.
The responsibilities of the agent under the management agreement include:
1. Internal decorations, unblocking waste pipes and drains, minor cracks to plaster, carpets and providing fire protection equipment.
2. Maintaining and servicing any fittings or appliances supplied, including fridges, cookers, washing machines and dryers.
The management agreement identifies 2 timescales for carrying out repairs:
1. Priority 1 emergencies – these are to be made safe within 2 hours and rectified within 24 hours.
2. Priority 2 (at the customer’s convenience) – these repairs are to be completed by agreeing an appointment with the resident, but must be completed within 28 calendar days.
The agent is a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme in its own right and the focus of this investigation is on the agent’s response to the matters raised by the resident. A separate investigation will examine the landlord’s response to these matters.

Summary of events

The agent’s records state that there was a water leak affecting the resident’s property prior to him moving in. The landlord completed repairs to stop the leak, but a water mark was left on the ceiling in the resident’s bedroom.
The agent’s records show that the resident first reported a problem with the door closer on 1 December 2020. The agent attended on 3 December 2020 and carried out repairs. The resident then contacted the agent about the issue again on 8 December 2020 and reported that the bedroom door closer was not working, the kitchen window was insecure, the bathroom taps were faulty and one of the outdoor lights was not working.
The agent’s records state that the agent reported the defective window to the landlord on 12 December 2020.
The agent’s contractor attended the property on 12 December 2020 and carried out the following repairs:
1. Adjustments to the bedroom door closer, which was not working.
2. Repairs to the bathroom shower mixer.
3. Repairs to a crack in the bathroom lino.
4. Repairs to the toilet, which was making loud noises and replacement of the toilet seat
The contractor agreed to provide a quote for replacing the kitchen window frame, which it said was rotten and the replacement of the outside light, which could only be accessed using a long ladder. The contractor provided the quote for these works on 17 December 2020 and the agent’s records indicate that the repair was completed.
On 18 December 2020, the agent raised an order for the landlord to repair the kitchen window. The agent then wrote to the landlord on 29 January 2021 to report that the kitchen window frame showed signs of rotten wood and was therefore insecure and unsafe. The agent attached photos of the window.
The landlord replied to the agent on 14 February 2021 and stated that it had attended the property regarding the kitchen window but had not been able to obtain access to the property. The agent’s records show that it wrote to the landlord again on 1 March 2021 regarding the window and sent photos of the window.
On 18 June 2021, the agent wrote to the landlord to report water damage to the resident’s ceiling. The agent advised the landlord that the resident had reported the ceiling was damp and had cracks and water was starting to drip down the walls. The agent’s records state that the leak was addressed by the landlord within 2 weeks of the agent notifying the landlord.
On 18 June 2021, the resident reported that the door closers to the lounge and the resident’s room were making the doors slam. The agent raised an order on 21 June 2021 to adjust the door closers and the repairs were completed on 28 June 2021.
On 23 June 2021, the agent wrote to the landlord to request an update regarding the kitchen window repairs.
The agent’s records show that a fault with the external lights was reported to the agent on 25 June 2021 as the lights were not working and needed replacement bulbs. The agent raised an order on the same day for its contractor to replace the bulbs (the agent’s records state that the lights were repaired on 15 July 2021).
The resident sent a stage one complaint to the agent on 30 June 2021, in which he stated the following:
1. The doors in the property had been installed in such a way that they slammed. The resident had caught his finger in one of the doors and this had caused internal bleeding.
2. There was water damage from the ceiling and this had damaged some of his possessions. His doctor had diagnosed nose bleeds due to the damp, mould and dust from the carpets.
3. The resident believed that the agent had installed inferior quality kitchen appliances which malfunctioned.
4. The kitchen windows were rotten.
5. Only one of the external floodlights worked and this had caused the resident to fall, injure himself and tear his clothing.
6. The landlord had promised to supply furniture but had failed to do so, therefore the resident had purchased his own furniture causing him to fall into rent arrears.
7. The landlord was supposed to provide rubbish bins for use by residents but had failed to do so.
The agent’s records show that it spoke to the resident on 6 July 2021 and advised him that the landlord was due to inspect the leak on that day. The agent said it had advised the landlord about the leak on 18 June 2021 but had not received a response. The agent also advised the resident that the landlord had arranged to repair the kitchen window on 20 July 2021.
On 14 July 2021, the agent sent its stage one reply, in which it outlined the action it had taken, including:
1. The repairs and adjustments it had carried out to the door closers since December 2020.
2. The agent stated that the fire hinges on the doors used a mechanism that became loose with time and use. The agent said it was looking into a more permanent solution for the door.
3. The agent had reported the leak in the resident’s room to the landlord.
