The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Havering Council (202217236)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217236

Havering Council

23 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s:
      1. Reports of flooding caused by his shower pump.
      2. Request that the landlord pay his insurance excess.
    2. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord, which is a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 4 May 2020. The landlord has no record of any vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat which had a wet room installed at the time the resident moved in. The resident lived in the property with his wife and 2 children who were primary school age at the time of the complaint.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 September 2022 to report that the wet room was flooding when the shower was in use. The landlord attended and concluded that the shower pump that was fitted was not suitable for use by a family of 4. The resident asked the landlord to fit a bath as an alternative. On 9 November the landlord commenced works to remove the shower and install a bath. In the meantime, the resident claimed on his own insurance for damaged caused to the flooring. His insurance company approved the claim on the basis that he paid a £450 excess.
  4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 19 October 2022. He said the landlord’s plumber had advised him that the shower was not appropriate for use by a family of 4. This is because it was designed for a disabled person who would shower for a limited time (15 minutes) and allow the pump to suck out the water and then cool off for an hour. Having showers one after the other prevented the shower from sucking out the water, causing flooding which had damaged his floor. He said his insurance company had accepted his claim but that he would need to pay the excess which he asked the landlord to pay.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 November 2022. It confirmed that works to replace the shower with a bath were due to commence on 30 October. However, due to the extent of the works this had been delayed to 9 November for which it apologised. It said it was unable to pay the excess cover on insurance claims which was a matter between the resident and his insurer.
  6. Following intervention from this Service the landlord raised a stage 2 complaint on 15 December 2022. It provide its stage 2 complaint response on 23 January 2023, as follows:
    1. It raised a works order on 26 November 2020 to clear a blockage to the shower which was resolved on 10 December and completed within target.
    2. The resident logged a further report on 24 August 2022. However, this was not raised until 1 September which was a delay of 8 days.
    3. A further works order was raised on 27 September 2022 because the pump was continually breaking down. The Council’s contractor attended and raised an inspection. The inspection was carried out on 27 October which was out of target by 14 days.
    4. A works order was raised on 30 October 2022 to fit a new bath and its contractor attended on 9 November which was out of target by 9 days.
    5. On 18 November 2022 it raised a works order to install wall and floor tiles. As the bath was installed on the 9 November, a further job for the fitting of wall and floor tiles should have been raised on that day. Therefore there was a delay in raising the job of 9 days.
    6. The floor tiles were due to be fitted by 24 January 2023 which would be monitored.
    7. It acknowledged that its delays caused inconvenience and time and trouble for which it apologised.
    8. It was unable to consider paying the insurance excess.
    9. It confirmed that the resident requested to escalate his complaint on 3 November 2022. The request was made directly to its housing complaints team and not via its online form, as advised in the Stage 1 response.
    10. The complaint was therefore not passed to the relevant complaint investigation team at the time, for which it apologised. This delayed escalation of the resident’s complaint by 29 days. It acknowledged that the housing complaints team should have passed the escalation request to its investigation team once it was received.
    11. The delays for jobs not completed within target equated to 40 days. There was a further delay of 29 days in escalating the stage 2 complaint. The delays were assessed at minimum inconvenience, at a rate of £1.37 per day, which equates to £94.53 which was rounded up to £95. The landlord also offered £50 compensation for time and trouble. In total it offered £150 for the delays and time and trouble.
  7. On 1 February 2023 the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 3 of the complaints process. He said this was because while it had accepted its failure, and offered compensation, it had failed to consider that the delay damaged his floor.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 3 complaint response on 7 March 2023, as follows:
    1. It should have referred the resident’s stage 1 complaint to its insurance team for assessment when it was received.
    2. It failed to review repairs orders and target dates at stage 1 of the complaints process. In future, following review of the complaint, its officers would check and clarify the number of days there were service failures.
    3. It would ensure its contractors were aware of its expectations.
    4. It said it would offer information and advice to residents when they moved into a property in future. It would also thoroughly investigate the suitability of properties. It said that in this case “it should have been noted that the shower was for a person with a disability and may need to be adapted or changed to suit a family.”
    5. It added £100 compensation on top of the remedy of £150 already offered at stage 2. It also said housing had offered an additional £50. It is unclear as to whether had been offered in between the formal complaint stages or whether the housing team were offering further compensation as part of the landlord’s stage 3 response. Regardless, the total compensation offered at the time of the stage 3 response was £300.
    6. It noted that it did not pay insurance excesses.
  9. The resident contacted this Service on 15 March 2023 because he was dissatisfied that the landlord had “refused to take responsibility for the ramifications of their delays and failures” on his floor.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will issue stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days, stage 2 complaint responses within 25 working days and stage 3 complaint responses within 30 working days. The resident should request to escalate a complaint to stage 2 of the process through the ‘stage 2 online complaint form’.
  2. The landlord’s goodwill gesture/discretionary payment policy says:
    1. It does not apply to insurance claims but can be made for time and trouble/distress and inconvenience.
    2. A goodwill gesture will be offered if the resident has been “inconvenienced by avoidable circumstances.” They are limited to £30, any payments above this amount need to be assessed as a ‘discretionary payment.’
    3. Discretionary payments will be based on the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) guidelines.

