Longhurst Group Limited (202223518)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223518

Longhurst Group Limited

10 October 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 is about the landlord’s handling of replacement flooring at the resident’s property following a leak.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The resident experienced a leak into her property from her neighbour which the landlord repaired on 24 June 2022. On 27 July 2022, the landlord agreed to replace the resident’s hallway and lounge flooring, which was removed to allow the concrete floor underneath to dry out after the leak. It asked her to provide quotes for like-for-like replacement of the flooring. The resident provided these on 16 August 2022.
  3. After receiving no response from the landlord about the quotes, she raised a stage one complaint on 2 September 2022. She was unhappy that despite calling on 24 occasions since 7 July 2022, she had only been able to speak someone knowledgeable about her case twice. She was also unhappy that the landlord had informed her on 8 August 2022 that it would be replacing the bathroom flooring, but this work had yet to start.
  4. The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident on 21 October 2022. It offered her £550 compensation. It explained that its lack of contact about the flooring replacement and repairs was due to staff leaving the organisation and possible confusion over raising work, as she and her neighbour both required the same repairs. The landlord confirmed that it had paid the resident £1,037.19 on 30 September for the cost of the flooring and a further £519.64 for fitting on 7 October 2022. It also confirmed that it would be fitting the kitchen and bathroom flooring on 28 October 2022
  5. The resident escalated her complaint later on 21 October 2022 as she felt that the compensation offered was insufficient. She said that as she had not had the full use of her property for 5 months since the leak she wanted £1,427.50 compensation, which reflected 50% of her rent for 5 months.
  6. After speaking to the resident on 9 December 2022, the landlord issued its final response to her on 23 December 2022, in which it increased its offer of compensation to £750. It noted that she wanted an appointment for 31 January 2023 to fit the kitchen and bathroom flooring to be brought forward, but said that it was unable to do this. The landlord apologised for the delay in completing the work.
  7. The landlord’s contractors did not attend to replace the bathroom flooring on 31 January 2023 and it agreed on 29 March 2023 to pay the resident’s costs in replacing it herself. It also paid her £100 compensation for the missed appointments for replacing her kitchen and bathroom flooring.
  8. The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman on 19 June 2023 that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the flooring repairs and the compensation it offered her. To resolve her complaint, she wanted it to increase its offer of compensation to her. The resident also wanted an apology and an explanation for the landlord’s delays in replacing the flooring.

Assessment and findings

Hallway and lounge flooring

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy confirms that it is responsible for the repair of floor coverings which it has provided. Any floor coverings installed by a resident are that resident’s responsibility.
  2. In this case, the floor coverings in the lounge and hallway were the resident’s and ordinarily would be her responsibility to repair, in accordance with the landlord’s policy. However, it was not disputed that the landlord assumed responsibility for the replacement of these as it had agreed to this at the time of the leak on 24 June 2022.
  3. Having given this assurance to the resident, the landlord would be expected to act promptly to provide reimbursement to the resident. It asked the resident on 8 August 2022 to provide two quotes for like-for-like replacement of the flooring for consideration which she provided on 16 August 2022. The landlord then disputed on 26 August 2022, that the quotes were like-for-like, and the resident provided a new quote on 30 August 2022. It then paid the funds for the flooring and fitting to the resident on 30 September 2022 and 7 October 2022.
  4. From the date of the leak on 24 June 2022, it took approximately six weeks for the landlord to confirm that it would pay for the replacement flooring. It is not evident why it took so long to provide its position, and it is not evident that the landlord managed the resident’s expectations through timely communication during this period. The 10 days it then took to consider the resident’s quotes between 16 and 26 August 2022 was not overly excessive; however, once it had received her final quote on 30 August 2022, it then took over a month to pay all of her costs, without providing an interim update.
  5. While it is appreciated that this was an atypical situation for the landlord, which would not ordinarily pay for replacement flooring, it was unreasonable that the process was excessively drawn out. It was also unreasonable that the landlord’s communication was so infrequent. The resident expended excess time and effort in chasing the landlord for responses, making approximately 30 contacts between 14 July and 7 October 2022, but there was little evidence of substantial responses from it to manage her expectations.

