Optivo (now Southern Housing) (202216115)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216115

Optivo (now Southern Housing)

30 November 2023

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:
1. Repairs to the kitchen flooring leading to a leak from within the property.
2. A pest infestation within the property.
3. The resident being moved into temporary accommodation.
4. Reports by the resident that his fridge was broken, and carpets stained.

Jurisdiction

Repairs to the kitchen flooring leading to a leak from within the property.

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.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member (landlord) as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
Paragraph 42(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider 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.
In August 2020, the landlord’s contractor carried out a repair to the floor in the kitchen of the resident’s property. This included renewing the sub-floor which had disintegrated. The resident has said as part of his complaint, 2 years later in August 2022, that these original repairs must have damaged the pipework which went on to cause the leak.
After carefully considering all the evidence provided, the resident did not make a formal complaint to the landlord in respect of the original repair to his kitchen floor for 2 years. It is acknowledged that until the repair was identified, the resident may not have known about the leak under his flooring. However, it is not within the role of this Ombudsman to determine liability for damage and quantifying or valuing any subsequent loss. This would be a matter for the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer to decide. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not investigate this aspect of the resident’s complaint in accordance with paragraph 42(c) and (o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant at the property, which is a first floor flat above a commercial premises. He is diagnosed with mental health conditions.
From July 2021 to August 2022, the landlord was investigating a leak into a commercial premises, on the ground floor of the resident’s building. This included carrying out inspections at the resident’s and neighbouring properties, in order to trace the leak. Contractors attended the resident’s property on 8 September 2021, 10 December 2021, and 21 March 2022 in relation to its investigations into the leak.
On 14 July 2022, the landlord raised a repair following a report by the resident of pests in his property. On 2 August 2022, a contractor carried out an inspection at the property and reported that no pests had been found. It then sealed gaps in the living room between the floor and the walls. It sealed gaps around the kitchen area externally.
On 8 August 2022, the landlord was contacted by the insurer of the affected commercial premises. The insurer asked the landlord to confirm it had since been able to gain access to a neighbouring property, and that the leak had been repaired. The landlord then carried out a further inspection of a number of properties on 9 August 2022, in relation to identifying the on-going leak. This included an inspection of the resident’s property. The contractor identified damp under the kitchen floor.

On 9 August 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that when its contractors attended the previous year to repair his floor, they must have damaged the pipework. As a result, contractors were taking up his kitchen floor and removing his kitchen. He said the pipes then smelt like ‘dead animals’ and believed this was why he had been suffering with pests for the previous months at the property.
The same day, the landlord suspended works at the resident’s property, in order to arrange a decant (temporary move) for the resident. This was because the contractor needed to access the mains service pipe buried inside the resident’s property, and into the communal area of the building.
On 10 August 2022, the landlord’s booking agent said that the resident had refused the initial hotel offered as part of the decant. Later the same day, the resident accepted an alternative hotel and requested the meal allowance, instead of the hotel meal package. On 11 August 2022, the resident asked for the hotel’s meal package to be included. The resident then asked for the food allowance instead. He asked the landlord for an emergency payment as he had spent his last £300 on food that he had left at his property. The resident said he was unable to take the food he had purchased with him. This meant he could not afford to eat and that he needed to eat with his medication.
The landlord responded to the resident on 11 August 2022, acknowledging his complaint. It also advised the resident that the food allowance would take 10 to 15 days to process. It provided the resident with the number of its financial inclusion team, if he needed further support. It also offered the resident one of its own properties as temporary accommodation. This was 6 miles from his own property. The resident declined the offered property.
On 15 August 2022, the landlord received a complaint via its booking agent that the resident had been smoking in his hotel bedroom. The landlord asked the resident to review the behavioural code provided to him. It advised him to adhere to the hotel rules, or the hotel would likely cancel his booking with it.
On 16 August 2022, the landlord offered the resident a studio flat, as temporary accommodation which was 7 miles from his home address. The landlord said it could arrange the move as soon as possible for the resident.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response acknowledged that the resident had been caused disruption and awarded him £250 as a gesture of goodwill. It did not recognise service failure in respect of the resident’s complaint.