4. The carpet in the resident’s room had been deep-cleaned before he moved in. The resident had raised that the communal carpets were dirty and therefore the agent had also arranged for them to be deep cleaned.
5. The agent outlined the action it had taken in relation to a defective cooker in the communal kitchen.
6. The agent had reported the defective window to the landlord in December 2020 and January 2021. The landlord stated it had been unable to obtain access twice in February 2021. The agent therefore spoke to the landlord on 16 February 2021 to rebook a further appointment. The agent contacted the landlord again after the work had not been completed and the landlord had now rebooked the job for 20 July 2021. The agent confirmed it would be present on this day to ensure the repairs were done and apologised for the delay.
7. The resident had reported to the agent on 8 December 2020 that one of the external floodlights was not working. The agent stated that the repairs were completed on 12 December 2020 and it was unaware of any further problems with the lights until it was contacted by this Service. The agent stated that the resident had shown it texts he had sent to the agent’s facilities department about the lights and said it would look into why these had not been received.
8. The agent outlined the action it had taken in relation to furniture in the communal living room and items the resident had purchased for the kitchen and bathroom.
9. The agent confirmed the action it had taken in relation to the communal bins.
The agent wrote to the landlord on 22 July 2021 to report that the landlord’s contractor had failed to attend the appointment on 20 July 2021 to repair the kitchen window. The agent stressed that it was a health and safety concern.
The landlord replied to the agent on 3 August 2021 and advised that an operative had attended to carry out the repair but had been unable to obtain access to the property. The agent wrote to the landlord on the same day and disputed that there were access problems. The agent stated that its staff were on site with residents waiting for the contractor. The agent advised the landlord of the property’s key safe number, which it stated had previously been given to the landlord.
On 20 August 2021, the agent wrote to the landlord about various outstanding jobs, including the kitchen window repair. The agent wrote to the landlord on 2 September 2021 requesting a meeting to discuss the outstanding repairs.
The agent wrote to the landlord on 8 September 2021 and sent photos of the kitchen window, which it had taken on a visit to the property the day before. The agent requested a date on which the repairs would be done. The agent also asked for an update regarding the roof leak affecting the resident’s property. It advised the landlord that the roof leak was causing issues in relation to the building and to the well-being of the residents.
The agent wrote to the landlord again on 17 September 2021 and advised that it was still waiting for the repairs to address the roof leak and the defective kitchen window. The agent again requested a meeting with the landlord to discuss the repairs.
On 20 September 2021, the agent wrote to the landlord and stated that it wished to make a formal complaint about the outstanding repairs, including the kitchen window, which it stated was particularly concerning. The agent and the landlord exchanged various emails during October 2021 in an attempt to set up a meeting to discuss the repairs. However, it is unclear from the evidence seen whether a meeting took place.
The agent’s records show that on 15 October 2021 one of the other tenants reported to the agent that the washing machine was leaking and the drum was full of clothes. The agent’s records show that it asked the tenant to check for different faults on the washing machine and as a result it established that the machine needed repairing. The resident submitted a complaint to the agent on 18 October 2021 stating he was unhappy that the washing machine was not working and had damaged his clothes, for which he requested compensation.
The agent’s records state that it attended the property on 19 October 2021 and found that there were no clothes in the washing machine drum and the machine was working. The resident sent the agent a video on 21 October 2021 showing there was water in the drum and it was not working. The agent therefore raised a purchase order on the same day for a new washing machine and the new washing machine was installed on 5 November 2021. The agent’s records indicate that the resident did not supply or show any of the damaged clothing during the investigation of the broken washing machine.
The agent’s records state that it met with the landlord on the 3rd November 2021 to raise concerns about the length of time the landlord had taken to resolve the damp issue in the resident’s bedroom.
On 8 November 2021, the agent sent its stage one reply regarding the washing machine. It stated that the resident had reported his concerns about damaged clothing on 19 October 2021. The agent had therefore attended the property to assess the washing machine, ordered a new machine, which was delivered and installed on 5 November 2021. As the resident had advised the agent that the damaged clothing related to his clothing business, the agent reminded the resident that he should not be running a business from the property. The agent refused to reimburse the resident for the damaged clothing as it believed it was not liable.
On 21 February 2022, the resident reported to the agent that another of the external floodlights was not working. The agent’s records state that it did not report the defective light to the landlord at the time.
