Harlow District Council (202229720)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229720

Harlow District Council

10 May 2024

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 landlord’s:
1. Response to reports of damage caused to the property due to a fire.
2. Handling of the resident’s personal belongings when clearing the loft.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The landlord is a local authority and it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The landlord has appointed a managing agent and contractors to carry out services on its behalf. The Ombudsman has treated complaints made to the managing agent and contractor as made to the landlord. This means that, within this report, “the landlord” is used to refer to the actions of both the landlord itself and those it appointed to act on its behalf.

Landlord’s obligations

The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for, amongst other things, the structure of the building, kitchen and bathroom fitting including electrical wiring. It also says it will carry out repairs within a reasonable time and it will clear up after a repair, leaving the property in a reasonable condition.

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process.
1. Stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 3 working days with a full response provided within a maximum of 10 working days.
2. Stage 2 complaint will be acknowledged within 3 working days with a full response provided within a maximum of 15 working days.

Summary of events

The landlord inspected the property on 14 June 2019 and the report recorded no issues which constituted emergency or health and safety repairs. It noted the previous tenant had installed a new bathroom suite with an electric shower and they had provided an electrical certificate in that regard.
On 17 June 2019 the landlord completed an electrical inspection at the property, the electrician considered the shower at that time, no concerns were raised and it provided an electrical installation condition report (EICR).

