GreenSquareAccord Limited (202206869)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206869

GreenSquareAccord Limited

28 March 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 concerns how the landlord handled:
   1. Repairs to a leak in the property.
   2. The associated request for compensation.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
3. The landlord’s repair logs state that during an appointment to repair the shower on 7 February 2022, the resident informed the operative of a foul smell from the kitchen. The resident then sent an email to the landlord on 8 February 2022 describing outstanding repairs in the property, which included photographs that showed patches of damp and mould in the kitchen. The resident stated that she believed the cause of the issues she was experiencing was as a result of how work to replace the kitchen was undertaken in May 2021.
4. Following further correspondence relating to the condition of the kitchen and the flooring, the landlord recommended handling the matter as a formal complaint. The landlord’s note of a 16 March 2022 telephone call with the resident described the elements of the complaint as “laminate in hallway and living room lifting due to water underneath. [The resident feels] this is as a result of the flooring not being covered when the kitchen replacement was completed in May 2021”.
5. In its complaint responses, the landlord set out the following:
   1. It had received positive feedback from the resident at the time of the kitchen replacement, with no reports relating to the condition of the flooring during the work.
   2. There had been delays in arranging inspections following on from it being made aware of the issue in February 2022, apologising for this and acknowledging that an operative who attended the property on 23 February 2022, but could find no source of a leak, should have requested an inspection.
   3. When the resident cancelled an appointment due on 7 April 2022, it had failed to rearrange this as it should have and apologised for this.
   4. After the flooring was lifted on 27 April 2022 it was found that a further appointment was required.
   5. An operative attending on 5 May 2022 identified the need for a kitchen unit to be removed.
   6. A further appointment on 9 May 2022 identified and repaired a leak from a pipe in the kitchen.
   7. It was unable to determine if earlier action would have prevented the damage to the resident’s flooring, and had therefore declined the resident’s request to reimburse in full her costs for replacing it, and explained that damage from unforeseen leaks would be a contents insurance matter.
   8. The leak was repaired on 9 May 2022, and that the damp and mould in the kitchen would be addressed in follow-on work
   9. An offer of £550 compensation was made, which it broke down as £50 for the inconvenience caused by the delays, and £500 as a goodwill gesture towards the resident’s costs of replacing the flooring.
6. In referring the case in this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues to the complaint as the delays in starting the work, the length of time it took to repair the leak, and the impact that this had on her health. As a resolution to the complaint the resident would like the landlord to cover the costs of the replacement flooring in full, and to award further compensation to cover the costs of using a dehumidifier in the property between 12 May 2022 and 30 May 2022.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

7. Paragraph 3.1 of the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the property in good repair.
8. Paragraph 4.1 of the tenancy agreement relates to insurance and states that it is the landlord’s responsibility to “insure the structure of your home against loss or damage by fire and other risks. This does not include your furniture and personal belongings which you should insure yourself”.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises its repair types as “Emergency” (attend within 24 hours) and “Routine” (attend within 28 working days). Routine repairs are defined by the landlord as “all non-emergency works that require our attention, but can be executed at a time that is convenient to residents”.
10. The landlord’s compensation policy describes the circumstances where it will consider offering discretionary compensation. These include:
    1. “Actual, proven financial loss sustained as a direct result of our service failure (otherwise known as a refund or reimbursement).
    2. Avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment or other unfair impact of our service failure.
    3. The duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience.”
11. In regard to payments for damage to belongings, the compensation policy states that “we expect all customers to take out their own contents insurance and for accidentally damaged belongings within their home to be claimed for under their policy. Where it is clear and can be proved the damage to belongings is a direct consequence of our service failure we will consider an offer of compensation without a contents insurance claim being made”.

Scope of investigation

12. In requesting an escalation of the complaint and when bringing the case to this Service, the resident has described the impact on her health the work to the flooring had caused. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction, and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the impact on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