On 1 March 2022, the agent wrote to the landlord chasing the repairs to the kitchen window and the roof leak. The agent stated that the resident should be given compensation because of the time taken to address the issues. It stated that there were significant water marks in the resident’s room. The landlord replied to the agent on 6 March 2022 and advised that the window repairs had been booked for 9 March 2022. The landlord confirmed that it had raised a complaint about the delays in resolving the issues.
The agent advised the resident on 8 March 2022 that the landlord had made an appointment to repair the kitchen window on 9 March 2022 and that it had lodged a complaint with the landlord about the delays. It is not clear from the evidence seen whether any repairs were carried out to the window on 9 March 2022.
The resident contacted this Service on 23 March 2022 to say he was unhappy with the agent’s response as there were still outstanding issues, including the defective kitchen window, damp in his bedroom and outstanding repairs to the outside floodlights.
On 31 March 2022, the landlord’s contractor contacted the agent and confirmed that the new kitchen window was due to be fitted on 5 April 2022.
On 27 April 2022, this Service wrote to the agent and requested the agent to issue a stage 2 reply to the resident by 26 May 2022.
On 29 April 2022, the agent wrote to the landlord and reported a leak in the resident’s property. It attached photos and said the leak was causing the resident distress. The agent wrote again to the landlord on 3 May 2022 requesting an update on the outstanding repairs to the property. The agent stated that the leak in the resident’s room had never been resolved by the landlord and that there were significant water marks on the resident’s ceiling. The agent advised the landlord that the resident was seeking compensation as the leak had caused damage to his belongings.
The agent wrote to the resident on 9 May 2022 and advised that the landlord wanted to inspect the resident’s property for the leak. The agent requested the resident to contact the landlord to arrange access.
On 12 May 2022, the agent reported the broken external floodlight to the landlord. The landlord confirmed that an electrician would attend on 20 May 2022.
On 16 May 2022, the agent wrote to the resident with its stage 2 reply, in which it stated the following:
1. The agent confirmed that the landlord was responsible for the kitchen window and this was repaired on 5 April 2022. The agent confirmed that it had written to the landlord on various occasions regarding the window.
2. The agent confirmed that the landlord was responsible for addressing the damp and it had written to the landlord on various occasions about the issue.
3. The agent outlined the action it had taken in relation to the floodlights but acknowledged that it had not acted when the resident reported on 21 February 2022 that one of the lights was broken. It had now raised an order for the landlord to repair the light and the agent expected the work to be completed in the next week.
4. The agent confirmed that the landlord was responsible for repairing the lights but the agent was responsible for reporting any defective lights to the landlord.
5. The agent accepted that the resident had texted its facilities department regarding problems with the lights after 12 December 2020 and the agent had not addressed the issues because of the implementation of a new reporting system. However, further works were carried out when the agent was made aware of the problem by the landlord. The agent therefore partially upheld this part of the resident’s complaint and advised the resident of the improvements it had made to its systems.
6. In terms of the resident’s request for compensation due to damaged belongings caused by the leak, the agent confirmed it had forwarded this to the landlord to consider.
7. The agent repeated the information stated in its stage one reply regarding repairs to the doors to stop them slamming. The agent concluded that it had responded correctly each time the resident had reported problems with the doors and therefore did not uphold this element of the resident’s complaint.
8. As stated in its stage one reply, the agent repeated that it did not consider itself to be liable for the resident’s clothing that he reported was damaged in the washing machine. The agent stated that it was not liable for damage to personal items due to unforeseen circumstances.
9. Overall, the agent concluded that it had acted correctly in relation to the elements of the resident’s complaint that were its responsibility.
The agent wrote to the landlord on 17 May 2022 and asked it to consider the resident’s request for compensation in relation to his possessions, which the resident reported had been damaged by the roof leak, dampness and the washing machine.
The agent’s records state that the defective floodlight was repaired in May 2022.
The landlord wrote to the agent on 8 June 2022 and stated that it would escalate the agent’s complaint to stage 2 and apologised for failing to provide a response at stage one of the process.
The agent’s records state that it met with the landlord in July 2022 regarding the leak and water damage affecting the resident’s property. The landlord agreed to contact the resident to investigate the repairs and his request for compensation.
On 15 August 2022, the landlord wrote to the agent and apologised for the delay in replying, which it stated was unacceptable.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In his stage one complaint, the resident advised the agent that he had caught his fingers in one of the doors that was closing too quickly and this had caused internal bleeding. He also stated in his complaint that his doctor had diagnosed nose bleeds as a result of the damp and that he had injured himself because the floodlights had not been working. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his health or injuries, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and well–being. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this option.