An internal email of 18 June 2019 said “the mutual exchange is ok in terms of the electricity and gas as tested and certified”. The resident then completed a mutual exchange in July 2019.
On 30 July 2021, there was a fire at the property and a fire report dated 2 September 2021 noted the cause as ‘accidental’ and said:
1. “Cause – faulty/loose/incorrect rating electrical wiring.
2. Origin- shower pull cord, first floor bathroom.
3. Spread – into roof space above igniting loft insulation and roof timbers. It appears a fractured water pipe in the roof may have inadvertently acted as a sprinkler and control the spread of fire”.
Following the fire the resident moved into temporary accommodation. On 13 October 2021 he submitted a claim to the landlord’s insurer. The Service has not been provided with a copy of the claim.
The landlord has provided a report of items it removed from the loft dated 29 November 2021, which shows photographs of 71 items.
The Service has seen photographs relating to the completion of works dated 17 December 2021.
On 21 December 2021 the resident told the landlord that he attended the property to view items that had been removed from the loft and put in a skip. He said he salvaged some items but did not have the “detailed list” of items removed from the loft. He said the contractors told him the works had finished but the floor was not fixed. He listed items of repair including carpets, kitchen units and lighting and said this would be claimed against the landlord’s insurance. He asked if the heating and boiler had been checked and when he could return to the property.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s contact on 21 December 2021 and said it would respond by 24 December 2021.
An internal email from 23 December 2021 notes, amongst other things, that all items were removed from the skip. The landlord noted that the shower worked and had been tested.
On 24 December 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s queries, as follows:
1. Skip – All items initially placed in the skip were subsequently removed. This would allow the resident to salvage any damaged items before they were taken away. It had requested a copy of the list from its contractor.
2. Repair work would be undertaken to the lighting, electric shower, boiler, gas supply, and electric socket. Another contractor would handle the first-floor flooring issue.
3. Insurance claim – The resident had made a claim through its insurer and he should contact the insurer for an update on the claim.
4. It was awaiting for the scaffolding to be removed and the relevant inspection for works would be carried out in January 2022. It was likely he could return to the property in February 2022, but this could change and it would keep in contact with him.
5. The property was still classed as a “building site” until it received the appropriate certificates. He should avoid going there during working hours and continue to follow its agreed arrangements to feed his tropical fish.
The landlord’s contractor confirmed all works were completed on 21 January 2022.
On 9 February 2022 the landlord’s insurer sent a letter denying liability to the resident. The Service has not been provided with a copy of this.
On 20 February 2022 the resident told the landlord that he had asked to be present when the loft was emptied to allow him to assess the damage caused. However, on 25 November he found a skip with “burnt” items from the loft but some items were not damaged. He felt that, had he not intervened when he did, more items would have been disposed of without him checking their condition. He had also asked for the list of removed items but had not yet received this. In terms of the condition of the property, the resident raised the following concerns:
1. Protective flooring was laid by the landlord after the loft was emptied;
2. The kitchen flooring was scratched;
3. The roof was not protected and allowed rainwater to enter through the bathroom light and smoke detector;
4. Shelving and a fitted wardrobe had been removed but not replaced;
5. Scaffolding was removed leaving behind debris.
6. There had been other damage to the garden and littering.
7. Some doors did not close.
8. There were patches of mould on the kitchen ceiling and cracks in the kitchen ceiling and wall.
The landlord logged the resident’s contact as an enquiry and noted its target response date as 9 March 2022. It then discussed the resident’s concerns with him on 8 March 2022, noting the following points:
1. It removed loft items via an external method to avoid internal mess (items were removed via a “pulley on the scaffold”). The resident agreed with this but said there was no covering to stop dust, debris and insulation falling within the property.
2. The rainwater through the light and smoke detector was from before it was on site.
3. It attached photos of the shelving and said it did not remove the door or shelving but had reinstated them. The resident said he put some shelving back in himself.
4. In response to leaving “cigarette butts”, it was the landlord’s policy not to smoke on site so the resident questioned where these had come from.
5. It completed a general inspection on completion and said the doors were left in full working order. The resident disputed this.
6. The mould patches on the kitchen ceiling were not in the specification of works, but it would help if needed. The resident asked if it would inspect the property again while he was present.
7. It provided photographs of the protection to prevent damage to the flooring and said it placed all its waste in a skip.
The resident spoke to the landlord again on 6 October 2022 and it treated this contact as his formal complaint. In particular, it noted his submissions that its inspection in July 2019 had not identified the incorrect wiring in the shower, which was then an accident waiting to happen. The wire from the shower to the electricity board was not of the right diameter and this had caused the fire. Finally, he expressed his dissatisfaction with the mess left behind after it had finished the works.
Internal landlord emails of 12 and 13 October 2022 stated that the shower cable would not have caused a fire, there was a 2 year period between the inspection and fire, and it had not received any reports about the shower in the intervening period. Therefore, it concluded that it was not to blame.
On 17 October 2022 the landlord apologised for not issuing its stage 1 response and said a response should be issued by 25 November 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 November 2022, when it again apologised for the delay and explained that this was due to receiving a high volume of enquiries. It had discussed the complaint with its electrical team leader who confirmed that, during the subsequent inspection, a 6mm cable with a 40A MC was used. It said this would not have caused a fire and the resident did not have any other issues regarding the shower since he moved to the property. It explained that any claim for compensation would need to be made through its insurer and it provided the contact details for this department. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The resident escalated his complaint on 16 January 2023, enclosing a copy of the fire report and stating that the whole process had been poorly handled by the landlord. He reiterated his concerns about the removal of his items from the loft. He explained that: the kitchen floor was under inches of water and was damaged since the fire; kitchen panels, washing machine and microwave were also damaged; carpets had been soaked; and water was leaking through light fittings and the smoke detector.
In response to the stage 2 complaint, internal landlord emails of 18 January 2022 discussed the specific meaning of the contents of the fire report. It considered the chronology of the resident’s insurance claim and the results of the EICR in 2019.
The landlord then issued its stage 2 response on 3 February 2023 and confirmed its position on the loft clearance. It reiterated that no issues had been found in the EICR and that no concerns had been reported about the shower pull cord between 2019 and 2021. It noted the resident’s comments that his roof, kitchen floor and panels were damaged and advised him to contact its repairs department for it to arrange repair work. It did not uphold the complaint and referred him to the Service if he remained unhappy.
On 27 February 2023 the resident told the Service that the landlord told him to claim on his own insurance policy but he did not have insurance at that time.
The Service spoke to the resident on 25 April 2024, when he confirmed that works were outstanding, and the kitchen and carpet were still damaged following the fire. The landlord has not looked into the mould issue or conducted an inspection following its stage 2 response. He also explained that the items removed from the loft included his children’s and late mother’s belongings and it was an extremely emotional time for him and his family.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is clear that there is a dispute over the cause of the fire and the fire report has been interpreted differently by the parties. The resident believes the cause of the fire was the electrical wiring. The landlord says the fire was due to an issue with the pull cord and that the resident never told it of any issues prior to the fire. Both sides feel strongly about their positions. It is important to explain that it is not the role of this Service to determine the cause of the fire as we do not have the required specialist expertise. However, in an effort to move the matter forward, an order has been made for the landlord to have the fire report reviewed by a suitably qualified specialist and to confirm its position based on their advice.
The resident submitted a claim to the landlord’s insurer, for damage to his personal belongings, and the claim was rejected. It is not the role of this Service to comment on the merits of an insurance claim or the actions of the insurer in assessing and responding to the claim. As a result, this investigation does not address the outcome of the insurance claim but does refer to the landlord’s decision to refer the resident to its insurer.

