Peabody Trust (202216897)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216897

Peabody Trust

27 March 2024

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 response to:
1. The structural damage caused to the property by a neighbour.
2. The resident’s request for the reimbursement of the costs she incurred as a result of loss and damage to the property.
This report looks at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
This report also looks at the landlord’s handling of knowledge and information.

Background

The resident lived in a ground floor property in a house that was owned and managed by the landlord. The property was let under an assured tenancy agreement in 2011. The property was transferred to the current landlord as part of a merger. The landlord let a different property to the resident under a new assured tenancy in January 2022.
The landlord does not record any vulnerabilities for the resident on its housing database.

Scope of investigation

The resident had been undergoing cancer treatment following a diagnosis she had received in 2017. In an email to the landlord dated 15 September 2021 she said that she had been told she was free of cancer in February 2020 but that it had returned in June 2021. The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 24 October 2022 in which she said that her health had been extremely affected by the situation since the structural damage happened in 2020 and had been continuously deteriorating due to the constant stress she had been kept under by the landlord. She also said that there had been negligence because the landlord had disregarded her health condition when taking 5 months to respond to her request for the reimbursement of costs. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s response to the condition of the property and the resident’s request for the reimbursement of costs and her health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

Relevant policies and procedures

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house. It is also obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The tenancy agreement also says the landlord will keep the structure, and outside of the property in good repair.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it will make sure residents’ homes are safe. It aims to attend to or complete emergency repairs within 4 hours. These are repairs that need a rapid response to safeguard the wellbeing of residents, the structural stability and integrity of properties and/or the health and safety of people using the affected area. It aims to complete specialist works within 60 calendar days. These are works that are complex in nature therefore require either a specialist contractor and/or a technical lead in diagnosing and managing the works through to completion.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy which says stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days. The complaint policy also says that it will not deal with insurance claims and appeals including damage to personal belongings and property within its complaint procedure. It also says that if legal action has begun about the subject matter of a complaint it will not deal with the complaint under its complaints policy. This is defined as details of the claims, such as the claim form and details of the claim, having been filed at court. Any complaint requests that are rejected will be communicated to the resident in writing explaining why the request is not being treated as a complaint.
The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy says that there are situations when the landlord may not consider offering a remedy or paying compensation which include where the fault is caused by a third party or is something for which it is not responsible, and where a claim can be made on the resident’s home contents or buildings insurance. It says that it will not compensate for loss of earnings and where a customer is taking legal action which involves a compensation claim, the case will be managed by its legal services team and not considered under the compensation policy. It does not reimburse residents if they decide to employ a repair contractor or advocate to assist them without getting its written permission and agreement beforehand. It will offer compensation awards of between £25 and £300 for failings in complaint handling depending on its assessed degree of failure. It also said that it expects residents to have contents insurance in place for their furniture, decorations or any other personal possessions as a contents insurance policy may cover against accidental damage, loss, fire or water damage, or burglary, amongst other things.
The landlord’s communication and consultation policy says its overall aim is to keep its colleagues, residents, members of the public and those working on its behalf safe by communicating and consulting about its health and safety arrangements and controls.
Paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the ‘Code’) says a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within 5 days of receipt. Paragraph 5.6 says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practise where appropriate. Paragraphs 5.8 and 5.16 of the Code say that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, any reasons for the decisions made, and details of how to escalate the complaint if the resident is not satisfied with the answer. Paragraph 5.14 of the Code says if an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.