On 24 August 2022, the resident requested an escalation of his complaint. He disputed that the leak was not a consequence of works carried out to his kitchen floor, by contractors previously. He also stated the following:
1. The hotel the landlord had provided him was inadequate to meet his needs, including that it was too far in distance from his network of support.
2. He had been provided with no food or money when he was first decanted. He was unable to eat the hotel food because it was not halal. He also considered the landlord’s food allowance of £17 to not be enough. He had also not received any payment.
3. The landlord had not considered the enormous psychological distress and exacerbation caused to his mental health, in its response to him. He did not believe the amount of compensation offered reflected the impact on him and requested at least £10,000.
On 30 August 2022, at the resident’s request, the landlord asked its booking agent to add a breakfast and dinner allowance to his hotel booking. The landlord also offered to move the resident to an alternative hotel if he wanted to be closer to his home address. His hotel at that time was 4.3 miles from his home address.
On 7 September 2022, the booking agent informed the landlord of a further complaint regarding the resident’s behaviour towards hotel staff. This included allegations that he was shouting at staff and demanding money from them. The agent also reported that the resident had been rude at breakfast and was taking other people into eat with him. The landlord warned that its booking agent had advised that if his behaviour continued, his booking would be terminated.
On 8 September 2022, the resident refused the further hotel options offered to him. The landlord contacted his support worker, as it was concerned about the resident’s vulnerability. The next day, the landlord received a letter from the resident’s general practitioner (GP) expressing concern over the resident having to stay in a hotel. The landlord’s booking agent had also refused to consider a serviced apartment for the resident, due to him breaking rules at the hotel.
On 12 September 2022, the resident apologised about his behaviour at the hotel, stating that he was struggling with his mental health. He was also concerned that he had not received a timeline of the repairs to his property. He then provided photographs and stated that his fridge and washing machine had been ruined at the property and would need to be replaced.
On 13 September 2022, the landlord offered the resident 3 different hotel options. It also offered the resident one of its own properties to use as temporary accommodation. This was 4 miles from his home address.
The resident responded on the 21 September 2022, that he wished to remain at his current hotel, unless the landlord could provide accommodation within his own postcode area. The resident then requested an update from the landlord about when the repairs would be completed to his own property. He also wanted to know when he would hear about his request for an increase in compensation.
On 14 October 2022, the landlord issued its final response to the complaint in which it said the following:
1. The landlord apologised for the delays in commencing repairs to the kitchen, stating this was due to it needing time for the property to dry out.
2. It apologised the resident’s mental health had been affected. It directed the resident to its liability insurer if he wished to make a claim for this.
3. The landlord said it carried out an inspection of pests at the resident’s address and no pests were found. It also provided proofing works, including sealing gaps within the property, to prevent the access of pests.
4. It stated its original compensation offered of £250 remained. It considered this to be a reasonable offer.
The same day, the landlord’s contractor confirmed that it would commence works on the resident’s property on 24 October 2022. It had an estimated completion date of 7 November 2022. On 19 October 2022, the resident told the landlord he was happy to remain within his current hotel.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 24 October 2022, stating his desired outcome was for a timescale of when works would be completed. He also requested that additional compensation be paid to him.
On 27 October 2022, the landlord’s booking agent stated that due to a third incident of rule breaking by the resident at the hotel, his accommodation was terminated. The landlord told the resident of this and advised him to seek the assistance of his friends and family. It also directed him to engage with his local housing team. On 11 November 2022, the landlord told the resident, after his request for further support with temporary accommodation, that due to his continued breaches, it was not possible to assist him further with this.
The repairs to the resident’s property were completed which included the installation of a new kitchen and repairs to the floors. The resident returned to his property on 15 November 2022.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states that if a repair reported by a resident is not an emergency, that it will arrange for an appointment as soon as possible and at a time that suits the resident. If a resident is required to move out of their home whilst a repair takes place, it will provide suitable alternative temporary accommodation.
The landlord’s replacement homes policy states that if a resident is required to move into temporary accommodation, it will make one reasonable offer of accommodation, based on the housing needs of the resident. A resident will also be entitled to expenses for laundry and meals. The level of the compensation will depend on whether a resident is in a hotel or other accommodation.
The landlord has an informal and formal complaint’s procedure. Its formal complaints procedure has a 2-stage process. At stage one, the landlord states it will acknowledge a formal complaint within 5 working days. It will then provide its written complaint response within 10 working days at stage one and 2 of its process it will inform the resident if any extension is required to its response times.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will provide compensation to residents if it fails to carry out its duty by apologising, rectifying its mistake or by making a goodwill gesture. It will not consider financial compensation under this policy, in the following circumstances:
1. Stress following an incident or failure of service, or a personal injury claim.
2. Incidents of damage to personal items.
3. Due to a temporary move to a replacement home.

