Moat Homes Limited (202015230)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015230

Moat Homes Limited

30 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of floor and ceiling repairs and response to reports of damage to the resident’s belongings.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a house. The tenancy commenced in 1999. The information provided advises the resident has vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy confirms its repairs obligations for the property structure. Under its repairs priorities, the landlord completes emergency repairs within four to 24 hours; urgent repairs within seven days; routine repairs within 30 days; and more complex programmed works are completed in a longer agreed timeframe. Repairs are aimed to be carried out within a reasonable and mutually convenient time.
The landlord initially aims to informally resolve complaints within two working days, otherwise it operates a two stage formal complaints procedure. At stage one, it responds within 28 calendar days, and at stage two, within 21 calendar days.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that customers are responsible for having home contents insurance. It advises that compensation claims will only be considered if damage results from a failure to repair, and if a contractor causes damage, the landlord will refer this to the contractor and try to ensure a fair and reasonable settlement is reached. It advises that claims up to £999 must be submitted on a claim form and claims over £1,000 are referred to insurers to consider and settle directly with the customer if the claim is approved. It advises claim details must be received within 31 calendar days of the event that caused the loss or damage, otherwise the landlord may be unable to consider the claim. It advises that a proportion of the weekly rent is compensated if a bedroom is unavailable after seven days. It advises that goodwill compensation for time and trouble up to £150 may be awarded which includes telephone costs and time spent resolving issues.
The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is limited by its Scheme. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.”
The resident complains about events in relation to floor works in 2016, 2018 and 2019. Whilst this information provides important background and context to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s position on this matter, there is no evidence that she made a formal complaint prior to June 2020. The Ombudsman has not considered the resident’s earlier complaints over this four year period, as the longer time goes on, the more the ability to conduct an effective investigation may be impacted.
This investigation therefore focuses on events from when the resident made a formal complaint in June 2020, up until the landlord’s final response on 18 December 2020. Events that pre–date the complaints procedure are referenced for contextual purposes only.

