LiveWest Homes Limited (202011478)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011478

LiveWest Homes Limited

3 March 2021


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 resident complains about:
    1. the landlord’s offer of compensation for damage to personal belongings following a leak at his property.
    2. the replacement of his bathroom and the impact this had on him.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. In his complaint to this Service the resident has detailed several concerns about the replacement of his bathroom and the impact this had on him and “Extensive added work, costs, stress and disruption placed upon me…Extended loss of use of wc/bath/shower.”
  3. In relation to the leak and the damage caused the resident has explained “…I wasn’t able to use my lounge for several months, forced to live in my upstairs bedroom….the entire vinyl flooring had to be removed (& later renewed) to allow the boards beneath to dry out & the stench to lessen. My couch had to be dumped as it too stank even after drying out…In addition to having to replace my lounge flooring I have also had to replace the sodden/filthy landing & stair carpets & being virtually housebound/disabled then I have had to pay others to carry out all repairs/refitting etc.” He is seeking compensation for personal loss, the service failures suffered and the disruption and stress caused as a result of those failures.
  4. While this Service was sorry to learn of the additional issues that the resident has reported, these are not matters that formed part of the complaint that he put to and was considered by the landlord. This Service has seen that in an email dated 17 February 2020 in response to the landlord saying that it would raise a complaint about the bathroom refit issues, the resident specifically stated that he saw no point, and said “My problem is simply a matter of compensation for personal property damaged by the flooding of my bathroom & downstairs living room.”
  5. Further, no reference was made to carpets, sofas, and not being able to use the living room for several months in the subsequent communications with the landlord. The resident has explained that this is because he was not aware until sometime after the leak that the carpets and sofa would smell.
  6. Paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure and therefore these matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate. However, this Service can investigate the complaint about the request for compensation for damage to personal belongings as this completed the landlord’s complaint process.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 20 February 2020 the landlord undertook planned works to install a new bathroom at the property. Late on 23 January 2020 the resident’s son reported a leak, which the landlord attended as an emergency, turning off the mains supply until the leak could be repaired in the morning.
  2. In the early hours of 24 January 2020, the resident emailed the landlord about the matter, reporting damage to the walls, floors and ceiling as well as to personal items which he listed as: a guitar he inherited from his father; a wooden chest that his father had made; a set of cookery books he inherited from a close friend; a games console; a USB speaker, and; a very expensive remote control WW2 tank. He said “What I want/demand is that you get yourself or another over here asap in the morning to make your own firsthand assessment/s.”
  3. The landlord attended that day and took photographs of the damaged areas and personal items. The ceiling plasterboard damaged by the leak was repaired on 4 February 2020 (and artexed and painted on 18 February 2020).
  4. On 9 February the resident contacted the landlord to report his concerns about the bathroom works and the response to the leak. He mentioned that there had been outstanding issues following the completion of the bathroom works on 24 January 2020, such as “A shower fitted but not commissioned into service, a bath with virtually no running hot water…” He noted that these were resolved now but asked for the landlord’s guidance on claiming compensation for his damaged personal items “…re the things addressed in my initial email plus others not mentioned at the time.” On 17 February 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and said that it would raise a complaint. In response the resident stated that he saw “no great purpose” in raising a complaint, confirming that all leaks were fixed and the living room ceiling had been repaired and that “My problem is simply a matter of compensation for personal property damaged by the flooding of my bathroom & downstairs living room.”
  5. The landlord then suggested that the resident make a claim via his home contents policy if he had one. When the resident advised that he did not, the landlord investigated the matter as a complaint, and it was confirmed that its contractor had accidentally put a screw through a heating pipe causing the leak. It was noted that the inspection the landlord undertook on 24 January 2020 found that some damage was caused to a guitar, but no games console was seen, “…other than that it didn’t look like there was anything else that could have been damaged.”
  6. On 2 March 2020 the landlord sent a stage one complaint response, saying that the matter had been upheld as it had identified a service failure for which it apologised. In recognition of this it had agreed a goodwill payment of £75. It asked the resident to let it know if he was happy to accept this offer.
  7. The resident was unable to respond to this offer for health reasons, and the landlord said it would leave the offer open until such time he was able to respond. On 14 August 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and asked it to escalate the matter to the next stage. The landlord responded to confirm the complaint would be escalated for a senior manager to review.
  8. This was provided on 28 August 2020. It found that while the leak was caused by the contractor drilling through a water pipe, it had responded to this straight away, and inspected soon after. Therefore, there had not been a service failure as it had acted straight away to “put things right.” It did agree that the event was beyond the resident’s control, and noted his health issues at the time, and therefore offered £150 as a discretionary payment for the inconvenience caused. The resident did not accept this amount and brought his complaint to this Service.