The agent’s response to the resident’s reports of a defective kitchen window

Residents are required to report defects initially to the agent. The resident therefore contacted the agent on 8 December 2020 to report that the kitchen window was insecure. The agent reported the defective window to the landlord on 12 December 2020. As the responsibility for window repairs rested with the landlord, the agent had acted appropriately by contacting the landlord in a timely manner about the window.
On 18 December 2020, the agent raised an order for the landlord to repair the window and wrote to the landlord on 29 January 2021 to report that the window was unsafe as the frame was rotten. The agent sent photos of the window to the landlord. It was again appropriate for the agent to notify the landlord of the problems with the window. This was done by raising a works order and by writing to the landlord. The agent also sent photos of the window to the landlord, which was helpful as it showed the condition of the window.
The landlord advised the agent on 14 February 2021 that it had not been able to obtain access to the property. The agent therefore spoke to the landlord twice in February 2021 for it to rebook the job and wrote to the landlord on 1 March 2021 to emphasise the poor condition of the window. The agent had therefore taken reasonable steps to continue making the landlord aware of the urgency of the window repairs and had attempted to help the landlord access the property.
The agent wrote to the landlord again on 23 June 2021 to request an update regarding the kitchen window. Following the resident’s stage one complaint on 14 July 2021, the agent advised the resident that the landlord had arranged to repair the window on 20 July 2021.
On 22 July 2021, the agent advised the landlord that the repair had not been carried out on the scheduled date and stressed that it was a health and safety concern. The landlord advised the agent that it had once again been unable to obtain access to the property. The agent replied on the same day and disputed there were access problems as the agent’s staff had been on site waiting with residents for the repair to be carried out. The agent also stated that it had previously given the landlord the key safe number. Therefore, based on the evidence seen, the agent had again acted reasonably to facilitate access for the landlord to carry out the repair.
The evidence shows that the agent continued to contact the landlord about the windows. For example, it wrote to the landlord on 20 August 2021, 2 September 2021, 8 September 2021, 17 September 2021, 20 September 2021 and 1 March 2022. The new window was fitted on 5 April 2022.
The Ombudsman’s view is that as the window was the landlord’s responsibility, the agent had acted appropriately by contacting the landlord on various occasions about the window and by facilitating access for the landlord to carry out the repairs. It was also helpful that the agent had inspected the window, obtained a quote for the work and sent photos so that the landlord could see the condition of the window.