Response to reports of damage caused to the property due to a fire

This aspect of the resident’s complaint includes the landlord’s response to reports of damage caused to the property following the fire and him repeatedly telling it about outstanding condition of the property. This includes damage to the property and reports of mould.
The evidence demonstrates that the landlord took reasonable and proportionate steps to ensure the safety of the property prior to the mutual exchange in 2019. It was within its rights to rely on the professional opinion of a suitably qualified contractor and the records contained within the EICR from June 2019. As a result, the Ombudsman would not have expected the landlord to take any further steps at the time of the pre-exchange inspections.
It is accepted that the fire which occurred 2 years later was extremely upsetting and disruptive for the resident and his family, and that the landlord needed to respond with appropriate care and urgency. It is not disputed that the landlord moved the resident into temporary accommodation following the fire, and this was appropriate. Thereafter, it was reasonable for the landlord to direct the resident to its insurer in respect of his claim for damage caused by the fire. When considering the nature of the claim the landlord acted appropriately in referring the resident to its insurer.
In relation to the conditions within the property following the fire, in February 2020 the resident raised reports of mould in the kitchen. The evidence shows this was discussed in March 2022 and the resident requested an inspection. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord followed up on this point. This was not appropriate.
The resident repeated his concerns about the condition of the property in October 2022 and January 2023, caused by both the original fire and subsequent rain damage. There is limited evidence of the landlord engaging with these reports or making reasonable efforts to address the resident’s reports at that time. While the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 3 February 2023, it did not respond to the resident’s reports of damage caused to the property in a meaningful way. When considering the nature of the resident’s repeated concerns, it was unreasonable for the landlord to refer him to its repairs team to pursue further, rather than proactively taking ownership and ensuring the necessary works were completed.
Overall, the landlord was aware of the resident’s concerns from December 2021, at the latest, but failed to progress or investigate his reports of damage and mould. It missed several opportunities to investigate his concerns and the resident says the issues remain outstanding, almost 3 years after the fire. This is not appropriate and amounts to severe maladministration.
The landlord’s approach has exacerbated an already difficult and upsetting time for the resident and this significant impact over a prolonged period requires redress to be made by the landlord. When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered along with the scale of the landlord’s failings and the impact they had on the resident’s enjoyment of his home for a significant period of time. A rent-based compensation of 10% is considered appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord has said the weekly rent was between £110 and £197 per week. As the issues remain ongoing and this calculation is not exact, the upper level has been used, giving us a figure of £19.70 per week.
In terms of the timeframe for compensation, it is acknowledged that the landlord did complete repair works at the property and the resident returned in February 2022. As such, there were 114 weeks from 20 February 2022 to 10 May 2024 (£19.70 x 115 = £2,265.50). While this award is based on the level of rent, it is important to note that it is not intended as a ‘rent reduction’.

