The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Optivo (202014522)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014522

Optivo

7 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the level of compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of repairs following a leak.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident contacted the landlord in the early hours of 11 September 2020 to report that the ceiling in her daughter’s bedroom had collapsed. The landlord arranged for a contractor to attend the same day and make the area safe. The contractor reported that he had cleared the rubbish but had been unable to fix the leak from the above property. He also reported the possibility of asbestos.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 12 September 2020 about the service she had received. She said that when she reported the collapsed ceiling, she was told she could not report it and would need to get the neighbour to call. She also said that, after the contractor left, the leak was still ongoing, she had to collect the wastewater, and she was not told what was happening regarding the repairs. She also said that there was mention of asbestos in the building and that she wanted her property checked for this as soon as possible. In addition to the damage to the property, she reported that a number of personal effects were damaged, and she wanted the landlord to compensate her for this as she believed the incident could have been avoided as previous leaks had been reported but not repaired by the landlord.
  3. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 16 September 2020 and said that it would issue a formal response by 28 September 2020. It has said that it completed repairs to the leak in the neighbour’s property on 17 September 2020.
  4. The landlord carried out a survey of the property on 21 September 2020, to check that the ceiling area had dried, and fitted a temporary cover over the hole. A check for asbestos in the bedroom was also carried out and reported as safe.
  5. On 25 September 2020 a further leak was reported, and the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend the same day. The contractor reported that a downpipe outside the building was completely blocked and that holes in the brickwork were allowing water to enter. Repair work was recommended including the need for scaffolding.
  6. In the landlord’s Stage 1 response of 30 September 2020, it apologised for the service the resident received when reporting the leak and said that it had listened to the call and identified a number of training issues. She should not have been advised to have the neighbour call in order to log the incident, there was a lack of empathy, and no timescales or information on what was going to happen were given.
  7. The landlord had reviewed its repairs history in response to the resident’s statement that the situation could have been avoided and noted that a leak in the bathroom was reported in March 2019 and a repair to the gutters was completed in July 2019. It also said that the resident had reported a leak effecting one of the bedrooms in August 2017 but when it had attended it had been unable to gain access so left a card.
  8. The landlord advised that, in line with its compensation policy, it was unable to compensate for personal items as this would need to be claimed under the resident’s contents insurance. Repairs to the outside of the building would begin on 1 October 2020 but it was unable to provide dates as to when the repairs to the resident’s property would be done. It said it needed to understand how damp the ceiling was and agreed to arrange a survey to determine this on 2 October 2020.
  9. The landlord apologised for the disturbance caused by the repairs and said that it expected the repair of a leak to have been carried out quicker than the 6 days the resident waited. It offered £100 compensation as a discretionary payment and £53.86 for the loss of use of the bedroom between 11 and 21 September 2020.
  10. The landlord carried out a survey on 2 October 2020 as agreed and determined that there had been no further water ingress since the repairs to the outside were done. The contractor reported that the repairs to the resident’s property could begin in a week. A dehumidifier was provided to help dry the property.
  11. On 22 October 2020, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to the review stage. The landlord provided a review request form and asked her to complete and return it to begin the process. In the resident’s form, returned on 4 November 2020, she said that she was unable to quantify the stress and disruption caused but she was unhappy with the customer service, communication and time it took to resolve the matter. She was also unhappy with the compensation offered and she believed that the matter could have been avoided when she first reported the bedroom issue in 2017. She said the roof issue had been reported on a number of occasions over the years and she herself had reported the matter in March 2019 but was ignored.
  12. The resident stated that, in resolution of her complaint, she wanted the landlord to compensate her for the loss of access to the bedroom for a 5-week period, the energy costs for drying the room, and to understand how the landlord would change in response to this matter. She also asked to be moved to a new property.
  13. In the landlord’s response of 18 November 2020, it advised that it had reviewed the resident’s comments and decided not to escalate the complaint to a review panel. It therefore confirmed its position as follows:
    1. It had calculated the loss of use of the bedroom between 11 and 21 September 2020, as this was the period in which the presence of asbestos was unknown, and the surveyors had confirmed on several occasions throughout the repair that the room was habitable.
    2. It offered to £2/day for the use of the dehumidifier, in accordance with its compensation policy, and noted that the resident had used it for two weeks, totalling £28.
    3. It had arranged training for its call handlers to reiterate the importance of providing correct information and showing empathy to stressed callers.
    4. It had appointed an additional Resident Liaison Officer so that it could provide a more connected service and clearer information.
    5. Regarding the residents requested to be rehoused, a review panel was unable to influence housing options, but it would arrange for her to be contacted to discuss her options.
    6. Regarding the repair to the bathroom ceiling in March 2019, these repairs had been completed and the contractor confirmed that this was a different area of the roof to that repaired in the recent job.
    7. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and her daughter, the landlord offered a further £100 compensation bringing the total offer to £281.86.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has accepted that the service the resident received was not to an acceptable standard. It has acknowledged the poor customer service she received during the initial contact, that there was poor communication on what was to happen, and that the repair took longer to resolve than expected. In view of this, the Ombudsman understands that the outstanding issue for the resident is the amount of compensation offered by the landlord in respect of those identified service failings and the damage to her personal items.