Concerns from the resident about a pest infestation within the property.

The resident raised a repair on 14 July 2022, about pests in his property. The landlord sent its contractors to the resident’s address 19 days later, on 2 August 2022. The contractors identified no signs of pests within the property. Whilst at the property the contractors carried out proofing works to prevent pests accessing the property. This was a reasonable response by the landlord in line with its obligations. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will respond to non-emergency repairs as soon as possible. This service would expect this timescale to be in line with industry standards and best practice, which is to respond to this repair within 28 days. The landlord did this, therefore there was no maladministration in its handling of concerns from the resident, about a pest infestation within the property. If the resident continues to experience issues with pests within his property, he can report this to the landlord and the landlord should see if any further proofing works are required.

The resident being moved into temporary accommodation.

On 9 August 2022, the landlord informed the resident it was required to move him to temporary accommodation. It said this was due to the level of disruption its contractors would likely cause the resident, in repairing the leak to the commercial property below. Although this service understands that this would have been distressing for the resident, it was reasonable response by the landlord. This was because contractors needed to take up the floors in the resident’s property and remove parts of his kitchen to access the repair. It then needed to dry the property out, due to the leak under the floor, before works could be commenced.
On 10 August 2022, the landlord offered the resident a choice of 2 hotels with either the food package, or a food allowance. The resident accepted one of the 2 hotels which was 4.3 miles from his home address. The next day, the resident declinedthe food allowance. The resident also declined one of the landlord’s own properties, that was 6 miles away from his home address. This service is not questioning the resident’s reasons for declining food options, nor for him declining offers of accommodation.The Ombudsman’s role is to consider if the landlord acted reasonably in its offer of temporary accommodation. The landlord’s initial response in offering the resident temporary accommodation was reasonable. Whilst the landlord should try to find accommodation close to a resident’s home, this is not always possible as it is dependent on the availability of suitable properties in the area.
It is also not always possible for the landlord to provide a self-contained flat or house and a hotel can be used instead if necessary. If using a hotel, the landlord should offer to provide money or vouchers for food as it has done in this case. Overall, the landlord showed it made appropriate efforts to find suitable accommodation within a reasonable distance from the resident’s home. It was also reasonable that it directed the resident to its financial inclusion team when the resident needed further assistance to buy food, whilst waiting to receive his food allowance. It was appropriate that it reminded the resident that he could request the hotel meal package, in the meantime.
The offers of accommodation, as well as the landlord facilitating the resident’s change of decision over the food allowance were fair and reasonable.
The resident was advised of the behavioural code, when booking into the hotel. The Ombudsman is not commenting on the actions of the resident. However, it was fair that the landlord warned the resident that if he continued to breach the rules of the hotel, that the hotel would no longer accommodate him. It was also fair that it warned him that continued breaches would lead to the landlord’s booking agent refusing to accommodate him.

The landlord provided the resident with £250 as a goodwill gesture, to acknowledge the disruption caused to the resident for having to be placed in temporary accommodation. The Ombudsman considers that this fair amount in the circumstances. This amount is not an acknowledgment of service failure by the landlord but rather compensation for disruption and inconvenience which was beyond the landlord’s control. This service understands that the resident feels that the landlord’s handling of him being placed into temporary accommodation has impacted his mental health. The landlord was therefore, right that it directed the resident to its liability insurance if the resident wished to make a personal injury claim in relation to his mental health or stress caused by being moved into temporary accommodation. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy as described above, which does not cover matters of stress or personal injury as there is a separate process for such claims. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to assess insurance matters and therefore we cannot comment on the outcome of a liability claim to the landlord’s insurer if a claim is made.

The resident’s reports that his fridge was broken, and carpets stained.

On 12 September 2022, the resident provided photographs and stated that his fridge and washing were broken, and his carpets were stained during the repair works to fix the leak. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it did not make it clear that it had considered this aspect of the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord did state in its final response, on 14 October 2022 that any losses incurred by the resident as a result of the leak should be referred to its insurance team and directed the resident to its liability form to do this. As explained above this was appropriate as claims for damage to health and damage to items sit outside the complaints process and are better addressed as a liability insurance claim.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 (c) and (o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint about repairs to the kitchen flooring leading to a leak from within the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of concerns from the resident about a pest infestation within the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident being moved into temporary accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the reports by the resident that his fridge was broken, and carpets stained.