Summary of events

In 2016, 2018 and 2019 the information provided advises that the resident reported issues with property flooring, which the resident advises stemmed from a leak that occurred in 2016, and the landlord’s contractor carried out repairs.
On 23 June 2020, the landlord’s records advise it received a repair report and a complaint from the resident about holes in her bedroom and hallway floors. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day and identified there were ‘bouncing’ floorboards in a bedroom and hallway, that required removal of carpet and a fitted wardrobe to repair. The resident was informed removal of the carpet and wardrobe were her responsibility, however she reported the issue was in the same location as previous repairs, and requested the landlord/contractor carry out the removal or reimburse the costs to do this, and compensate for costs incurred after the previous repairs.
In July 2020, the issue was inspected by a supervisor from the landlord’s contractors, who noted that the last repair was 18 months previously, and the resident was asked to arrange for the carpet to be lifted or to sign a waiver for the contractor to investigate and move forward with the repair. The resident was reported to be dissatisfied with this, as she felt it was a repeat issue and the contractor should be liable for current and historic expenditure incurred in relation to the flooring.
On 27 July 2020 the landlord issued a stage one response to the resident’s complaint.
1. It noted a hole in the bedroom floor was reported on 23 June 2020 and after an inspection the same day, the resident was informed she needed to pull back the carpet for an inspection of the area. It noted that contractors had repaired floorboards in the same location in January 2019.
2. It noted the resident was unhappy at being later informed the contractor would lift the carpet if she signed a waiver. It apologised that she was dissatisfied and explained that as the carpet was not part of the building structure, it was her responsibility, and it was unable to inspect the floorboards until the carpet had been removed from the area.
On 3 August 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to request escalation of the complaint.
1. She explained that a previous flood at the property led to the lounge ceiling collapsing. She explained that during investigation of what caused the leak, bedroom floorboards were cut out then placed back down, and after being given the all clear, the bedroom was redecorated, new furniture was purchased and the bedroom, hallway and lounge carpet was replaced.
2. She explained that in January/February 2019, a wardrobe collapsed due to the floor collapsing, after which carpet was removed and a piece of board was put down, as the contractor stated it did not use floorboards anymore. She explained that after this, the bedroom was redecorated and refitted with carpet, and the wardrobe developed cracks which the furniture company’s insurers would not cover.
3. She advised that the recent floor collapse was where the wardrobe had collapsed and the piece of board put down. She stated that she had been recently informed the contractor does use floorboard, but that it was cheaper to put down board. She raised concern at being asked to remove carpet and wardrobe after expenditure of £2,600 already, and asked the landlord to cover the costs of works to resolve the floor issues. She explained this was because the issue was due to poor workmanship and she was reluctant to pay out further for works that should have been originally completed without corners being cut.
In August 2020, the landlord’s contractor subsequently cut an inspection hole in the living room ceiling and carried out a repair from underneath the flooring.
In September 2020, the resident reported a further issue with the bedroom floor ‘bowing’ under the wardrobe. The landlord and contractor inspected shortly after and identified that the wardrobe would need to be dismantled to enable a repair underneath to be carried out, so it was agreed a new wardrobe would be arranged. This was because it was recognised that there had been a number of issues with the flooring; that the resident had been previously informed the floor was in a good condition; and that issues should have been picked up in visits by the landlord and its contractor.
On 14 September 2020, the landlord issued a final response to the complaint.
1. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns and noted that on 26 August 2020 a hole was cut in the living room ceiling to avoid damage to the resident’s contents and to allow inspection of floorboards above. It noted that this identified a floorboard was not sitting on the joist correctly, and that the floorboard was repaired and the ceiling replastered the same day.
2. It noted that on 1 September 2020, after the resident reported the floorboard was still not flush and still moved, an inspection was carried out which confirmed this. It also confirmed the resident’s wardrobes were not aligned properly and the floor under them was not level, but noted that photos from 2019 showed a previous repair was to an area in front of the wardrobes and not under them.
3. It explained that until the floorboards were exposed it was impossible to confirm if the previous repair was satisfactory. It advised that to resolve the issues, the contractor would purchase new wardrobes to replace ones that the resident would need to dismantle, and the contractor would lift the carpet and complete repairs to the floorboards. It advised that wardrobes had been ordered and there was an approximate 60 day wait time for delivery to the resident’s home, which the contractor would update about. It explained that as they did not pose a health and safety risk, the floor works would be done closer to the wardrobe delivery time to minimise disruption, but it noted that its records showed there was an appointment on 29 September 2020 to redecorate the living room ceiling
4. It sincerely apologised the floor issue had reoccurred and stated that, as it was not evident previous repairs were of poor standard, it was unusual for it or its contractor to cover costs/damages, and it hoped the steps being taken would resolve the matter.
On 25 September 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident following a call, where it provided explanation and clarification on actions it had agreed to take, and later the same month redecoration works were carried out to the living room. This Service understands that during redecoration works, the resident alleges the contractor’s ladder ‘scored’ and damaged wooden furniture, which the contractor disputed and contended was wear and tear. The information provided advises that as the contractor could not evidence this, costs to repair the furniture were reviewed and an offer of £300 was considered fair.
On 20 October 2020, bedroom floor repairs were completed, after which the resident’s mother called the landlord to advise that new carpet was supposed to have been laid but had not been. The information provided advises the call was transferred to staff involved in the works; no further information is provided about this issue.
In October/November 2020, the landlord received reports from the resident that mirrors on the new wardrobe doors were faulty and that the hallway flooring was uneven. Following this, the landlord inspected the hallway flooring and initially found this to be ‘OK.’ Later in November 2020, the landlord subsequently carried out repairs to fix down two floorboards and to install a threshold to level the bedroom and hallway flooring, and it also ordered another set of wardrobes.
On 18 December 2020, the landlord issued a follow-up to its final response.
1. It detailed events in 2016, 2019 and 2020 covered in the resident’s escalation on 3 August 2020 and its response on 14 September 2020, and noted that the bedroom floor repairs were completed on 20 October 2020.
2. It noted that following this, the resident reported new wardrobe doors had arrived damaged and a trip hazard between the bedroom and the hallway. It advised that it inspected on 24 November 2020, where it repaired two loose floorboards in the hallway and arranged to lay a new threshold between the bedroom and the hallway on 2 December 2020. It noted that while the resident confirmed this was completed and the floor was now fine, she reported there was now a ‘big ball’ underneath the hall carpet, which it was agreed may be underlay and which it had arranged an appointment for on 17 December 2020. It advised that it had ordered wardrobe doors to replace the damaged ones, which it would update about.
3. It apologised to the resident for her experience dealing with the issues and advised these would be discussed with its contractors. It offered £500 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble, calls, and damage caused to sideboards.
The resident has brought the complaint to this Service and has detailed events since 2016. She has raised dissatisfaction that she was not offered alternative accommodation and has advised that she lived with her mother for a period after an operation and during major works when the house was a ‘construction site.’ She has reported that when the bedroom flooring was repaired, the original carpet was put down, although new carpet was promised. She has advised that she seeks compensation for stress and damages since 2016 of over £10,500, which included costs for carpet following flooding in 2016 and sofas that she alleges contractors damaged in 2016.
The landlord advises that no information was provided in support of the resident’s request for compensation, and that its contractor maintained that issues with the flooring were different to before and not a result of poor workmanship. The landlord advises that it was mindful of the vulnerabilities of the resident whilst dealing with the complaint.

