Longhurst Group Limited (202105677)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105677

Longhurst Group Limited

23 March 2022

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:
1. The level of compensation offered by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in responding to the resident’s reports of a leak at the property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of a property owned and managed by the landlord. The property is a one bedroom ground floor flat.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that plumbing repairs and leaks are classed as emergency repairs and emergency repairs will be attended to as soon as possible and prioritised depending on the nature of the emergency.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will make safe and diagnose an emergency repair within 24 hours with a 10 day to 21 day timescale allowed to carry out the full repair.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the following compensation for the use of dehumidifiers: it will pay for 24 hour of use, at a cost of £2.22 per dehumidifier per day.
The compensation policy also says that the cost for replacing property that is damaged due to a service failure caused by the landlord or its contractors will be determined on a case by case basis. The customer should not be left out of pocket where a contractor is at fault.
The landlord’s tenancy management policy says that should a resident be required to move out of their home due to work identified to repair the building then it will make a £150.00 discretionary payment to support with removal and other costs. Any further, reasonable associated costs will be considered on an individual basis.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. The response time at stage one is 10 working days. Where this timescale is not possible, the landlord will provide a valid reason to the resident. The complaint response will not exceed a further 10 working days. The response time at stage two is 20 working days. If this timescale is not possible due to exceptional circumstances, an explanation and a date of when the stage 2 response will be sent to the resident will be provided. This will not exceed a further 10 working days.
On 9 November 2020 the resident telephoned the landlord to report water coming through the wall in the bedroom at the property. The landlord attended the property the same day and concluded that the water was a result of a repair on the upstairs neighbour’s roof not being carried out. The resident said the landlord told him it would contact him about what action it would be taking.
On 13 November 2020 the resident telephoned the landlord to report a larger quantity of water coming through the floor of the flat. The resident says he was told that the landlord would attend the property within 24 hours. The resident says that he telephoned the landlord again the following day as no one had attended the property. He was told someone would be in touch.
On 16 November 2020 the resident sent a complaint to the landlord about its response to his reports of water leaking into his property as the landlord had still not attended the property, following his report of the second leak.
The landlord attended the property and took photographs on 16 November 2020 and made three further visits to the property on 19 and 20 November 2021.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 18 November 2020 to discuss the complaint and sent him an email the same day saying that it would look into the complaint and respond within 30 days. If this was not possible, the landlord would let the resident know.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 21 November 2021 saying that the flooding in the property had got worse.
On 23 November 2020 the landlord decanted the resident to a hotel, in order that it could carry out the works required to remedy the leak at the property.
On 30 November 2020 the landlord moved the resident to a bed sit.
On 1 December 2020 the landlord started work at the property to install a new water supply pipe.
The resident says that the landlord telephoned him on 10 December 2020 and informed him that the new water supply pipe had been installed but the dehumidifiers in the property hadn’t been working well. The resident says that the landlord informed him on 18 December 2020 that the property was still damp, and it didn’t think that the resident would be able to move back until the new year.
On 19 December 2020 the resident visited the property and discovered that the electricity had been switched off and on again, which he said resulted in food in his freezer being ruined.
On 6 January 2021 the resident visited the property and discovered that water had leaked in the corner of the front room at the property. On 13 January 2021 the landlord met with the resident and informed him that it was going to remove kitchen cupboards and take up the floor to find out where this new leak was coming from.
On 19 February 2021 the landlord telephoned the resident and told him that the new leak was from a pipe to the kitchen sink which had been damaged by one of the landlord’s plumbers when replacing the water supply pipe and it was now fixed.
The resident says that he visited the property on 1 March 2021 and found that a dehumidifier in the kitchen was dumping water on the floor as the waste pipe hadn’t been placed into the kitchen sink. The resident also says that the dehumidifier in the front room had no pipe to take the water away and so had also been dumping water onto the floor.
The resident says that he spoke to the landlord on 3 March 2021 who said that the contractor had now been told to fix a pipe on the dehumidifiers or drain them into a bucket to be emptied every day.
