Notting Hill Genesis (202014007)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014007

Notting Hill Genesis

28 July 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 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the replacement of her personal belongings damaged at her property.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report that its contractor had caused damage to her personal belongings at her property.

Jurisdiction

2. 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.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(r) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the replacement of her personal belongings damaged at her property.
4. Under paragraph 39(r) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.” As the resident seeks damages for her personal belongings and this Service is unable to determine liability for or award these in the way that a court or insurer might, since they are outcomes that are not within our authority to provide, we are unable to consider these and so a determination will not be made on this aspect of her complaint.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

5. Section 4 of the landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures policy confirms that, when there has been a service failure that it is committed to putting right, it may offer a discretionary goodwill gesture that will not exceed £50.
6. Section 9 of the compensation and goodwill gestures policy confirms that the landlord will not pay compensation where there the resident believes that it or a contractor has caused damage. The resident will need to submit a liability claim in these cases.
7. Section 2.2 of the landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures procedure confirms that there are strict requirements on the handling of compensation for losses, such as personal belongings having been damaged. In such cases, this procedure should not be used, as its insurance team do not offer compensation, and residents should instead be signposted to the insurance team.

Background

8. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.

Summary of events

9. On 27 October 2020, the resident emailed her stage one complaint to the landlord, which is summarised as follows:
   1. On 23 October 2020, the contractor was working in the resident’s cupboard. She reported that, while carrying out the work, they had caused a leak in the cupboard, by accidentally turning on the washing machine valve by knocking a pipe. This leak had resulted in damage to the resident’s personal belongings. To address the immediate issue, she turned this valve off, and she confirmed that that this and not an ongoing leak had damaged her belongings, for which she did not have household contents insurance to make a claim for.
   2. Photographic evidence was also provided by her to it of the damaged belongings.
10. On 19 November 2020, the contractor emailed the landlord to provide their comments following the resident’s above complaint. They felt that it was “impossible” for them to have turned her washing machine valve on, as they had not moved anything that would have turned this on. Furthermore, the contractor reported that, if the valve was on, then this would have “soaked the area” instead of only the resident’s belongings. The area was reportedly dry when they had left and returned to the property. Moreover, the contractor reported that the skirting that they had replaced at the resident’s property was also dry. They additionally supplied photographs of their works to the landlord.
11. On 8 December 2020, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident, stating the following:
    1. It had spoken to and obtained photographs from both her and the contractor during its investigation, which it relied upon to reach a decision on the complaint.
    2. It did not uphold her complaint, as it did not consider that the water leak at her property was sufficient to cause the alleged damage. This was due to the contractor providing photographs of the area being dry before and after their works, and the resident providing photographs indicating water on her damaged belongings that was “not sufficient to cause [the] damage” that she had reported.
    3. As a result of its findings on the complaint, it was unable to offer any compensation or replacements to her for her damaged belongings, and it instead recommended that she take out home contents insurance going forward, of which it gave her details.
12. On 12 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to request the escalation of her complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure, stating the following:
    1. She reported that the area affected by the leak at her property was dry when the contractor attended for their second visit as there was a 45-minute period between the visits. The resident also stated that the affected floor had been cleaned and dried after she had turned off the “damaged” valve, which meant that the floor was dry when the contractor had returned and photographed this.
    2. She added that the box in which she had stored her personal belongings “was full of water” because of the leak at the property, and had included electrical items that had been damaged by this.
13. On 12 February 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to explain that it should not have dealt with her above concerns as a stage one complaint under its complaint process, due to her claim for damage to her personal belongings. Accordingly, it informed her to direct the claim to the contractor as a public liability claim, since it redirected residents to third-party contractors when these were deemed to be the cause of potential claims. The landlord explained that it had already advised the contractor of a potential claim, was unable to engage in this further, recommended that the resident seek legal advice, and offered her £50 in recognition of the delay and inconvenience experienced by her in respect of this response to her above complaint escalation.
14. The resident subsequently complained to this Service that the landlord’s contractor had damaged her personal belongings, and that she sought for these items to be replaced by it.

Assessment and findings

15. Following the landlord’s receipt of the resident’s request for compensation for her damaged belongings on 27 October 2020, it investigated this under its complaints procedure, and it provided its assessment of the evidence in its stage one complaint response of 19 November 2020. This was not in line with its compensation and goodwill gestures policy and procedure, as detailed above in paragraphs 6 to 7, which confirm that that a liability claim was required from her for the damaged belongings that it was not permitted to compensate her for under its complaints procedure, and that it instead had to signpost her to its insurance team for.
16. Therefore, there was a failure on the landlord’s part in respect of its handling of the resident’s report that its contractor had damaged her personal belongings, as it investigated her request for compensation for these herself, rather than following the compensation and goodwill gestures policy and procedure.
17. As a result, the resident’s liability claim was delayed by approximately three months from its stage one complaint response until it responded to her request to escalate the complaint on 12 February 2021, as she had not been informed by it of the requirement to make such a claim until the latter date. This was not fair to her because it should have signposted her to its insurance team and explained that it could not compensate her for this under its complaints procedure in response to her stage one complaint, as outlined above.
18. The landlord nevertheless recognised its delay in doing this until its response to her escalation request, and it offered her £50 for the delay in the response, as well signposting her to make a public liability claim to its contractor for her damaged belongings in accordance with its compensation and goodwill gestures policy and procedure. The compensation offer was also in line with the policy, as detailed above in paragraph 5, which states that goodwill payments must not exceed £50. As outlined in paragraph 7 above, the landlord’s procedure does not allow it to award compensation in such cases, as this would be considered within the insurance claim, which meant that it was only able to offer her the above goodwill payment.
19. Additionally, the landlord’s above offer of £50 to the resident was in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, which states that awards of £50 to £250 may be given where the service failure was of short duration, and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint. This is because it subsequently signposted her to make a public liability claim to its contractor for her damaged belongings, which it explained was its practice when third-party contractors were deemed to be the cause for potential claims.
20. In summary, while the landlord failed to follow its compensation and goodwill gestures policy and procedure for dealing with the resident’s claim for her damaged belongings, she was still able to make such a claim to its contractor. Therefore, the impact of its initial failure to signpost her to do so on the complaint was limited. The landlord’s offer of £50 to the resident was also fair in recognising the detriment experienced by her as a result of this, as this was in line with the policy and procedure and this Service’s remedies guidance. It has therefore been recommended below to re-offer this to her, if she has not already received this, as well as to review its training requirements to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above failing.

Determination (decision)

21. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its response to her report that its contractor had caused damage to her personal belongings at her property satisfactorily.
22. This decision is dependent on the landlord following the below recommendations.

Reasons

23. The landlord caused a delay in the submission of the resident’s public liability claim to its contractor, as it handled the request through its internal complaints procedure. This was outside of its compensation and goodwill gestures policy and procedure.
24. The landlord nevertheless recognised its failure to do this, and referred the resident to its contractor to submit this claim.
25. The landlord’s offer of £50 to the resident was also consistent with its compensation and goodwill gestures policy and procedure, and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

Recommendations

26. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Re-offer the resident the £50 that it previously awarded to her, if she has not received this already.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its compensation and goodwill gestures policy and procedure with regard to claims for damages, such as for personal belongings, to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above failures in the resident’s case. This should include consideration of this Service’s guidance on remedies, at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords, if this has not been done recently, at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/.
27. The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendations.
28. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.