Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Newham Council (202205449)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205449

Newham Council

1 December 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The level of compensation offered by the landlord in recognition of delays in repairing leaks to his property in 2018.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat on the ground floor of a block comprised of similar properties.
  2. The resident had historically experienced leaks into his property from the flat above. The landlord attended to several emergency repairs to make safe the resident’s light fittings following water penetration on three occasions between 29 May 2018 and September 2019. Work to plaster patches of a bedroom ceiling following the leak was reportedly completed on 19 February 2019. The resident initially raised a complaint in February 2019 and requested a partial reimbursement for the rent he had paid over eight months whilst the bedroom was unusable. The evidence provided by the resident confirms that he continued to pursue his request for compensation between 2019 and 2021 both himself and via his local mayor.
  3. The resident raised a new formal complaint in November 2021. He explained that he had previously made a complaint three years prior about a leak which had affected the use of his property. He noted that the remedial works took eight months to resolve and he could not use one of the bedrooms in his property at the time. He was dissatisfied that he had been passed around and had been pursuing his request for compensation for three years. He requested that the landlord reimbursed him a third of the rent he had paid over the eight-month period due to the loss of the room. He also requested compensation for the three-year delay in addressing his concerns. 
  4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had previously made a complaint in February 2019 which it responded to and that he had continued to pursue his request for compensation since. It acknowledged that it had attended the property on an emergency call out on 29 May 2018 to make safe the resident’s electrics following a leak. Following this, there were three further leaks between June and September 2019. It confirmed that it had attended within its emergency timescales on each occasion, however, there were delays in carrying out remedial works. It also acknowledged delays in its handling of the current complaint. It offered the resident £15 per week for the eight months he was without use of a bedroom within the property, amounting to £480. It also offered £270 for the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience caused, and £100 in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
  5. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation, stating that an offer of £60 per week for the eight months he was unable to use the bedroom would be more appropriate. He also expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his complaint, noting that it had not confirmed its position regarding his specific requests for an explanation regarding its calculations.

Assessment and findings

The level of compensation offered by the landlord in recognition of delays in carrying out repairs to property in 2018 and its communication.