Shower

  1. In the resident’s email to the landlord of 3 November 2022 he said that the landlord had failed to address the issue with the shower at the earliest opportunity during 2020. In its stage 2 complaint response of 23 January 2023 the landlord confirmed that it raised a works order on 26 November 2020 to clear a blockage to the shower which was resolved on 10 December. There is no evidence from either party to suggest this was anything more than a blockage which was resolved accordingly.
  2. The landlord’s complaint response says that the resident logged his next report on 24 August 2022, at which point it took steps to remedy the problem. This is not disputed by the resident.
  3. In its complaint response it broke down the various works orders it had raised in relation to the shower from that date onwards. It acknowledged where there had been delays, appropriately apologised and offered £150 compensation for the inconvenience (£95 rounded up to £100) and time and trouble (£50).
  4. In its stage 3 complaint response of 7 March 2023 the landlord acknowledged that it should have done more to check that the shower would meet the needs of a family of 4. It said it would investigate the suitability of properties in more detail to ensure that this would not happen again. It also confirmed that it would liaise with its contractors to set out its expectations in relation to timescales. Having identified several further failings, including those related to other matters, it added £100 compensation on top of the remedy already offered at stage 2 of £150. It also said housing had offered an additional £50.
  5. When assessing redress provided by a landlord the Ombudsman considers its dispute resolution principles which are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. Works to replace the shower with a bath did not commence until 9 November. This was 54 working days after the resident made his initial report on 24 August 2022, causing distress and inconvenience. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been no permanent impact. It appropriately demonstrated learning from the complaint and set out action taken to improve its service.
  6. With regards to the shower not being appropriate for the needs of the resident and his household, the landlord demonstrated learning from the complaint and explained what it would do differently in the future. The additional £100 compensation offered in its stage 3 complaint response of 7 March 2023 was for distress and inconvenience caused by 2 complaint handling failures and the shower issue. The landlord did not confirm how much was apportioned to each therefore, this investigation has split it equally across the 2 issues. This means that £50 was offered in relation to the shower being inappropriate for use by the resident and his household. Added to the compensation of £150 offered at stage 2, the landlord offered a total of £200 for the failures associated with the suitability of the shower and associated works.
  7. The landlord should reasonably have known that the specialist shower pump may not meet the needs of the resident and his family. However, this investigation has considered that it acknowledged its failure and demonstrated learning from the complaint. Evidence shows that the adverse effect caused to the resident was minimal. It provided redress by restoring the resident to the position he would have been in were it not for its failure by replacing the shower with a bath. It also laid new tiles and flooring. In doing so it fully put things right for the resident.
  8. Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord’s handling of the situation could reasonably have been improved. The landlord recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Insurance excess