Summary of events

On 1 June 2020, the Government issued updated guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. The guidance said that landlords “can now take steps to address wider issues of repairs and safety inspections, provided these are undertaken in line with public health advice” and that “Where workforce is available and resources allow, landlords or contractors are now able to visit most properties to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs, as well as any planned internal works.”
The resident fled the property and reported that a crack had appeared on the party wall of the property to the fire services on 20 June 2020. The fire services advised her not to return to the property and to leave her pets inside. The fire service attended the same day and said that the house was collapsing and was dangerous. The local authority l boarded up the property and applied a do not enter notice on the front door.
The landlord commissioned a structural inspection which was completed on 8 July 2020. The report dated 13 July 2020 said: “There were major structural defects in the construction of the basement of the neighbouring property. The occupants to the adjacent properties should not be allowed to return while the investigations are carried out and while the remedial repairs are completed.”
The landlord contacted the resident on an undisclosed date in August 2020 to advise her to contact the building contractor overseeing the work. She was told by the contractor that the matter would take more than 3 months to resolve.
The landlord contacted the resident on an undisclosed date in November 2020 and advised her that she could not return to the property.
The landlord commissioned a structural engineers assessment of the property which was completed on 7 December 2020. The subsequent report dated 15 December 2020 said the damage to the property was extensive. The report stated that the damage was beyond repair and in its view the property should be demolished and rebuilt on new foundations. The structural engineer believed the building to be a dangerous structure and that residents should not be allowed to enter the building.
The building contractor emailed the resident on 6 April 2021 to say that it had asked the landlord to liaise with her for her to “itemise the costs of your belongings and finishes to your property”. When this had been received it would ask for the building owner to reimburse her.
The landlord provided the resident with an alternative offer of permanent accommodation on 30 April 2021 which she declined as it was in a smaller flat without a garden and had a bedroom facing a busy road.
The landlord provided the resident with another alternative offer of permanent accommodation on 17 June 2021 which she declined as it was in an area that was far away from where she had been living for the preceding 25 years and had a small kitchen that would not house her appliances and the new kitchen she had purchased.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 September 2021. The resident said:
1. She had been affected by the property disrepair incident on 14 June 2020 and had been asked by the council to leave the property due it being a dangerous structure.
2. She had been unable to get in contact with the landlord and the council for 3 months because nobody was answering their phones. She was left on the street homeless and had been helped to get a flat that would accept her dog by friends, but she had had to move twice since then.
3. The first time she had heard back from the landlord was in August 2020 when she was advised to contact the contractor handling the matter herself. She was subsequently told that the matter would take more than 3 months to resolve which she had considered to be reasonable.
4. She had been surprised that no-one had examined the property until November 2020 which had been done upon her request.
5. She had taken out a personal loan due to the landlord’s delays in handling the situation. When the property had been stabilised she had hired her own builders to refurbish 2 rooms in her property to speed up her return to the property as she had been staying in a 1-bed flat with 1 suitcase of her own belongings for over a year.
6. She had previously bought materials for the refurbishment of the property with hopes she could return to the property before the Christmas of the previous year. The items she had purchased included a new kitchen, flooring, doors, and a new bathroom.
7. She had felt completely neglected by the landlord and had been left to handle the situation alone despite her health needs.
8. The landlord and contractor had told her in November 2020 that she could not return to the property which she had found difficult to accept because her daughter had invested £50,000 in the property since she had moved in.
9. She had pets buried in the garden which she was very attached to, and the property had sentimental meaning to her.
10. The landlord had said that it would find her a property of equivalent size and set up and with a garden in a quiet area which she could transfer to. She had been offered properties on 30 April 2021 and 17 June 2021 which she had declined.
11. The property had been burgled on 18 June 2021 which had caused her stress which could have been avoided if the matter had been looked at properly from the start. Lots of valuable possessions had been stolen and she had to deal with a police case and court hearing.
12. She had contacted the council building inspectors because the landlord had not found her a property. The council had arranged a new inspection of the property and concluded that the property was stable and that the remaining work could continue without any risks to the structure.
13. She had arranged for an independent structural engineer at her own expense who also confirmed that the property was fully stable, and that work could continue.
14. The resident provided 2 options for the landlord to respond to. Option 1 was for it grant her permission to return to the property and the landlord to complete the repairs. Option 2 was to allow her to purchase the property in order to speed up the process and to be able to stay in the property given the landlord had indicated it was looking to sell the property and she had lived there for more than 10 years.
The landlord replied to the resident on the 15 September 2021 to confirm that it would look into the matter and provide her with a satisfactory response in a timely manner.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident from the surveying team on 5 October 2021. The letter said that it was with a “heavy heart” that it had explained the reasons why the property had to be sold off during a conversation it held with her on 23 September 2021. The property had been heavily damaged by contractors working for the neighbour and the whole property required demolition and rebuilding. It had decided to sell the whole property as it would never be confident that any remedial measures undertaken by the neighbour’s builders were satisfactory. It said that the resident should liaise with the priority transfer team for a suitable permanent new home to be found.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 14 October 2021. The resident said:
1. The property wasn’t just a property, it was her home. The friends and neighbours that supported her were nearby and the home was set up in an environment she required to proceed with her treatments.