How the landlord handled repairs to a leak in the property

13. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. put things right, and;
    3. learn from outcomes.
14. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the leaseholder. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right.’
15. Once it was informed by the resident of the issue with the flooring, the landlord had a duty to respond to the matter in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. The records show that it arranged for a surveyor to inspect the flooring and on the advice of the surveyor, it raised the floor to locate the source of the leak that had caused the water damage. This was identified as a cracked pipe in the kitchen, which was repaired. There is no indication that the landlord was at fault for the cracked pipe.
16. However, there were delays which prevented the landlord from repairing the leak sooner. For example, a delay between the need for a surveyor inspection being apparent on 23 February 2022 and this being raised on 16 March 2022. There was also a delay caused by a failing to rearrange the cancelled 7 April 2022 appointment, particularly as the landlord was aware of the previous delays being its responsibility. Overall, it took the landlord three months and multiple attendances to identify the cause of the leak and repair it. While it is the case that some repairs can take several appointments to resolve, especially where the cause of a problem is not readily apparent, this was somewhat outside of the landlord’s 28 day policy. It is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine what, if any, impact the delays had on the outcome/level of damage caused, or whether an earlier repair would have prevented the need for the flooring to be replaced. However, there were missed opportunities to remedy the leak sooner, and the delays amount to a failing on the part of the landlord. This led to an ‘adverse affect’ to the resident, who was caused time and trouble in pursuing the matter, and the inconvenience and disruption of living with the leak for a prolonged period, and the multiple attendances to try and resolve this.
17. In its response to the complaint the landlord recognised that there were failures in how it handled the repairs, accepting that there were delays on its part. It took action to ‘put things right’ by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident for these, and ensuring the leak was repaired. It sought to ‘learn from outcomes’ by describing how it would improve its communication and repairs service. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that once the complaint was raised, it discussed how best to update the resident on the progress of the work. It also contacted the surveyor to discuss how to arrange inspections and raise any recommended work in a timelier manner.
18. The landlord also offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delays, which was in line with the guidance set out in its compensation policy detailed above. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website) recommends a payment of £50 to £100 for service failure of a short duration that did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. Given that the matter was ongoing for three months, this was not of a ‘short duration’ and so £50 was an unreasonable offer in the circumstances. Having said this, the landlord also offered £500 as a goodwill gesture towards the resident’s costs of replacing the flooring, although did not accept that it had been at fault for the damage caused.
19. Overall, the payment of goodwill by the landlord is a separate matter from the compensation being paid for the failings of the landlord. Under the circumstances, the amount of £50 was not a reasonable amount that accurately reflected the failings of the landlord. From 23 February 2022 to 27 April 2022 the landlord failed on 2 occasions; namely when the operative failed to request an inspection in February and when the landlord failed to rearrange the cancelled appointment in April, and this resulted in a delay to the repairs being completed. Both delays amounted to a period of around 2 months, the delays also contributed to the works taking three months to complete in total.
20. The Ombudsman is entitled to make its own determination on the level of compensation based on its assessment of the impact of the landlord’s failures when dealing with issues a resident has raised. When considering this impact, the Ombudsman is not limited to a landlord’s compensation policy. Instead, it focuses on what it deems fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. In considering this point, the amount of £150 is a more proportionate and reasonable sum which accurately reflects the failings of the landlord previously outlined in paragraph 16 of this Investigation Report and the adverse effects on the resident.

How the landlord handled the associated request for compensation

21. The resident disputed the landlord’s decision not to fully reimburse her the costs of replacing the flooring, as she believes that the time taken to make the repair was responsible for the damage. In circumstances such as this a landlord should initially at least consider whether there is any evidence that it has been at fault for any claimed damage to a resident’s belongings, and if so it should take action (such as paying compensation), to ‘put things right’, rather than referring residents straight to an insurer. This is because if a landlord accepts that it was / may have been at fault it may not be reasonable to ask residents to claim on their own contents insurance policy as all claims made on a policy may affect future premium and / or require them to pay an excess. If a landlord disputes that it has been at fault, it is reasonable for it to follow its policy for such claims and either refer a complainant to their own contents insurance policy or to the landlord’s own insurers. This is because an insurance claim will establish negligence and / or liability to pay.
22. In this case the landlord explained that its decision was reached because it was unable to determine whether earlier action would have prevented damage to the flooring This demonstrates that the landlord did consider whether there was any evidence that it was at fault for the claimed damage. However, given the dispute over the cause of the damage, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to also facilitate a claim via its own insurers (especially as the resident had stated that she had no contents insurance), so that negligence and / or liability to pay could be established. There is no indication that the landlord offered this option to the resident or provided its insurers details at any point, which was a failing on its part. To remedy this, an order is made for the landlord to facilitate a claim via its own insurers.
23. The resident has also requested compensation from the landlord to cover the increase in energy costs when using a dehumidifier in May 2022. The resident submitted evidence of two letters from their local MP as evidence. The letters made reference to the fact that the landlord stated it would calculate the costs incurred during the period the dehumidifier was used, the letter also confirmed the landlord stated it sent the resident a letter on 28 June 2022 with a further offer of reimbursement for the use of the dehumidifier. The resident explained they had not received this letter. This Service would expect a landlord to honour any agreement it has advised it would undertake; therefore a recommendation has been made in light of this considering the resident has explained they have not received this letter.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak in the property.
25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated request for compensation.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:

26. Write to the resident, setting out how the resident may make a claim to its own insurers, and facilitate this in any way necessary.
27. Pay the resident £150 for the failings in relation to the delay. This is inclusive of the £50 already paid by the landlord. Therefore an additional £100 should be paid.
28. Complete the orders within 28 days of this report, with evidence of compliance to be provided to this Service by the same date.

Recommendation

It is recommended that:

29. If the landlord has not done so already, it should contact the resident in relation to the further offer of reimbursement for the use of the dehumidifier.
30. Pay the resident £500 as offered as a goodwill gesture towards the flooring.