Nottingham City Homes (202000592)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000592

Nottingham City Homes

18 December 2020

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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
   1. Leaks at the property;
   2. Her insurance claim for damaged possessions;
   3. Complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

2. What the Housing Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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. Paragraph 39(r) of the Scheme states that:
4. “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.”
5. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome of an insurance liability claim that concluded there was no negligence on the part of the landlord.
6. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to determine negligence or consider the outcome of insurance claims. This is because the Ombudsman is unable to make legally-binding decisions in the way that a tribunal or the courts might.
7. However, I can confirm that the other aspects of the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks at the property are within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate and are addressed below. 

 

 

Background and summary of events

Background

8. The Ombudsman has been informed that the resident holds a secure tenancy but the tenancy agreement has not been made available. The property is a 1 bedroom flat.
9. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that she was “housed due to disability and eligible for the flat as I receive PIP. I have a serious long term lung condition, chronic asthma and dust allergies.” The resident provided this information to the landlord at least as early as 30 April 2019.
10. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the property in repair and keeping all its fixtures and fittings in proper working order.
11. The landlord has a ‘Repairs and Maintenance Service Standards’ policy that requires it to attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. Emergency repairs include:

“Blocked or leaking foul drain, soil stack or toilet ball valve/overflow

Leak from water or heating pipe, tank or cistern”

There is also a Priority repair category with a timescale of 7 days for repairs such as:

“Minor leaks with plumbing and ball valves…”

On the matter of water ingress, the policy also states that:

“If we think your home may be suffering with damp, mould or condensation we will send someone out to have a look at it within 4 weeks of you contacting us.”

12. The landlord has a ‘Compliments, Comments and Complaints Procedure’ that outlines a 1 stage complaints process with a 15 working day target for an “investigation complaint”. It specifies that:

“The 15 working day target for an investigation complaint response is set to facilitate a thorough review of the issue and to agree a customer focused resolution. All responses will be reviewed by the relevant service manager for sign off to confirm that all aspects of the complaint have been acknowledged and investigated and that the response and suggested resolution is appropriate and customer focused.”

13. The procedure includes mention of the process where a Councillor becomes involved:

“If an enquiry/complaint has been logged as an official complaint and has been through the internal complaints procedure and responded to, it needs to be deemed an escalation of that complaint and dealt with as such through a designated person.  (Refer to 3.4 designated person) The Service Manager for the relevant Service Area will investigate the details of the complaint and provide a full and final response to the customer.”

14. On the matter of compensation, the ‘Compliments, Comments and Complaints Procedure’ states that “insurance claims” above £150 are managed by the local authority insurance department but the procedure does allow that:

“The scheme is designed to empower key employees to be effective in handling complaints and to develop our customer focused approach.  In addition, we want to apply the general principle produced for guidance by the Housing Ombudsman Service that, as far as possible, the complainant should be put in the position he or she would have been had things not gone wrong…”

15. The landlord also has a ‘Discretionary Compensation Policy’ that confirms it will consider compensation “in any case where a customer contacts us and states:
    1. We have failed to meet our own service targets
    2. We have not acted fairly or properly in the circumstances
    3. The customer has been unable to use an essential room in their home as a result of an act of omissions on the part of NCH…”

There are definitions for low, medium and high impact within the policy but no payment levels are specified.

Summary of Events

First leak

16. The resident made a report to the landlord in late April 2019 that damage was being caused to bathroom and bedroom flooring by water ingress.
17. The resident complained to the landlord on 30 April 2019 asking for temporary accommodation while her bedroom floor was treated for a new carpet to be fitted. The resident confirmed her health conditions and advised that she had been advised the problem was with the shower sealant for which there was an appointment for 2 May 2019.
18. The landlord sent a Stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 30 May 2019, concluding that:

• Its surveyor had attended the property on 25 April 2019 and concluded there was no damp
• No referral for a decant was made by the surveyor
• A second opinion visit on 13 May 2019 had confirmed there was no damp with the shower area now being dry following a repair on 30 April 2019

19. There is no evidence that the resident escalated this complaint.

 