The resident visited the property on 12 March 2021 and says that he emptied the bucket in the front room but discovered that the drainage pipe in the sink had not been reconnected, so all water emptied into the sink was draining straight onto the kitchen floor. The resident telephoned the landlord and left a message about the kitchen sink.
The resident says that on 16 March 2021 he sent the landlord an email about his complaint.
On 19 March 2021 the resident says he visited the property and saw that the landlord had fixed the kitchen sink. However, the kitchen floor was still wet. The resident reported the wet floor to the landlord a number of times over the next two weeks.
On 24 March 2021 the landlord sent the resident an email asking him to telephone it to discuss resolving the complaint. The resident spoke to the landlord on 25 March 2021 and the landlord told him that the complaint could not be closed yet as it would need to assess compensation when the work was completed. The resident asked the landlord if it could visit the property as the kitchen floor was wet.
On 29 March 2021 the resident says he visited the flat and emptied a bucket that was about to overflow with water from the dehumidifier and noted that the kitchen floor was still wet.
The landlord says that it stopped running the dehumidifiers all day on 8 April 2021.
Following the resident sending a further email asking to escalate the complainant and submitting a compensation request, the landlord telephoned the resident on 13 April 2021. The landlord’s notes of the telephone call say “Discussed going to a stage 2…He went to hospital a couple of weeks ago with a suspected heart attack due to stress. He is slipping into a depression; he is supported by [an advice agency] and they may contact us too.”
On 14 April 2021 the landlord sent the resident an email saying that “As we discussed yesterday, we will escalate your complaint straight to a stage 2”.
On 21 April 2021 the landlord telephoned the resident to say it had located a further leak in a joint in the waste stack pipe and would be replacing the pipe and the kitchen cupboards. The landlord’s repair records show that on 22 April 2021 it replaced the waste pipe.
On 6 May 2021 the landlord sent an email to the resident, saying it was responding to the compensation part of the stage 2 complaint. In its response the landlord responded to the resident’s itemised list of compensation requests as follows:
1. It agreed to replace the kitchen floor and kitchen cupboards.
2. It offered to decorate the kitchen, bedroom and lounge as a gesture of goodwill offer.
3. It agreed to pay the electricity costs of running the dehumidifiers.
4. It offered of £850 compensation for disruption to the resident in response to the resident’s following requests:
  1. £7350 for discomfort and displacement.
  2. £129.37 to cover the gas bills at the property from 11 November 2020.
  3. £1678.53 for a refund of rent since the original leak
  4. £56 in taxi fares from the hotel to the property.
  5. £380 in taxi fares from the bedsit to the property.
  6. £195 for internet charges in the bedsit.
  7. £200 for washing and cleaning clothes which smelt of damp as a result of the leaks.
  8. £2000 compensation for damage to his mental health and stress.
  9. £175.71 to cover the bills for the landline, broadband and television at the property
  10. £46 taxi to and from hospital when he had his suspected heart attack.
5. The resident had asked for £1200 compensation for the damage caused to the carpets at the property. The landlord said that whilst damage to carpets would normally be covered under residents’ own contents insurance, it was happy to replace the carpet in the lounge as it was damaged by its contractor during the repair works.
6. It refused to pay £50 requested by the resident to cover the resident’s frozen food which had been defrosted and refrozen. The landlord said the electricity was switched off for a maximum of 48 hours and freezers” tend to keep food ok for this period if they are not opened.”
7. It agreed to pay £25 for the resident’s perishable food that he had left in the fridge and cupboards at the property.
The landlord’s repair records show that on 7 May 2021 it completed the kitchen fitting.
On 26 May 2021 the landlord sent the resident an email confirming that its compensation offer was £1690.44 and apologised for the length of time the repairs were taking. The resident replied the same day asking the landlord to raise the compensation.
The landlord sent a stage two complaint response to the resident on 4 June 2021. In its complaint response the landlord:
1. Increased its compensation offer to £2139.97, made up as follows:
  1. £559.44 to cover the electricity for the dehumidifiers used at the property.
  2. £56 refund for taxis to and from the property from the hotel.
  3. £75 for the loss of the resident’s food, both frozen and perishable.
  4. £449.53 to represent 20% of the rent the resident had paid whilst he had been decanted in a smaller property. The landlord said it was happy to make a further payment, based on the same calculation, once the resident was back in the property for the additional amount.
  5. £1000 for the inconvenience and disruption caused to the resident.
2. Confirmed that it was arranging for the kitchen flooring and the lounge carpet to be replaced and the kitchen, bedroom and lounge to be decorated.
3. Apologised for how long the repairs had taken and that the resident had been out of his home for so long.
The landlord’s stage two response dated 4 June 2021 was its final response to the resident’s complaint, confirming that the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints process.
On 19 June 2021 the resident moved back to the property and all remedial work was completed by 15 July 2021.