Handling of the resident’s personal belongings when clearing the loft

It is not disputed that items were removed from the loft and placed into a skip without the resident being given sufficient prior notice. The resident has said the items in the loft included his children’s belongings/memories and those of his late mother. It is accepted that this would have caused the resident surprise and upset.
The resident has said the landlord agreed for him to be in attendance when it removed his belongings from the loft, although the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to confirm such an agreement. It is noted that the resident gave this account to the landlord on several occasions in his subsequent contact with the landlord and it did not dispute his position, which suggests an agreement may have been reached. However, it is also accepted that it may have been difficult to have the resident present while it cleared the loft when the property was still ‘a building site’.
Regardless of whether the resident could have been present, the landlord should have been more proactive in keeping him updated and managing his expectations around the removal of his items. The evidence suggests there was very little communication on this point and the landlord could have done more to let the resident know when it would clear the loft and when he could attend to inspect the items before they were disposed of. The landlord’s failure to do this was unreasonable and amounts to service failure.
The resident raised concerns about finding items in the skip that were not damaged and he was told the landlord had made a list when it cleared items from the loft but he was not given a copy promptly. When considering this the landlord’s failure to proactively manage the situation has meant the resident has been left with some uncertainty about what was damaged by the fire and has been left feeling its photograph ‘list’ may be incomplete.
In light of these failings, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure and orders the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused. While this amount is slightly higher than the compensation banding suggested for service failure in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, this is to reflect the impact of the landlord’s failure to proactively manage the situation and that the resident has been left feeling unsure if items were missing. It is not to remedy any lost or damaged items.

Complaint handling

The resident made an expression of dissatisfaction within his letter of 20 February 2022, but incorrectly dated 2021. Despite his clear unhappiness, the landlord logged this contact as an enquiry and discussed the contents of the letter in a telephone call on 8 March 2022. The landlord’s failure to trigger its complaints process following the resident’s letter from 20 February 2022 was not appropriate or in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), applicable at that time.
This meant the resident had to contact it again on 6 October 2022, repeating similar concerns. The landlord appropriately treated this contact as a complaint but did not issue a stage 1 response until 24 November 2022, 25 working days outside of its 10 working day target timeframe. This timeframe was not appropriate and exacerbated the existing difficulties the resident was experiencing in relation to the substantive issue.
The significant delay in the landlord initiating its complaint procedure, coupled with the delay in it responding to the stage 1 complaint, meant it took almost a year for the resident to exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure. This was not appropriate and amounts to maladministration.
In addition to the poor response timeframes, the contents of the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses were not appropriate. Paragraph 5.6 of the Code, published in 2022, says that ‘landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate’.
While the resident questioned how the fire started, he also repeatedly raised concerns about the condition of the property after the landlord’s work and following the fire. However, the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses failed to address all points raised in the complaint and failed to explain how it would address his concerns about the condition of the property. Instead the resident was told to contact its repairs department. This was not appropriate.
The landlord’s complaint handling amounts to maladministration and the Ombudsman orders it to pay the resident £400 compensation to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failings. This is in line with the compensation banding for maladministration in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damage caused to the property due to a fire.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s personal belongings when clearing the loft.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord took appropriate steps to ensure the property was safe prior to the mutual exchange and its immediate response to the fire, in offering temporary accommodation while it completed repairs, was reasonable. However, when the resident repeatedly told it about the outstanding repairs and mould, it took no further action, and works remain outstanding to date.
The landlord failed to proactively make the resident aware of when it would clear the loft and when he could attend to inspect items he wanted to keep. Instead, he found his items in a skip and raised the issue with the landlord himself. This has left him feeling items it ‘listed’ may be incomplete.
The landlord treated the resident’s initial complaint as an enquiry and this added another stage to its complaints process. When it did treat the resident’s contact as a complaint, it did not respond in a timely manner and it failed to respond to all the points of complaints.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 4 weeks of this report:
1. Arrange for a senior manager to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident direct compensation of £2,865.50 (not to be offset against any arrears), as follows:
  1. £2,265.50 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the highlighted failings relating to its response to reports of damage caused to the property due to a fire.
  2. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s personal belongings when clearing the loft.
  3. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failings.
3. Arrange an inspection of the property, by a suitable specialist, to assess its condition and any outstanding repairs. Within 2 weeks of the inspection, the landlord should provide an inspection report to this Service and the resident, which confirms:
  1. What, if any, works are required to the property and when they are scheduled to be carried out.
  2. The measures it will put in place to monitor any works to remedy the mould issues.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 6 weeks of this report, obtain the opinion of an appropriately qualified specialist on the interpretation of the fire report. If its view remains unchanged on the cause of the fire, based on that expert opinion, it should explain this in writing to this Service and the resident.