 

 

Assessment and findings

  1. It is not disputed that the (accidental) actions of the contractor caused the leak in the property, and it is apparent that the landlord then acted quickly in repairing the leak. The resident has not complained about the incident itself, but rather, the landlord’s offer of compensation following his reports of damage to his personal items.
  2. In such circumstances the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to initially at least consider whether there was evidence that it has been at fault for any claimed damage to a resident’s belongings rather than referring straight to an insurer. 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 the resident’s future premium and/or require them to pay an excess. However, if a resident is unable to evidence the level of damages they are claiming, it may be reasonable for a landlord to ask that the resident’s insurer determine the claim.
  3. In this case, the resident’s tenancy agreement sets out “It is your own responsibility to take out home contents insurance.” In light of this, it was not wholly unreasonable that in the first instance the landlord suggested that the resident make a claim in this manner. However, given that the landlord (via its contractor) was at fault for the leak and accepted this, it was not entirely appropriate. In any case, the resident did not have contents insurance.
  4. Therefore, the Ombudsman might next have expected the landlord to either obtain further information on the damage claimed and the amount sought, and make a decision as to whether it would provide compensation itself, or consider referring the resident to make a claim via the landlord’s own insurers, which would cover such circumstances where a resident believes a landlord has been negligent and caused damage to household contents. If a resident establishes that a landlord is legally liable for damage, the landlord’s insurer would seek to resolve the landlord’s liability by paying compensation that would otherwise have been paid through the courts.
  5. There is no indication that the landlord considered facilitating a claim on its own insurance policy for any damaged belongings, and there is no mention of such a course of action being available in the landlord’s compensation policy. However, the Ombudsman notes that the compensation policy sets out that payments that the landlord needs to make include those for damage to possessions. It notes that payments for losses should usually cover the exact amounts of loss being claimed. The policy acknowledged that residents might not always be able to produce evidence of this and so “Our approach to requesting evidence from customers should therefore always be reasonable in situations where the costs of replacement items being claimed are also reasonable.”
  6. In lieu of any referral to its own insurers, and in light of the policy setting out the payments that the landlord needed to make, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to take steps to quantify with the resident what costs he was requesting for what items and make a careful assessment of this. There is no indication that the landlord did so.
  7. Instead, it appears to have relied on the report from the inspection carried out on 24 January 2020, along with the photographs taken at the time. The Ombudsman has seen that the report stated “…I’m obviously not sure what has and has not been damaged by the leak” and noted that the resident had mentioned a games console, a wooden chest and some other items.
  8. While it was a reasonable course of action to refer to the inspection carried out that day when considering the resident’s request for compensation for damaged items, given this clearly stated that the landlord was not sure what had and had not been damaged by the leak, it was important to obtain further information.
  9. There is evidence that the landlord did investigate further with those involved at the time. This investigation found that a wooden chest below the leak had filled with water, but this had not been emptied by the resident and was left overnight. No games console was apparent at the inspection, and it was suggested that if the resident was claiming for this, it should be requested for assessment. There had been a guitar which had some damage to the bottom only. It was noted “…other than that it didn’t look like there was anything else that could have been damaged.”
  10. The Ombudsman has reviewed the photographs taken by the landlord at the property on the 24 January 2020, which show a games console, so it is unclear why the landlord stated that none was apparent. Further, the information obtained at this point seems to contradict the note made on the day of the inspection that the landlord was not sure what had and hadn’t been damaged.
  11. In light of the above, it was important that the landlord took steps to clarify with the resident the costs he was claiming. Instead, the landlord provided a formal complaint response (and given that the resident specifically stated that he saw no benefit of raising a complaint and was simply seeking compensation for damaged possessions, it is unclear why the landlord treated the matter as a formal complaint) which did not address the request for compensation for personal belongings, but instead offered £75 and then increased this to £150 as a goodwill payment. The landlord’s compensation policy states that payments that the landlord can choose to make are those such as goodwill gestures to say sorry and recognise the impact of service failures. Therefore, there is no indication that the landlord considered any payment it needed to make (as set out in the policy) in response to the request for damaged possessions.  
  12. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident gave no indication of the costs of the items he was requesting. The Ombudsman is also aware that the landlord had been unable to contact him on several occasions during the complaint process due to his health issues. It is also worth noting that the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns were timely and empathetic to his health situation.
  13. Nevertheless, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damage to personal belongings. While it is not within the scope of this investigation to make an assessment of any damage claimed or the indemnity value of this, the Ombudsman does consider that an increased level of compensation is appropriate as a remedy to the time and trouble the resident has taken in pursuing the matter, and the loss of opportunity for his request for compensation to be fully assessed.

Determination (decision)

  1. In line with section 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation.

Reasons

  1. There is no indication that the landlord either advised the resident to make a claim via the landlord’s own insurance policy, or that it fully considered the resident’s claim for compensation itself.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £350 for the time, trouble and loss of opportunity experienced.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider:
    1. whether it is possible for the resident to make a claim via the landlord’s own insurer despite the time that has now passed, and if so advise him on how to go about this.
    2. updating its compensation policy to include directions on making claims via its own insurer in cases where this may be appropriate.