Damage to personal items

  1. The landlord has declined to contribute towards the resident’s personal items and, instead, advised her to claim on her own contents insurance. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which states that it does not include claims covered by a customer’s own home contents insurance. This is also mentioned in the tenancy agreement.
  2. The Ombudsman would generally only recommend that a landlord consider such a claim outside of its compensation policy if there was evidence that the damage was caused by the landlord through any action or failure to act when an issue has been brought to its attention. The resident submits that the collapse of the ceiling could have been avoided had the landlord taken action when the issue had previously been reported. She has specifically referred to an incident in March 2019 but has not provided any information about what was reported at that time. The landlord has said that the incident reported in March 2019 was in respect of the resident’s bathroom roof, which was a different area to the one repaired in October 2020. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any of the historic repair’s records showing the details of the incident reported in March 2019.
  3. However, this Service notes that the contractor that attended on 11 September 2020 identified the leak as coming from the neighbour’s toilet. It was later discovered that there was a second ingress of water caused by a blocked drainpipe and holes in the wall. The resident has not made any mention of previous reports of a leaking waste pipe on the ceiling above her property. As such, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the collapse of the ceiling was avoidable and therefore concludes that the landlord acted reasonably in referring the resident to claim under her contents insurance.

Delayed repairs and communication

  1. The landlord has offered the resident £53.86 for loss of use of the bedroom between 11 and 21 September 2020 on the basis that, after 21 September 2020, its surveyors confirmed the room was habitable. The Ombudsman has considered the repair records and surveys completed throughout the repair and is satisfied that, following confirmation that no asbestos was present, there was nothing to indicate that the bedroom was uninhabitable. As such it was reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation for loss of use of the room for this period, rather than the extended 5-week period suggested by the resident.
  2. The Ombudsman is also satisfied that the amount of compensation offered for the loss of use of the room was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which says it will pay up to 20% of the weekly rent per week. The policy also sets out that the landlord can offer discretionary payments of compensation and that this is usually £50 but in exceptional cases can be up to £250. In this case, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has treated this matter as an exceptional case by offering £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
  3. In addition to the financial redress offered by the landlord, it also demonstrated that practical steps had been taken to learn from the complaint and improve the standard of service going forward, by re-training its staff and appointing an additional Resident Liaison Officer. This demonstrated that the landlord sought to ‘learn from outcomes’ and ‘put things right’ in line with the Ombudsman’s own Dispute Resolution Principles. These actions must be considered alongside the financial remedies as an integral part of the landlord’s resolution to the complaint.
  4. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress, as it has done in this case.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord accepted that its standard of service was poor and detailed the training it implemented to address these points. It has also explained other actions taken to prevent future incidents. The amounts of compensation offered by the landlord have been awarded in line with its compensation policy, showing that it has treated the resident fairly and consistent with its other tenants in similar circumstances.
  2. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show that the landlord was responsible for or could have prevented the leak from occurring. Therefore, it acted reasonably in referring the resident to make a claim under her contents insurance in line with its compensation policy and the tenancy agreement.

 

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should, if it has not already done so, reoffer to the resident the compensation of £281.86, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the sufficient redress finding is made on that basis.