Kitchen and bathroom flooring

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will complete non-emergency routine repairs within a maximum of 28 calendar days. As mentioned above, this policy confirms that it will repair flooring that it provided in the property.
  2. The landlord was aware from 24 June 2022, the date of the leak, that the resident’s kitchen and bathroom flooring was damaged. It was not disputed that this was fitted by the landlord and was therefore its responsibility to repair. It should, therefore, have completed the repair to the kitchen and bathroom flooring by 22 July 2022, in line with its policy.
  3. The Ombudsman acknowledges that such timeframes may not be possible depending on the circumstances. However, a high degree of communication would therefore be expected. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to raise the flooring repairs as follow-on works after it attended the leak on 24 June 2022. It was unreasonable that it did not arrange for this work to commence until 8 August 2022, 45 calendar days later, when it confirmed that the flooring would be measured, which took place on 19 August 2022. It was unreasonable that it then required multiple contacts from the resident to pursue the matter, and her raising a formal complaint, before the landlord confirmed that an appointment was scheduled for 28 October 2022. This would have been 4 months after the leak damaged the flooring.
  4. It was subsequently disputed whether the landlord attended the appointment on 28 October 2022 or not. The landlord’s records specifically noted that the operative did not have cards available to evidence that had attempted to gain access, and the resident asserted that she had been present all day to await the appointment. The landlord could have done more to gain access, such as calling the resident. In the absence of evidence that the landlord made reasonable efforts to keep the appointment, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that it attended.
  5. The landlord then provided an appointment to the resident for 31 January 2022 for the flooring repair, which it did not keep. It then paid the resident, in April 2023, for her costs in carrying out the flooring repair herself. This meant that the repair to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom flooring took 10 months to resolve. This would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she and her family would have been without flooring over the exposed bare concrete floors for a significant time.
  6. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that there had been delays in resolving the flooring, and explained in its stage one response that there may have been confusion in arranging work as the resident’s neighbour required the same repairs. This did not explain, however, the subsequent delays and why there was such a significant length of time between appointments.

Compensation

  1. Where quantifiable loss has occurred as a result of the landlord’s actions, it would be expected to remedy this by either carrying out repairs, facilitating a claim through its insurers, or compensating the resident directly for their loss. In this case, the landlord did not dispute that it instructed the resident to pull up her lounge and hallway flooring to enable the floors to dry out after the leak. It responded reasonably to this by offering to reimburse the resident for her costs in replacing the flooring damaged by the leak.
  2. The resident’s desired resolution was for the landlord to pay her £1,427.50, which was 50% of her rent for the period that her floors went unrepaired. She said that this was to recognise that she had not been able to have full use of her property during this time. While it was undoubtedly inconvenient and distressing for the resident to go so long with bare floors, there was no evidence that the lack of floor covering made any part of the property unusable or uninhabitable.
  3. The landlord’s compensation procedure provides for the payment of compensation when there has been a loss of use of a room. In line with this, it was not obligated to pay a proportion of rent to the resident as compensation as there had been no loss of use of a room or rooms. While undoubtedly inconvenient and uncomfortable, the presence of the bare concrete floor did not necessarily render the rooms unusable. Therefore, rather than offer compensation to the resident for her loss of amenity, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation to recognise the inconvenience she experienced during the time that the flooring repair was left unfinished.
  4. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view online, provides for offers of compensation over £1,000 where there has been a failure by the landlord which had a significant impact on the resident over a prolonged period. The landlord’s offer of £850 compensation, while significant, did not proportionately recognise the distress and inconvenience faced by the resident over the 10 months she went without flooring in the affected rooms in the property.
  5. To proportionately recognise the protracted impact on the resident caused by the landlord’s excessive delay in remedying the kitchen and bathroom flooring, its poor communication throughout, and its delay in arranging reimbursement of her costs in replacing her lounge and hallway flooring, compensation of £1,000 should be paid to her.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of replacement flooring in the resident’s property following a leak.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of 1,000 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delays and poor communication in relation to her flooring.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £850. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.