2. The last time the property had been reviewed by an engineer was in 2020 and the report was out of date. A new structural review was necessary to come to an accurate decision about whether the property was stable.
3. The structure of the neighbouring property had not been reviewed during a visit completed in April 2021 which was vital to establish the situation.
4. She had invested £60,000 on refurbishment and improvement works at the property to meet her needs and health requirements.
5. The situation was leaving her at a breaking point and affecting her mental and physical health.
6. She would have liked to have applied her right to buy the property following an up-to-date structural engineer’s review.
7. The building company that had been covering her rent was no longer paying her rent which was causing her stress.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 November 2021 to say that she had not received an acknowledgment of her previous email which she had submitted over a month previously, or a decision in writing. She also said:
1. The landlord had previously explained that it was not that the property was unrepairable but that it would incur a financial loss for the landlord if it was repaired and that this was the reason it preferred to sell it.
2. She was happy to buy it in its current condition. She understood that the landlord did not want to incur financial loss but that equally her life was at risk and that the matter was very serious.
3. Her 2 cats were suffering due to the cold weather and living in the conditions of the property for 2 winters alone.
The landlord emailed the resident on 23 November 2021 to say that it had registered the email she had sent on 14 October 2021 as a stage 1 complaint. It apologised for the delay in responding to her.
The resident signed a new assured tenancy agreement with the landlord on 27 January 2022 for a ground floor property with a garden.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 28 May 2022 which itemised the costs she had incurred due to the relocation from the property. The resident listed the expenditure and provided further comments to the landlord. She said:
1. £35,446.60 was due for refurbishment costs for the new property to meet the requirements of her previous property.
2. £16,200 was owed to her for the cost of the private accommodation she had lived in during the transition to the new property. She attached copies of 5 handwritten notes indicating a number of rent payments of £1800, with her name on.
3. £6000 was due for losses to her belongings incurred due to a burglary at the property after the structural damage had occurred .
4. The building company had paid her rent for 5 months in the alternative accommodation but had said that the landlord was purposely delaying its response to the matter and so it had refused to cover any further costs.
5. The landlord’s decision not to reimburse the rent costs could have been prevented as the landlord had suitable properties available but chose not to place her in one or provide her with an alternative temporary property during the pandemic period.
6. She owed a lot of the costs to others who were pressuring her and that this was affecting her mental state.
7. She would like the matters to be looked at as a matter of urgency and said she would be willing to take legal action if the landlord did not accept the reasonable costs she had set out.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 17 August 2022 to say it had been a month since she had received its previous email, and she was under constant stress and pressure. She owed a lot of money and had been referred to a debt collector for unpaid bills.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 September 2022 again chasing it for a reply.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 September 2022 to confirm that its legal team would provide her with a response later the same week.
The landlord’s legal team sent a response to the resident on 30 September 2022 which said:
1. It was not liable for the losses as set out in the resident’s request for the reimbursement of costs to the sum of £57,646.60 (the legal team referred to the resident’s request as having been received on 13 June 2022 but references information that the resident had sent to the landlord on 28 May 2022.)
2. It recognised that there was a significant delay once it had been told that the property was not habitable due to the actions of the neighbour.
3. The relevant period to be taken into account was from June 2020 until the start of the resident’s current tenancy on 21 January 2022.
4. It should have swiftly ensured the resident had emergency temporary accommodation, either from its own housing stock or with the assistance of the Local Authority Homeless Persons Unit, when it had been notified that the property had been seriously damaged.
5. It should have decided whether the property could be repaired within a reasonable period and given consideration to permanently rehousing the resident from its own stock under its transfer policy.
6. It had failed to attend to the matters within a reasonable period and accepted that this caused an amount of distress and inconvenience to the resident in addition to that already caused by the adjoining owner’s actions.
7. It would offer a compensation payment of £20,002.61 which it itemised as £8,438.34 for incurred rent payments between June 2020 and January 2022 (it calculated the amount based on the rent levels at the new property that she had moved into in January 2022), £7,100 for a statutory home loss payment which it had already paid, and £4,464.27 to write off the resident’s rent arrears.
8. The request for the reimbursement of costs that the resident had submitted consisted of special damages for which the landlord denied liability. It also denied any liability for the costs of any of the building works or improvements carried out by the resident at the property and at the new property, as the resident had chosen to undertake these herself.
9. With respect to the request for £16,200 for rental payments which she said she had paid for the private accommodation; it did not accept that she had provided evidence that the sums claimed were demanded or paid.
10. It did not accept any claims for losses incurred due to a burglary and that the resident had not evidenced that this was the landlord’s responsibility.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 October 2022 in which she said:
1. The landlord had taken months to provide a response which was continuously delayed and unacceptable and exceeded legal timeframes.
2. Her request for the reimbursement of costs did not include the inconvenience she had been through, nor lost earnings due to losing her business because of the stress from the situation. She would add this to the request if she was forced to take legal action.
3. She would like the landlord to explain its breakdown of its compensation award.
4. She would have been happy to provide more information about the burglary if it had been requested during the months she had waited for a response.
5. She was forced to lose her home due the landlord stating it was “unrepairable,” but 2 independent structural engineers had since said the property was safe and repairable which the landlord had been aware of.
6. It had made a decision to sell the property without informing the resident and for well above the market value.