Assessment and findings

The level of compensation offered by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in responding to the resident’s reports of a leak at the property

The resident reported the leak to the landlord on 13 November 2020; however, the landlord did not complete the repairs until 15 July 2021, some 244 days later and 223 days outside the 21 day timescale set out in the landlord’s compensation policy. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak at the property was therefore inappropriate and represented maladministration by the landlord.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by apologising for how long the repairs had taken and that the resident had been out of his home for so long.
The landlord acted reasonably and demonstrated a resolution focused approach in arranging to decorate the kitchen, bedroom and lounge as a gesture of goodwill.
The landlord acted appropriately and in line with the provisions of its compensation policy set out in paragraph 6 above by replacing the carpet in the lounge as it determined that the carpet had been damaged by its contractors.
Two dehumidifiers were running in the property for 24 hours a day for 126 days (3 December 2020 until 8 April 2021). The landlord’s compensation policy says that the landlord will pay it will pay for 24 hour of use of dehumidifiers, at a cost of £2.22 per dehumidifier per day. The landlord therefore acted appropriately and in line with the provisions of its compensation policy in offering to pay the resident £559.44 to cover the electricity for the dehumidifiers used at the property.
The landlord acted reasonably in refunding the cost of the taxis to and from the hotel and the cost of replacing the resident’s frozen and perishable food.
The landlord’s tenancy management policy does not specify the circumstances in which it will refund rent to a resident during a period when they are decanted to another property. The landlord therefore acted reasonably and demonstrated a resolution focused approach in offering to refund 20% of the resident’s rent whilst he had been decanted in the smaller property.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £1000 for the inconvenience and disruption he had experienced. The landlord’s compensation policy, which is based on the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies. says that compensation in excess of £700 is used in recognition of maladministration / severe maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the resident. Remedies in this range will be appropriate when there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both. Examples of where the landlord would offer a remedy over £700 could include a long stay in temporary accommodation due to mishandling of repairs.
The amount of £1000 is therefore above the minimum that the landlord would offer where there has been maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the resident. However, the sum of £1000 is not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings as:
1. The delay in completing the repairs was significant (233 days), and in part caused by numerous mistakes made by the landlord’s contractors in:
  1. failing to drain the dehumidifiers.
  2. damaging the pipe to the kitchen sink.
  3. failing to connect the pipe to the kitchen sink.
  4. failing to identify a further leak in the soil stack until alerted to water on the kitchen floor by the resident.
2. Throughout the period of the decant the resident visited the property and alerted the landlord to issues with the repair work, including water still leaking in the kitchen and the dehumidifiers dumping water onto the floor. The landlord’s lack of oversight of the repairs led to the resident having an unreasonable level of involvement in monitoring the repair work.
3. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience at the length of time he was decanted for, as he initially expected to be decanted for a week or two. The landlord informed him on 18 December 2020 that he might not be back into the property until the new year. In fact, he was decanted for a total of 178 days and there is no evidence to show that the landlord managed his expectations in this regard.
The landlord has also not provided any details to the resident about whether it has learnt from the outcome of the complaint to ensure similar failings in delaying to carry out and monitor repairs do not occur in the future.
Therefore, for the reasons set out in the previous two paragraphs the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s response was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident and that the landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s complaints handling

There was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling as:
1. Whilst it did discuss the complaint with the resident on 18 November 2020 and on 24 March 2021 it did not provide a response to the complaint until 6 May 2021. This was 117 working days after the resident made his complaint on 16 November 202, and 97 working days outside the 20 working day time limit set out in the resident’s complaints procedure.
2. It provided confusing information to the resident about escalating the complaint straight to stage two of its complaints procedure on 14 April 2021. Its response dated 6 Macy 2021 was in practice a stage one response, with its stage two response being provided on 4 June 2021.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints about:
1. The level of compensation offered by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in responding to the resident’s reports of a leak at the property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, and the landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The landlord has also not demonstrated that it has leant from the outcome of the complaint to ensure similar failings in delaying carrying out and monitoring repairs do not occur in the future.
The landlord’s complaint handling demonstrated inappropriate delay.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident £2689.97. This is comprised of:
1. £2139.97 previously offered if it has not already been paid.
2. A further £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak at the property.
3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident a further sum representing 20% of the rent paid between 4 June 2021 and 19 June 2021.
The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to carry out a management review of the case to consider whether staff training is needed to ensure that similar failings in delaying carrying out and monitoring repairs do not occur in the future. The landlord to report back on the review to this Service.