The agent’s response to the resident’s reports of defective external floodlights

According to the management agreement, the landlord is responsible for external communal lights. However, the agent has advised this Service that it also carried out repairs to the lights when notified that the lights were not working.
On 8 December 2020, the resident reported to the agent that one of the four external lights was not working. On 17 December 2020, the agent’s contractor provided a quote for repairing the light as it needed a long ladder to access the light. The agent’s records indicate that the light was repaired on or about 17 December 2020. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to suggest that the defective light was an emergency and therefore it was repaired within an appropriate timescale in line with the management agreement.
A further fault with the lights was reported to the agent on 25 June 2021. The agent raised an order on the same day to repair the lights and the repairs were carried out on 15 July 2021. The repairs were therefore again carried out within an appropriate timescale.
The agent stated in its stage 2 reply on 16 May 2022 that the resident had reported further problems with the lights on 25 June 2021 and repairs were completed on 15 July 2021. Therefore, the agent had carried out the repairs within the appropriate timescale.
On 21 February 2022, the resident reported to the agent that another of the external floodlights was not working. The agent accepted in its stage 2 reply that it had not responded to this reported defect because it had introduced a new reporting system. The delay led the resident to contact this Service on 23 March 2022 to report outstanding repairs, including repairs to the floodlights. The agent reported the broken floodlights to the landlord on 12 May 2022 and an electrician repaired the light on 20 May 2022.
According to the evidence seen, some or all of the floodlights were therefore not working between February and May 2022. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that where something has gone wrong, a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has taken, or intends to take, to put things right. In this case, the agent acknowledged the failure in its stage 2 reply and explained why the error had occurred. It also confirmed that its system had been improved and staff had received additional guidance around health and safety checks. The steps taken by the agent were positive, however, the agent did not apologise for the failing or offer financial redress to recognise the delay in repairing the lights and the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the matter.
As the lack of external lighting can create health and safety risks, the Ombudsman has found that there was a service failure and has ordered compensation of £50. The sum ordered is within the range outlined in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failures where there have been delays in getting matters resolved.

The agent’s response to the resident’s reports of door closers causing the doors to slam

The resident reported the problem with the door closer on 1 December 2020. The agent carried out repairs/adjustments to the closer on 3 December 2020 and therefore responded within the appropriate timescale of 28 days for non-emergency repairs. On 8 December 2020, the resident reported that the door closer on his bedroom door was not working. The agent again responded appropriately by carrying out repairs to the door closer on 12 December 2020.
On 18 June 2021, the resident reported that the closers on the lounge and bedroom doors were causing the doors to slam. The agent therefore raised an order on 21 June 2021 and repairs were completed on 28 June 2021. The agent had therefore again responded appropriately.
The resident included in his stage one complaint on 30 June 2021 that the doors in the building were slamming because of the closers. In its reply, the agent stated that the fire hinges on the doors used a mechanism that became loose with time and use. It therefore had to periodically adjust the closers, but agreed to look at a more permanent solution. The evidence does not show whether the agent fitted new closers as a permanent solution, however, the evidence shows that the agent responded appropriately each time the resident reported the problem with the closers.

Roof leaks causing dampness and damage to the resident’s belongings

On 18 June 2021, the agent wrote to the landlord to report water damage to the resident’s bedroom ceiling. The agent advised the landlord that the ceiling was damp, had cracks and water was dripping down the walls. The agent’s records state that the landlord repaired the leak within 2 weeks of it being reported. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm this. As the landlord was responsible for dealing with roof leaks and damp, the agent responded appropriately by reporting the problem to the landlord.
The resident’s stage one complaint stated that there was water damage on the ceiling and there was damp present. As a result, the resident stated that some of his belongings had been damaged. The landlord advised the agent that it would inspect the leak on 6 July 2021 and the agent conveyed this to the resident. The outcome of the landlord’s inspection of the leak is unclear based on the evidence seen. However, the agent wrote to the landlord again on 8 September 2021 and 17 September 2021 and advised that the roof leak was still causing issues in relation to the building and the resident’s well-being.
On 20 September 2021, the agent made a formal complaint to the landlord about the outstanding repairs. It was appropriate for the agent to continue advising the landlord about the roof leak on behalf of the resident as the problem was clearly causing distress to the resident. It was also reasonable for the agent to raise the matter more formally as a complaint as it had not received confirmation of when the problem would be resolved by the landlord.
The agent met with the landlord on 3 November 2021 to raise concerns about the delay in the landlord resolving the leak and damp issues in the resident’s bedroom. As the leak and damp had still not been resolved, it was reasonable for the agent to meet with the landlord as this provided an opportunity for the agent to stress the impact the issues were having on the resident.
The agent wrote to the landlord again on 1 March 2022 and 29 April 2022 regarding the roof leak into the resident’s bedroom. The agent attached photos and advised the landlord that there were significant water marks on the resident’s ceiling, which were causing the resident distress. The agent advised the landlord that the resident was seeking compensation as he had reported damage to his belongings due to the leak.
The view of the Ombudsman is that the agent acted reasonably by raising the problems of the leak and damp with the landlord as it was the landlord’s responsibility to address these. The evidence shows that the agent was firmly advocating on the resident’s behalf by stressing to the landlord that the leak and damp were causing him distress.
As the landlord was responsible for dealing with the leak and damp it was also correct for the agent to bring the resident’s request for compensation to the attention of the landlord. The agent met with the landlord in July 2022 to discuss the leak and the landlord agreed to contact the resident to investigate the repairs and his request for compensation.
In summary, as the landlord was responsible for dealing with the roof leak and damp, the agent acted reasonably by notifying the landlord of the problem on various occasions and advocating on the resident’s behalf. It also correctly referred the resident’s request for compensation to the landlord.