7. She wanted to resolve the matter quickly due to her health condition and without further losses and costs on both sides. She would take legal action if she was left with no other choice.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 28 October 2022 in which it said:
1. It apologised for the time it had taken to consider her request for the reimbursement of costs.
2. It denied liability for any loss of earnings as a result of losing her business due to stress.
3. It denied liability for breach of tenancy and considered that a notional reduction in rent was a reasonable basis upon which to reach a settlement of the dispute.
4. It had calculated the period of loss as being between June 2020 and 21 January 2022.
5. It was obliged to find suitable alternative housing for the resident but was not obliged to carry out work above ensuring the property was habitable.
6. In an effort to demonstrate that it wished to resolve this matter the period of loss considered was increased to 30 March 2022, making the relevant period 1 year 9 months and which resulted in an additional payment of £888.25.
7. It had paid a statutory payment of £7,100 as set out in the Lands Compensation Act 1973 as a gesture of goodwill and without prejudice to the contention that it was not liable to the resident for the payment under the Act.
8. Additional works that the resident had completed at the property were done as her choice and not as a result of the property being uninhabitable.
9. It denied any liability for the rent payments the resident had sought to recover and for a burglary that she had reported.
10. It denied that the property could have been repaired and said it had provided her with alternative accommodation.
11. It itemised the sum of money to reflect general damages equivalent to a notional reduction in rent between June 2020 and March 2022. It provided £9,326.59 for rent at the alternative property and a home loss payment of £7,100. It also wrote off the rent arrears of £4,464.27 that were retained on the rent account thereby totalling a compensation award of £20,890.86.
12. The landlord said that it remained committed to resolving the matters by alternative dispute resolution and referred the resident to seek independent legal advice if she had any further questions.
This Service sent a letter to the landlord on 21 February 2023 asking the landlord to register and acknowledge a stage 1 complaint by 28 February 2023 and issue a response by 14 March 2023, or issue a stage 2 response within 20 workings days if it had already issued a stage 1 complaint response. We also asked the landlord to write to the resident if it refused to accept or escalate the complaint or if the complaint procedure had been exhausted.
The landlord sent a complaint acknowledgement letter to the resident on 22 February 2023 and said that it would respond to her by 8 March 2023.
The landlord sent an internal email on 11 March 2023 that said it needed to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint by 14 March 2023. The email explained the background to the situation and said that the matter had not been managed very well. It had given the resident all of her rent back for 1 year and 9 months and had provided her with an inconvenience payment of £4,664.27 which would have cleared her rent arrears. It had also found a new home for her and completed additional works to make sure it was nice for her to move into. Meanwhile it had sold her previous property to the neighbours. The resident had not provided proof of the costs she incurred when she had moved out and when the neighbour’s builders had stopped paying her rent. The resident had said that the costs were £4,000 a month. The resident had submitted a compensation request which would be paid for by the disrepair budget but that it would like to add £1,000 to it for disruption and taking into account her personal medical situation.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 13 March 2023. The landlord said that the complaint was about the structural issues with the property, the property not being habitable, and that the resident was seeking compensation. The landlord provided a statement that had been extracted from its compensation policy which said, “Where a customer is taking legal action against us which involves a compensation claim, the case will be managed by our Legal Services team and not considered under this policy.” It also said:
1. The concerns the resident had raised had been dealt with by its legal team and it was not able to carry out any investigation regarding the same issues.
2. It was unable to review the concerns that this Service has raised as the matters were being handled by its legal team.
3. Any unresolved aspects would need to be reviewed by its legal team and the resident’s solicitor.
4. If the resident remained dissatisfied she could escalate the matter to stage 2 of the complaint procedure. The landlord did not state if the complaint had been upheld nor signpost the resident to this Service.
This Service sent an email to the landlord on 18 May 2023, asking it to provide a stage 2 complaint response to the resident by 23 June 2023.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint acknowledgement to the resident on 25 May 2023. The landlord said it would respond to her by 16 June 2023.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 23 June 2023. The landlord said:
1. It apologised for extending the response date of the complaint.
2. It had received a ‘letter of claim’ from the resident on 13 June 2022.
3. It had issued an offer of compensation to the resident on 30 September 2022 which she had declined, but that the offer was still available to her if she wished to accept it.
4. Any compensation offered through its complaint process would be far less that that offered by its legal team.
5. If she disputed the offer made by its legal team she should contact it directly. In the meantime it had forwarded the complaint submitted by this Service on her behalf to the legal team to clarify if there were any aspects of the resident’s request that needed to be reviewed further
6. It was sorry to hear about the resident’s lost and damaged property and that matters would be managed outside of its complaint procedure.
7. If the resident was holding the landlord responsible and wished to pursue the matter she should submit a claim and provide supporting evidence to its insurance team using an email address it provided.
8. It would not deal with insurance claims and appeals including damage to personal belongings and property within its complaint procedure.
9. It would not deal with matters that had already been determined under the complaints policy or another policy appeal process within its complaint procedure.
10. The root cause of the damage was caused by a private neighbouring property. It had no control over the time it took the owner to complete the repairs.
11. It apologised for issuing a response later than it had previously told the resident upon the direction from this Service.
12. It recognised its poor complaint handling at stage 2 and issued a payment of £50 as compensation for its delayed response.
13. It did not state if it upheld the complaint but confirmed it had finished the review of the complaint and signposted the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Events that happened after the internal complaint procedure