Second leak

20. It is not disputed that a leak from above was reported by the resident on 19 November 2019 and the landlord’s contractor attended on 20 November 2019.
21. The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 December 2019, including the landlord’s Complaints email address. She wrote to:
    1. request an urgent inspection and repairs as a matter of urgency
    2. advise that she was not residing in the property but her request for temporary accommodation had twice been declined
    3. report the ongoing damage to property
    4. highlight that serious health issues were being exacerbated
22. The resident appointed her own contractor to visit her address on 20 December 2019. A report was produced that concluded saturated surfaces in the bathroom were not due to the leak from above of 19 November 2019 but more likely due to a leak underneath the bath. Mould growth was noted and it was recommended that the carpet and underlay be lifted for the concrete beneath to be dried out. The report added that the suspicion was that there was an ongoing leak.
23. The landlord considered the resident’s email of 20 December 2019 – an internal email shows a claim form had been sent to the resident and an acknowledgement email was sent to the resident on 23 December 2019.
24. Internal landlord emails reflect that the resident called the landlord on 23 December 2019 to report that mould and damp problems were ongoing and requesting the above flat be checked for residual water. Works orders were raised as a result to attend the above flat and to attend the resident’s property as follows (but an internal request was made to bring these forward):
    1. Inspect bedroom and bathroom mould (appointment 10 January 2020)
    2. Renew sealant around bath and check under it for leaks (2 January 2020)
    3. Inspect guttering/soffits and fascias (24 January 2020)

According to these internal emails, the landlord suspected the problem was a leak from above due to “the state of the plumbing”.

25. Further internal landlord emails on 2 January 2020 reflect that the resident had called them to enquire what the decant process was and that an inspection had been arranged for that day. There were further emails where an officer was asked to discuss the decant process with the resident but it was noted by the landlord that a conversation had already been had with the resident to assist her with completion of a liability claim form and she had not mentioned temporary accommodation at this time so it had not been discussed.
26. The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 January 2020 to update them that a thorough inspection had occurred that day by the landlord’s plumber with a leak apparently being identified from the flat above. It was added that there were pest issues (flies and ants were mentioned) and the bedroom skirting board condition was worsening.
27. A liability claim form dated 5 January 2020 was completed by the resident. The claim form mentioned incidents in April 2019 and November 2019. The total value of the claim was over £3,000 and it included the following:
    1. Flooring replacement in the bedroom, hallway and bathroom (a combination of carpet and vinyl)
    2. Rent since November 2019
    3. Heating Bill 
    4. Electricity Bill 
    5. Expenditure – petrol, taxi
    6. Stress 
    7. Impact on my health 
    8. Expenses (hotel and car park) from 7-9 May 2019 
    9. Phone bill calls to the landlord
    10. The private damp report she had paid for in December 2019
28. The resident wrote to the local authority (in its capacity as the landlord’s claims handler) on 24 January 2020, reporting that there was still a leak and she was still unable to live in the property. She added that a landlord inspection had occurred the day before with a repair booked in for 10 February 2020. The resident asked if the carpet could be removed or if it would need to be inspected by insurers.
29. The local authority responded on 28 January 2020, advising that the timescale for a claim was 90 days and that the resident could dispose of the carpet if she had photographs of the damage.
30. The landlord issued a Stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 4 February 2020. Within the response, the landlord:
    1. confirmed that a leak from above had been reported on 19 November 2019 and it had attended to a burst tank and left a dehumidifier
    2. advised that the request of the resident to be moved out of the property had been declined as “it was felt that there was not a requirement” for the resident to be moved
    3. noted that the living room ceiling had been decorated on 11 December 2019 and that a claim form for damages was sent
    4. stated that a manager had attended the property to provide the resident with support in completing the form and had discussed accessing the flat above to check the leak had stopped
    5. referred to a further leak from under the bath having been reported on 23 December 2019, leading to works orders being raised to inspect for mould (to the bedroom and bathroom), seal around the bath, check under the bath for leaks and inspect guttering, fascia and soffits
    6. advised that as the resident did not wish to wait for these appointments, a Technical Officer had inspected on 2 January 2020 and established a leak was still ongoing from the flat above but the cause was not diagnosed because access was not obtained into the flat above
    7. mentioned a pre-existing appointment for 20 January 2020 to access the flat above was also unsuccessful
    8. confirmed that access was gained on 23 January 2020 instead when it was concluded that there was a fault on the main stack pipe – an appointment was made for 10 February 2020 with follow on repairs being promised but not identified at this point
    9. apologised and offered escalation rights but no decision on compensation was made
31. Subsequent records (see para 26) show that the appointment went ahead on 10 February 2020 and the leak was resolved.
32. The resident wrote to a local Councillor on 24 February 2020, explaining the history of the repairs since November 2019 and expressing continued dissatisfaction despite the Stage 1 response.
33. The local authority passed the above correspondence to the landlord on 25 February 2020.
34. Internal landlord emails from 3 March 2020 show that they recorded that the original leak of 19 November 2019 had been attended to on an emergency call and that the leak resolved on 10 February 2020 was unrelated. A job extension for plastering had been closed down in error according to these emails.
35. Subsequent internal landlord emails from late March 2020 show that the landlord was intending to ask the local authority to “freeze” the complaint escalation due to the pandemic.
36. The resident’s aunt wrote to the landlord on 8 April 2020. The resident’s health conditions were explained and a short history of the leaks was offered. It was reiterated that the resident was offered the property due to her health conditions and that these were impacting her wellbeing. It was added that the resident had encountered difficulty in getting a complaint logged during November-December 2019.
37. According to internal emails, the above correspondence led to the landlord making arrangements to appoint a contractor during the period 9-17 April 2020.
38. The resident chased the local authority on 17 April 2020 for a decision on the insurance claim.
39. It is not disputed that the landlord arranged for a deep clean of the property and bedroom wall repairs and plastering between 20-21 April 2020.
40. The local authority insurance department issued a decision letter to the resident on 24 April 2020. It concluded that there had been no breach of statutory duty or negligence by the landlord. It was noted that there were 2 leaks and that these were unrelated with the leak under the bath being resolved on 29 April 2019 and the more recent leak being caused by “a problem with the waste”. It was decided that no offer of compensation could be made and the resident was signposted to take legal advice and to consider making a claim on her own household contents insurance.
41. The resident approached the Ombudsman on 27 April 2020. She advised that her request for compensation had been rejected. The resident reported that she had vacated the property as of 21 November 2019 and felt the landlord had not dealt with the initial leak report appropriately. She felt she had to appoint an independent contractor who she advised found evidence of damp in her property that was linked to the events during April-May 2019. She explained how she had assisted in getting the cause of the leak diagnosed and confirmed this had been attended to on 10 February 2020. She added that the landlord had twice rejected her requests for temporary accommodation despite medical evidence being offered. The resident added that despite the leak being stopped, she had been left with:
    1. Damage to her bedroom wall
    2. Mould and damp smells to the bathroom
    3. Dirt and bacteria that had resulted in a problem with flies (which she stated began in the summer of 2019)

