Peabody Trust (202108961)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108961

Peabody Trust

27 January 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damaged laminate floors following water ingress in her home.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident called the landlord on 2 September 2020 to report the step outside the front door needed to be adjusted as it was “leaning towards the door and slopes”.
  2. A contractor attended on 27 September 2020 and recalled the step that had only recently been fitted, and noted that “this is a recall for whoever did this please its not level – the step falls towards the door and is causing the inside to get wet and is damaging the tenants flooring – you can see where they are having to out down paper to soak it up”.
  3. The resident called the landlord on 28 September 2020 advising that her hallway floods when it rains due to the step.
  4. A contractor attended on 29 October 2020 but could not complete the works due to rain; further delays occurred due to the weather. The steps were renewed on 10 November 2020.
  5. The resident called the landlord on 18 November 2020 and stated that, following the flooding, the floorboards in the hallway were rotting.
  6. A contractor inspected the floor on 6 January 2021 and noted the laminate flooring in the hall had been damaged “as a result of a poorly fitted front door” which had led to water ingress; the door had been fitted in approximately March 2019. The water was running off the newly fitted sloped step and under the door.
  7. There is no evidence of further correspondence until the resident called the landlord on 25 May 2021 to request that the landlord replace the damaged laminate flooring. She believed the damage was caused by the contractor following works on the step. The landlord’s notes state that it “advised tenant that this should go through home insurance as this is not something that we cover but tenant feels like this should be covered by us and this is damaged caused by our contractors”. It is unclear whether the resident intended this to be a formal complaint. In any case, the landlord did not treat it as one.
  8. On 22 June 2021 a contractor attended the resident’s property but could not gain access. The resident rang the landlord the same day requesting an update about the flooring.
  9. The resident called on 12 July 2021 requesting an update about the floor.
  10. The resident called this Service on 15 July 2021 as she had not received a formal response from the landlord regarding the rotten flooring around the front door and in the hallway. We sent a letter to the landlord the same day asking it to contact the resident regarding her complaint.
  11. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 23 July 2021 and said it would respond by 6 August 2021.
  12. The landlord emailed the resident on 11 August 2021 and apologised for the delayed response; it said it would respond by 20 August 2021.
  13. The landlord sent its stage one response on 13 August 2021. It explained that the water ingress from the front door was caused by extreme weather, which was why the problem had only just arisen despite the door being installed in 2019. It provided contact details for its liability insurer, who would need to assess whether the door installation had contributed to the damage. It apologised for the delayed response and offered £10 for poor complaint handling. It explained how the complaint could be escalated.
  14. The resident contacted this Service again on 20 August 2021. We told the landlord to respond to the resident as she was dissatisfied with “the landlord’s decision not to replace the bordering and flooring around the front door”.
  15. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 3 September 2021.
  16. The landlord sent its stage two response on 14 September 2021. It said that under the repair policy it is not responsible for repairs to laminate flooring, regardless of the cause of damage, as it does not install it, and this is made clear when the resident requests to install it themselves. As a result, the resident must contact its insurance to assess whether the damage was caused by negligence and she is due compensation, or alternatively she could make a claim through her own home contents insurance. It queried what she meant by “the bordering” and asked if this referred to the skirting board, which it would be responsible for repairing. It advised her to call to arrange an appointment. If the repair required the flooring to be removed, it would not be responsible for any further damage. It signposted her to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement states:
    1. The landlord must keep internal floors in good repair.
    2. The resident must obtain written permission to complete any improvements.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy states:
    1. The resident is responsible for any repairs to the flooring if they fitted it themselves (including laminate).
    2. The landlord is responsible for repairs to skirting boards; it is classed as a non-essential job.
    3. A non-urgent repair required to rectify a fault, works are to be scheduled to the next available resource. The timescale for this is within 28 calendar days.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states:
    1. It will not consider compensation when a claim can be made on home contents or buildings insurance.
    2. It will not offer compensation when damage is caused by “flooding from extreme weather”.
    3. Residents are expected to take out adequate home contents insurance.
  4. The Tenant Right to Make Improvements policy states:
    1. When the resident installs their own laminate flooring the landlord is not responsible for any damage to the flooring caused by repairs.
  5. When the resident initially informed the landlord of the flooring rotting on 25 May, the landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the resident’s concerns and correctly signposting her to its insurance company, as under its policies it is not responsible for compensating the damage to the laminate flooring.
  6. In the stage one response the landlord advised that the damage was caused by extreme weather (the rarity of which is why it had not occurred earlier after the door and step were installed), and reiterated that she would have to contact the insurance team for it to independently assess whether the landlord was liable. This was in line with its compensation policy. When the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord provided a more detailed response, explaining it was not responsible for repairs to laminate flooring installed by a tenant. It explained that this was confirmed with the resident when she requested permission to install it. While we have not been provided with clear evidence to confirm the resident did install the laminate flooring herself, it is reasonable to believe that she did as she did not dispute the claim in her stage two escalation.
  7. In the stage two escalation, the resident raised that the “border” was damaged; the landlord responded reasonably by asking the resident to clarify whether this was damage to the skirting boards and confirmed that this would be its responsibility to replace. It advised it would not be responsible for any further damage to the floor that might be caused by the repairs. As with its previous explanations, this too was in line with its policy.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the handling of the resident’s report of damaged laminate floors.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acted in line with its policies, signposted the resident to the insurance company, confirmed its responsibility for the skirting boards and clearly communicated the reasons for its decisions.