Assessment and findings

In this case the Ombudsman notes that the landlord has acknowledged service failures and offered £500 compensation. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint. This further assessment therefore considers whether the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
This Service understands the resident has experienced disruption and inconvenience whilst the works have been done, and recognises this must have been frustrating and upsetting for her, particularly when considered in the context of the earlier repair issues. This Service also notes the resident’s general dissatisfaction and understandable desire not to be out of pocket for poor quality works or damage that is no fault of her own. This Service’s main consideration is whether repairs reports have been handled appropriately in the timeframe of the complaint, the assessment of which may be informed by past events even if these are not considered these fully, as explained at Paragraphs 6 to 8 of this report.
In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for repairs in relation to property structures such as floors. The landlord’s attendance in relation to the issue when reported in June 2020, and completion of repairs to the floor in August 2020 via the ceiling, demonstrates that the landlord appeared to seek to meet maintenance obligations from the start.
There was a delay from when the landlord notes it received reports from the resident at the end of June 2020, to when it carried out repairs at the end of August 2020, and the timeframe exceeds the 30 days in which the landlord aims to carry out routine repairs. This appears to have been because of the correspondence between the landlord and the resident, where the landlord was clearly striving to balance its obligation to repair structural components such as the bedroom floor, with the responsibility the resident has not disputed she has for fixtures and fittings such as carpets and furniture, which the landlord said needed to be moved for it to carry out the reported repairs.
It is not unreasonable to expect a resident to meet their responsibilities, however a landlord should ultimately be mindful of its obligation to carry out any necessary structural repairs, and therefore it was appropriate it subsequently carried out works. The landlord appears reasonable to initially attempt to carry out a repair to the bedroom floor via the living room ceiling, as it was reasonable to explore ways to meet repairs obligations and minimise disruption and costs which it considered viable; and it then carried out works to make good the ceiling at the end of September 2020, in line with the 30 day timeframe of a routine repair in its repairs policy.
When the resident reported further issues in September 2020, the landlord inspected shortly after and decided on a course of action to replace the resident’s wardrobe and lift up the carpet to repair the floor, because there had been multiple visits for the issues. After completion of the further floor works in October 2020 and a further report in November 2020, the landlord inspected and carried out further repairs; and in December 2020, it confirmed it would replace allegedly faulty wardrobe doors and attend for a report of a further issue.
This demonstrates that the landlord considered the individual circumstances and appropriately recognised a recurrence of floor issues was unreasonable given opportunities to identify these; and that it carried out actions it identified in resolution, customer focused and reasonably timely ways, considering it concluded the floor issues did not pose health and safety risks.
This Service notes that the resident advises that she was not offered alternative accommodation while works were carried out. This does not appear to have been a consideration for the landlord, which it may have been customer focused to have been. However, the information provided does not evidence works related to the complaint took an excessive time when contractors were on site, as these appear to have generally been completed in a day; and there is no evidence the bedroom where floor repairs were carried out was unavailable for more than seven days, which could have resulted in a proportion of the weekly rent being payable under the landlord’s compensation policy (as noted at Paragraph 5 of this report).
This Service also notes that the resident advises that the landlord promised to put new carpet down after the flooring was repaired. This investigation has seen no evidence that this was promised in writing or verbally. While honouring commitments is important for a landlord to maintain the landlord and resident relationship, if this was promised at some point, there is no evidence that the landlord was necessarily required to change the carpet, and it was entitled to change its mind if it made such an offer and reconsidered it.
Following the resident’s complaint on 23 June 2020, the landlord’s initial response on 27 July 2020 was a few days later than the 28 calendar days specified, which it did not acknowledge, although the landlord was in communication with the resident and carried out inspections during this time. When the resident escalated her complaint on 3 August 2020, the landlord’s final response on 14 September 2020 was also delayed, although this acknowledged and apologised for delays the resident had experienced and set out its position and action it was taking.
The landlord’s follow up final response then set out a final position in which it considered historic events, acknowledged service issues and confirmed these would be discussed with its contractor to improve future service. It also offered compensation for time and trouble and calls and damage to a sideboard, which this Service understands was alleged to have occurred during works in September 2020 to make good the ceiling, after the landlord had completed the initial works to the bedroom floor via the ceiling in August 2020. Although not specifically required by the landlord’s complaints procedure, the follow up response was a reasonable step to take to set out a final position, apology and remedy for issues identified, and demonstrates a commitment to try to resolve matters for the resident and improve future service.