The resident confirmed these were resolved during 20-21 April 2020 but her liability claim had been refused so she was left with damaged flooring, outstanding decorations and a request for a rent rebate unresolved.

42. The resident approached the Ombudsman on 12 May 2020 to report that a claim on her own contents insurance would not be possible as she had been informed by her provider that she would have needed to have claimed within 60 days of the event. She stated that she did not do so as she was awaiting the outcome of the liability claim.
43. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 2 June 2020, 2 July 2020 and 20 July 2020 requesting that a final written complaint response be provided to the resident.
44. The landlord replied to the Ombudsman on 21 July 2020 to advise that it could not provide a final written complaint response to the resident because the resident “chose to use a Councillor as her Designated Person for escalation of her complaint and therefore the escalated response is outside our jurisdiction.” The landlord had instead provided information to the local authority so staff there could update the Councillor.
45. The Councillor wrote to the resident on 27 July 2020 who stated that she had acted in her capacity as a Designated Person and investigated the complaint. The response stated that:
    1. the landlord had conducted 2 inspections at the time of the initial complaint and not found any works outstanding
    2. works had been completed on 22 April 2020
    3. issues had been raised prior to the impact of Covid-19 but some delays were to be expected as a result
    4. a claim for £1800 had been passed to the local authority as any claim above £500 is dealt with by the insurance department there
    5. that claim had been repudiated and a civil claim for compensation could not be considered through the complaints process
    6. the matter had been passed back to the landlord again to apologise to the resident, arrange a Technical Officer to discuss the potential for a discretionary payment of up to £500 and consider whether lessons could be learned
46. The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 3 August 2020 to report that the landlord had telephoned her to offer a goodwill payment but no amount was stated and the caller advised it would not be to the level of her previous claim. The resident noted that questions were asked about the events leading up to the claim despite her having provided this information to the landlord in the past. The resident added that decorations had been completed on 8 July 2020 which is when she considered the works complete.
47. The landlord issued a letter dated 3 August 2020 to the resident – it was stated that it served as a follow up to the letter from the Councillor dated 27 July 2020. An apology was offered by the landlord for delays and it was added that details of the resident’s case would be used as learning to avoid similar circumstances happening again but no specific information was offered and no decision on compensation was made (the resident subsequently advised that she had not received this letter until 28 September 2020).
48. The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 August 2020 in response to the telephone conversation the day before. The resident set out that she was dissatisfied given the length of time this matter had taken and the impact on her. The resident noted that the officer she had spoken to the day before had seen the evidence she had already submitted and that she could not accept an offer that did not even cover half of her costs.
49. Internal landlord emails on 10 August 2020 show that the landlord decided to make a £500 non-negotiable compensation offer to the resident as a discretionary goodwill offer.
50. The resident telephoned the Ombudsman on 10 August 2020 to report that the landlord had now made a written offer of £500 but as a gesture of goodwill and without admitting any liability.
51. From 27 August 2020, the resident raised concerns over the water quality to the property following the period of non-occupation. This was resolved through a water quality test on 14 September 2020 and the resident states that this is when she moved back into the property.
52. Internal landlord emails from 7-11 September 2020 demonstrate that it believed that a maximum of £500 compensation could be awarded following the repudiation of the liability claim by the local authority. There was internal discussion around unanswered questions on temporary accommodation decision-making and how the resident’s vulnerability may have impacted this, whether the repairs took longer than they should have and how communications during this period could have been improved.
53. Between 21 September 2020 and 9 December 2020, the resident has raised the matter of noisy new pipework with the landlord but, at the time of writing, this appears to be unresolved.