A defective communal washing machine and the reported damage caused to the resident’s clothes by the washing machine

On 15 October 2021, the agent received a report that the communal washing machine was leaking and was full of clothes. After speaking to one of the other residents about the washing machine, the agent established that it required repairs. The resident wrote to the agent on 18 October 2021 to complain that the washing machine was not working and had damaged his clothes. He therefore requested compensation. The agent inspected the washing machine on 19 October 2021 and found there were no clothes in the washing machine and it was working. As the agent was responsible for the washing machine and had received a report that it was defective, it was reasonable for the agent to physically check the washing machine before ordering repairs.
The resident sent the agent a video on 21 October 2021 showing there was water in the washing machine drum and it was not working. The agent therefore raised an order on the same day for a new washing machine, which was installed on 5 November 2021. The agent had therefore taken just over 2 weeks from receiving the resident’s complaint on 18 October 2021 to installing a new washing machine. This was a reasonable timescale as the agent had to firstly order the washing machine and then arrange for it to be installed.
In terms of the resident’s request for compensation, the agent stated in its stage one reply that it would not compensate the resident for the damaged clothing because it did not believe it was liable for damage caused by unforeseen circumstances. In its stage 2 reply, the agent stated that the resident’s licence agreement with the landlord did not include provision for damage to the resident’s personal items and therefore it agreed to notify the landlord that the resident was seeking reimbursement for the damaged clothing. The agent therefore wrote to the landlord on 17 May 2022 asking about liability for damaged clothing and other possessions.
The Ombudsman has reviewed the licence agreement between the resident and the landlord and can confirm that the agreement does not contain any provisions for damage to personal belongings. Therefore, as the resident’s licence agreement was with the landlord, it was reasonable for the agent to ask the landlord whether it was liable for the damage (this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord replied to the agent’s enquiry).
Although the agent acted reasonably by contacting the landlord, it was a shortcoming on the agent’s part that it did not also advise the resident that he had the option of submitting a claim against the agent’s public liability insurance if he believed the agent had been negligent. The management agreement confirms that the agent is required to hold its own public liability insurance to cover claims of negligence.
The resident requested the agent to reimburse him for the laundry costs he had incurred while waiting for the new washing machine to be installed. The agent stated in its stage 2 reply that it would not reimburse the resident for these costs as they related to the running of his business. As the agent had replaced the washing machine within a reasonable timescale and had given the resident a clear reason for not reimbursing him, the Ombudsman’s view is that the agent responded reasonably to the resident’s request for reimbursement.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the managing agent in its response to the resident’s reports of a defective kitchen window.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the managing agent in its response to the resident’s reports of defective external floodlights.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the managing agent in its response to the resident’s reports of door closers causing the doors to slam.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the managing agent in its response to the resident’s reports of roof leaks causing dampness and damage to the resident’s belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the managing agent in its response to the resident’s reports of a defective communal washing machine and the reported damage caused to the resident’s clothes by the washing machine.

Reasons

The agent reported the defective window to the landlord on various occasions and took action to help the landlord access the property in order to carry out the repairs.
There was a delay in the agent reporting the defective floodlights to the landlord between February and May 2022.
The agent responded within the appropriate timescales each time the resident reported problems with the door closers.
The agent notified the landlord about the roof leak and damp on various occasions and advocated on the resident’s behalf to highlight the impact the problems were having on the property and the resident. The agent correctly referred the resident’s request for compensation for damaged belongings to the landlord.
The agent replaced the broken washing machine within a reasonable timescale and referred the resident’s request for compensation to the landlord to consider.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the delay in reporting the defective floodlights.
2. Pay the resident £50 for the delay in reporting the defective floodlights.