  1. In his stage 1 complaint of 19 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that he had claimed on his own insurance policy for damage to the flooring. He requested that it pay his £450 excess.
  2. The landlord’s goodwill gesture/discretionary payment policy says that it does not apply to insurance claims. Therefore, the landlord’s position that it would not pay the excess was reasonable and in line with its policy.
  3. An internal email dated 15 December 2022 sent by the landlord’s insurance team considered the issue of liability. It said that because the stage 1 complaint was upheld in part, its insurers would likely consider that its position in respect of legal liability to have been compromised. However, the landlord’s stage 3 complaint response dated 7 March 2023 said that it should have referred the matter to its insurance team when the stage 1 complaint was received.
  4. The landlord’s apportionment of the compensation offered at stage 3 is unclear which was a failure. Therefore, this investigation considers it reasonable that the £50 offered by housing was for its failure to forward the resident’s stage 1 complaint to the insurance team.
  5. This investigation considers that while the landlord’s handling of the situation could reasonably have been improved. The landlord recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord’s stage 3 complaint response of 7 March 2023 identified a failure to review its repairs orders and target dates at stage 1 of the complaints process. It put this right by providing the information in its stage 2 complaints response. Based on this investigation’s assessment of the apportionment of the landlord’s compensation offered at stage 3 at paragraph 18, it offered £50 for the complaint handling failures. Given that the failure caused low level inconvenience to the resident and the landlord put things right this is considered reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. The resident made a request to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the process on 3 November 2022. However, because he did not receive a response he was caused inconvenience, time and trouble when he contacted this Service for assistance. Following intervention by this Service on 13 December, the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 23 January 2023.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appropriately provided an explanation for what had gone wrong which was in line with its complaints policy. It offered an apology and provided financial redress for the delay. Given the length of the delay and the low level detriment caused to the resident the amount of compensation offered was reasonable. However, it failed to set out what it would do differently next time. This was an important part of the learning in this case because the use of a specific online form to escalate a complaint is very prescriptive. Therefore, the landlord must take steps to mitigate against a repeat incident.
  4. When the landlord wrote to the resident on 15 December 2022 to acknowledge his stage 2 complaint request it said that due to a significant increase in the number of new complaints it was unlikely to provide a response within time. It apologised and said it would keep the resident updated. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 23 January 2023, 32 working days later which was 7 working days outside of its target in place at the time. This investigation recognises that this was an additional delay however, given the short duration there was a low adverse effect on the resident.
  5. The landlord failed to set out what action it had taken following the error in its handling of the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage 2. This amounts to service failure. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 for the complaint handling failures which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord which it did not fully put right. The landlord may deduct the £50 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  6. The landlord’s goodwill gesture/discretionary payment policy says goodwill gestures may be used when a resident had been “inconvenienced by avoidable circumstances.” Financial redress is a remedy available to a landlord to put things right where something has gone wrong. Therefore it is inappropriate to refer to them as goodwill gestures.
  7. Furthermore, it is inappropriate that payments above the capped amount should be assessed as discretionary payments based on LGSCO guidelines because these differ to the remedies guidance published by this Service. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to review its approach to compensation against the Ombudsman’s remedies policy and guidance.
  8. The Code says that 2 stage complaint procedures are ideal because this ensures they are not unduly long. It also says that landlords should issue stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days. The updated complaints policy on the landlord’s website is based on 2 stages and the response timescales comply with the requirements of the Code. Therefore, an order has not been made in relation to these matters.

 Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its response to the resident’s request that the landlord pay his insurance excess which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of flooding caused by the shower which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £100 for the adverse effect caused by the landlord’s failure to demonstrate learning from the complaint handling failure. The landlord may deduct the £50 it has offered if this has already been paid.
    2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in the case. This should include confirmation of steps it has taken to mitigate against repeat incidents in relation to use of the online form to escalate complaints to stage 2.

A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should re offer its compensation of £250 for the failures relating to the shower and insurance claim if this has not already been paid.
  2. The landlord should review its approach to compensation against the Ombudsman’s remedies policy and guidance. It should also ensure that future offers of compensation are clearly explained and broken as to how much is financial redress for which failure.