Assessment and findings

54. In reaching a decision, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. This Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.

Repairs

55. The landlord responded appropriately to the reports of water ingress during April-May 2019. It sent a surveyor and a plumber carried out a repair within 7 days of the report in line with its policy. It also sent a surveyor for a second opinion when the resident raised concerns. The landlord confirmed the above in its Stage 1 complaint response to the resident in May 2019, following which there is no evidence of the resident requesting further escalation.
56. The landlord initially responded appropriately to the resident’s report of a leak to her living room on 19 November 2019. It sent contractors within the 24 hours its service standards require, arranged follow-on decoration work and advised the resident to make an insurance claim for damaged possessions.
57. However, the landlord failed to confirm the leak from above had been fully resolved before completing decorations and has not evidenced exactly what works were completed to stop the leak from above. It is also unclear from the landlord’s records whether this leak was linked to the previous damage in April-May 2019.
58. The landlord acted appropriately when the resident reported continued water ingress in December 2019. It made appointments for inspections and repairs, taking steps to prioritise a visit at the beginning of January 2020.
59. However, the landlord did not make a diagnosis until 23 January 2020 and the cause of the water ingress was not remedied until 10 February 2020. It is also unclear from the landlord’s records whether this leak was linked to the previous damage in April-May 2019 although its insurer concluded it was not.
60. The landlord failed to arrange the follow-on deep clean and re-plastering work until 20-21 April 2020. This was a further unnecessary delay. Internal emails suggest this was due to an administrative error but no explanation has been offered to the resident. The resident has reported that the follow-on decorations were not completed until 8 July 2020. This was a further unnecessary delay and the landlord has failed to offer an explanation for this to the resident.
61. In light of the identified service failures identified with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks at the property, it was appropriate that the landlord offered compensation to remedy the detriment she had experienced. Further consideration of the amount of compensation offered can be found below.