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs required to the structure and exterior of the property, including resolving leaks. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that the landlord is to attend emergency repairs, including uncontainable leaks within 24 hours to make safe. Follow-on works may then be required. The Repairs Policy does not provide timescales for completing non-emergency repairs, in the absence of which, the landlord would be expected to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation may be offered for loss of amenity or access which relates to situations that have a continuing effect upon quality of life within a property. The compensation guidance suggests payments between £40–£150 per month depending on the impact on the resident.
  3. In this case, it is not disputed that there were delays in completing remedial works to the property following the resident’s report of a leaks into the property on 29 May 2018, 30 August 2018 and 3 September 2018. The records provided by the landlord indicate that it acted appropriately by attending each report of a leak within 24 hours in line with its emergency repairs timescale, however, remedial works to plaster the bedroom were not completed until 25 February 2019, approximately eight months following the initial leak. The evidence shows that the resident initially requested compensation for the loss of bedroom during this period in February 2019 and continued to pursue his request on regular occasions.
  4. It is unclear, due to the length of time that has passed and the lack of available evidence, as to whether the resident had lost the use of the room in its entirety during this period. However, the landlord has not disputed his claim and has offered £480 compensation, comprised of £15 per week over the eight-month period. It is noted that the resident did not feel that this was sufficient given the inconvenience caused to his family and children who could not use their bedroom.
  5. Whilst it is not disputed that the loss of room was likely to have been inconvenient to the resident, there is no evidence to suggest that he had experienced a complete loss of amenities such as cooking or bathing facilities during this period or had lost complete use of a third of the property. It would, however, have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed his request, which will be discussed in more detail below.
  6. The landlord’s offer of £480, or approximately £60 per month, is considered proportionate in line with its compensation guidance. However, it would be helpful for the landlord to include specific compensation calculations for loss of different rooms or amenities within its compensation policy to provide further transparency about how it had calculated the figures in future. This amount is also considered proportionate in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website) which states that amounts between £100-£600 are considered proportionate in instances of considerable service failure or maladministration which may not have had a permanent impact on the resident.
  7. The landlord has acknowledged that the resident initially raised a complaint and requested compensation for the loss of room in February 2019. The evidence provided by the resident shows that he had continued to pursue his request on at least seven occasions between 2019 and 2021, following which he pursued his concerns with the landlord via his local mayor. The landlord has not provided evidence to demonstrate that it had responded to the resident at any stage during this time with specific reference to his compensation request. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed this concern at the earliest opportunity in order to resolve the complaint, however, the records indicate that the resident spent significant time and trouble pursuing a response over 36 months which was likely to have caused inconvenience.
  8. The landlord has acted appropriately by acknowledging the length of time the resident had spent pursuing a response and the inconvenience that this was likely to have caused. Given that the repair issues had otherwise been resolved at this time and the request was specifically in relation to compensation following the loss of room, the landlord’s offer of £270  is considered proportionate in recognition of the time and trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as detailed above.
  9. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The offer of £480 compensation for the eight-month period he had been without use of a bedroom in the property and £270 in recognition of the time and trouble he had spent pursuing his request for compensation is considered proportionate given the impact on the resident in this case.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s website confirms that it has a two-stage formal complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should respond within ten working days. If a resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. if, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new complaint response timeframe, which should not exceed a further ten working days without good reason.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 November 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 4 February 2022, which was outside of its policy timescale by 44 working days. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 5 February 2022, however, the landlord did not provide its stage two complaint response until 4 April 2022, which was outside of its published timescales by 20 working days.
  3. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided regular updates on the status of the complaint to the resident in order to manage his expectations. However, the evidence shows that the resident needed to spend time and trouble pursuing a response which was likely to have caused inconvenience, especially in view of the time and trouble he had spent pursuing a response between 2019-2021. The landlord has acted appropriately by acknowledging the delay in issuing its responses at both stage one and stage two and offering £100 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused. Overall, this amount is considered proportionate in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delays.
  4. However, as part of his complaint escalation, the resident raised specific concerns related to the level of compensation offered and his dissatisfaction regarding the length of time he had been awaiting a response. The landlord would be expected to address each aspect of a resident’s complaint within its responses and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained why it would not offer the compensation of 33% of the rent paid during the period the resident was without use of a bedroom as requested. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to have clearly explained the reasons for its communication failures between 2019 and 2021 in view of the concerns raised by the resident in order to demonstrate that it had fully investigated his concerns. Its  failure to address these aspects of the complaint was likely to have caused inconvenience for the resident who had needed to continue to pursue his concerns following the landlord’s stage two complaint response.
  5. In addition, the landlord confirmed that it would review the concerns raised by the resident following the complaint related to points which had not been addressed and respond by 29 April 2022. This did not happen and the resident needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing his concerns which was likely to have caused inconvenience. A response was not provided until 17 June 2022 and did not provide any further explanation of its decision. The landlord acted appropriately by confirming that the resident could contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied with its response. However, the Ombudsman promotes resolution at a local level and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have confirmed its position regarding the issues raised given that these were previously raised but not addressed as part of the complaint and that it had set expectations that it would do so.
  6. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman considers 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. In this case, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it had taken points of learning from the complaint. Given the extensive delays in responding to the resident’s requests between 2019 and 2022, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord had fully investigated the case and the circumstances that had led to its poor communication and complaint handling over this time period. Whilst the landlord has apologised and offered compensation, it has not fully explained the reasons that the issue was not addressed sooner or outlined the steps it would take to prevent similar occurrences in the future. It is the Ombudsman’s view that further consideration of the reasons behind its poor communication would have allowed the landlord to look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and considered whether anything could be improved in terms of process and systems.
  7. In view of the identified failings, the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation for this aspect of the complaint is not considered proportionate. As such, the landlord should offer the resident an additional £100 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failure to address his concerns or establish points of learning from the complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as detailed above.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of the level of compensation offered by the landlord in recognition of delays in carrying out repairs to the property in 2018 and its communication, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident an additional £100 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. This is in addition to its previous offer of £100 related to its complaint handling if this has not already been paid.
  2. Within eight weeks, the landlord is to complete a review of the case to identify failings, establish points of learning from the complaint and highlight where improvements could be made. A copy of the review should be sent to both the resident and the Ombudsman for compliance purposes
  3. The landlord is to ensure that it confirms to this service when it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £750 as previously offered if it has not already done so as the Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis that this was paid.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its compensation policy and considers including specific compensation calculations for loss of different rooms or amenities. For example, a percentage of rent reimbursement or a set figure dependent on the duration of the loss.
  3. The landlord should consider carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that residents are provided with updates on the progress of their complaint where there are likely to be delays and an estimated response timeframe to manage their expectations.