As previously explained, the Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is limited by its Scheme, and Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.”
This means it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for damage to the resident’s possessions, but it can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. While the Ombudsman can take a view on the position by reference to law and policies, if this is disputed, only a court or tribunal can offer a definitive and legally binding decision.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets expectancies about how the landlord will consider compensation claims, and in this case, the landlord does not demonstrate it fulfilled all the expectancies, such as inviting the resident to submit a claim form or referring the claim to its insurers. However, from the information provided, allegations of furniture damage were referred to the landlord’s contractor in accordance with the policy and an appropriate response to the claim based on available evidence appears to have been considered. The information provided advises that this included assessment of the cost to repair the damage alleged by the resident.
While an offer of £300 was made, there appears to be dispute over whether the contractor caused the furniture damage and limited available evidence to support or disprove this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion therefore, the offer of £300 appears positive and demonstrates the landlord has been empathetic and exercised reasonable discretion to try to maintain the tenant and landlord relationship, despite what appears to be limited evidence that the contractor caused the damage.
The landlord has not specifically addressed in detail the resident’s claimed historic expenditure, which it may have been customer focused to do, as early correspondence referred to costs incurred by the resident for previous works. However, the landlord was reasonable not to investigate the historic issues (as the longer time goes on, the more the ability to conduct an effective investigation may be impacted) and this is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Scheme as set out at Paragraphs 6 to 8 of this report, and the landlord’s compensation policy which advises claim details must be submitted within 31 days of the event, otherwise it may be unable to consider a claim. These confirm it would have been reasonable for earlier claims to have been submitted to the landlord in 2016, 2018 and 2019, closer to the time of the events claimed for.
Moving on to the landlord’s further offer totalling £200, the landlord has explained that this comprises £150 for the resident’s time and trouble and £50 for calls. The landlord’s compensation policy advises it awards a maximum of £150 for time and trouble which includes telephone costs. The landlord’s offer of £200 exceeds this, which demonstrates it appears to have exercised additional discretion.
In its own Remedies Guidance, the Housing Ombudsman Service sets out three compensation ranges which this Service takes into account when determining cases. The financial remedy of £200 provided by the landlord falls in the third range, where there has been some failure to meet service standards for responses and action, and where the impact includes some distress and inconvenience, time and trouble and delays in getting matters resolved. These appear applicable to the issues the landlord has acknowledged and the issues this Service identifies, such as some delays in repairs and complaint responses, and a recurrence of floor issues which will have understandably frustrated the resident.
Accordingly, the overall financial remedy of £500 offered by the landlord is in accordance with this Service’s Remedies Guidance and, considering all of the circumstances of the case, in the Ombudsman’s opinion appears suitable financial redress.
The above demonstrates the landlord appropriately carried out investigations of the complaint, identified and acknowledged service failings, and took action within the timeframes of the complaint to complete the outstanding works. The landlord was resolution focused and sought to make reasonable redress to the resident in recognition of delays and time and trouble.
Overall, the landlord’s responses evidences it appropriately put things right, in line with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s handling of floor and ceiling repairs and response to reports of damage to the resident’s belongings.

Reasons

The landlord appropriately carried out investigations of the complaint, identified and acknowledged service failings, and took action within the timeframes of the complaint for outstanding works to be inspected and completed. The landlord was resolution focused and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, made reasonable redress to the resident for repair and response delays and time and trouble she experienced.
The landlord was reasonable not to consider the resident’s historic claims of damage to her belongings because it would have been reasonable for her to submit these claims earlier. The landlord considered the resident’s most recent claim of damage to her belongings, referred this to its contractors and provided the position on this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of £300 is reasonable considering the apparent limited evidence available.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord to re-offer its compensation of £500 to the resident.
The landlord to ensure it responds to complaints in a timely fashion, and in line with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.