Complaint Handling

62. When the initial damp report was made in April 2019, the resident submitted a complaint, including a request to be moved to temporary accommodation. The landlord responded to the complaint the following month and stated no decant referral had been made by the surveyor. The landlord failed to explain the reason(s) for this decision and did not demonstrate how it had considered the resident’s stated health concerns. This was unreasonable and raises a concern as to whether the resident’s circumstances had been taken into account by the landlord in its decision making. However, there is no evidence that the resident progressed the complaint at that time.
63. The resident submitted a new complaint on 20 December 2019 following the leak from above – she again requested temporary accommodation and referred to health issues. The landlord did not respond to this complaint until 4 February 2020. This was outside of its policy of 15 working days for a complaint response. The response stated that temporary accommodation was not needed but failed to provide a full explanation as to why this was and did not demonstrate how it had considered the resident’s stated health concerns. This was unreasonable, having raised these issues, the resident had a reasonable expectation that the landlord would respond accordingly.
64. The landlord acted appropriately in explaining to the resident how to make an insurance liability claim. It was reasonable to advise the resident to make a claim for damaged possessions and the claim was passed to the local authority in accordance with its procedures. It was the resident’s decision to delay her own claim to her insurer whilst awaiting the result of this process.
65. However, the landlord did not demonstrate that it considered compensation as part of the complaints process until the Councillor asked it to do so in July 2020. Although it was appropriate for damaged possessions to be claimed through insurance, the landlord could have separately considered compensation for service failure, impact on the resident and the resident’s claim that she should not be charged rent. Its complaints procedure allows for this; as such it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s respective requests.
66. The landlord was made aware of the resident’s continued concerns via her Councillor in late February 2020, through a relative’s contact in April 2020 and via the Ombudsman in June 2020 but a final complaint response was not provided to the resident until 3 August 2020. The landlord stated that the complaint was outside of its jurisdiction because the resident had approached a Councillor. This approach was inappropriate as the complaint had not completed the landlord’s complaints process at that point – the involvement of the Councillor should not have prevented the landlord from answering the resident’s continued concerns or resolving the outstanding repairs promptly.
67. The Ombudsman expects that landlords have a complaints process that allows for residents to escalate a complaint for review at a more senior level. The landlord failed to provide an escalated complaint response to the resident between February 2020 and August 2020 despite being aware of her continued concerns.
68. The eventual response by the landlord, both to the Councillor and the resident, failed to:
    1. explain why there had been delays in completion of repairs
    2. offer an explanation of the decant decision-making process and why the resident’s requests for temporary accommodation had been refused
    3. demonstrate how it had taken into account the resident’s health concerns
    4. specify what lessons would be learned from the case
    5. reach a decision on whether compensation was warranted or not
69. The subsequent compensation offer of £500 that the landlord made to the resident in August 2020 was not accompanied with any detailed explanation of what service failure had been identified and why, in its view, the figure of £500 was appropriate. The landlord advised the resident that it could only award a maximum of £500 compensation but this limit is not set out in its Complaints Procedure or its Compensation Policy. This was inappropriate and a maximum level of £500 could mean that the landlord is unable to offer reasonable redress in instances of high impact service failure.
70. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
    1. Be fair
    2. Put things right
    3. Learn from outcomes
71. None of the landlord complaint responses adequately answered the resident’s concerns that her health had not been taken into account or explained the decision that she would not be offered temporary accommodation. The landlord’s internal emails in September 2020 indicate that it was aware these questions had not been answered.

Compensation

72. The landlord’s offer of compensation did not clarify the specific service failures for which the monies were being offered. The Ombudsman expects landlords to clearly identify service failures for which it believes compensation should be awarded. This provides transparency and clarity for the resident and assists the landlord in identifying learning from the outcomes of its complaints process.
73. Nonetheless, the landlord’s compensation offer, in this instance, is considered to have provided reasonable and proportionate redress for the service failures identified with the substantive issue (repairs). The landlord delayed in resolving the resident’s second report (November 2019) of water ingress and it failed to respond to the health issues raised by the resident at this time. The compensation offered by the landlord is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which considers an amount of £500 a reasonable sum in cases of identified maladministration.
74. However, given the additional service failures identified by this investigation in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling, a further award of compensation is considered appropriate, to reflect the additional distress/inconvenience experienced as a result of these service failures.

Determination

75. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the service failures identified in the completion of repairs.
76. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the handling of the complaint.

Reasons

77. The landlord delayed unreasonably in dealing with the damp the resident reported in December 2019 – it took more than 7 weeks to rectify the cause of damp and a further 21 weeks to complete remedial works. The landlord has apologised and its offer of £500 compensation was fair given the circumstances of the case.
78. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s complaints appropriately and it took the landlord almost 8 months to make a decision on compensation for service failure and the impact on the resident.

Orders

79. The landlord to pay additional compensation of £100 to the resident to reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.
80. The landlord to confirm compliance with the above order by 15 January 2021.

Recommendations

81. If it has not done so already, the landlord to pay the resident the £500 compensation offered at the final stage of its complaints process.
82. The landlord to review its complaint procedures in line with the new Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/ to ensure it has a process by which residents can escalate complaints for further review by senior management if they are dissatisfied with a Stage 1 complaint response. This should be completed by 31 December 2020.
83. The landlord to write to the resident to:
    1. explain the decant procedure and how a resident’s health is considered within this
    2. explain why offers of temporary accommodation were not made in May 2019 and December 2019
    3. confirm exactly what works it completed in May 2019, November 2019 and February 2020 to stop the water ingress at her property
    4. answer her recent concerns about the noisy new pipework, confirming how it intends to resolve the problem and the proposed timescale for this