On 7 December 2023 the landlord sent an internal email that confirmed that it did not record any vulnerabilities for the resident.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the structural damage to the property caused by a neighbour.

Following the structural damage to the property on 20 June 2020, the landlord completed a structural survey of the property on 8 July 2020 which was 13 days after the incident had taken place. Given the impact that COVID-19 had on the national reintroduction of building and maintenance works this was a reasonable timeframe for the landlord to have taken to complete an assessment of the damage to the property structure.
The landlord did not contact the resident about the matter until August 2020 when it said that the matter would take more than 3 months to complete. There is no evidence that the landlord had put in place any arrangements for the resident to access alternative accommodation via its own housing stock or the council’s homeless person’s unit. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to have upheld its obligations to the resident so as to locate alternative suitable accommodation for her. This caused the resident a significant amount of distress and inconvenience, time, and trouble. It also resulted in her incurring costs for accommodation that the landlord was responsible for sourcing.
The landlord contacted the resident on an undisclosed date in November 2020 and advised her that she could not return to the property. There is no evidence that the landlord had communicated with the resident between August 2020 and November 2020. This was unreasonable ,given the circumstances..
The landlord commissioned a further structural engineers assessment of the property in December 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to have sought the expertise of a professionally qualified engineer. Furthermore it was reasonable for the landlord to consider the views of its qualified professional when deciding how to proceed with the management of the site.
The landlord made the resident 2 offers of alternative permanent accommodation in April and June 2021. It was appropriate for the landlord to have made offer of accommodation to the resident given it considered the property to be uninhabitable.
The landlord contacted the resident on 23 September 2021 following receipt of an email from her 6 days previously. The landlord said that it intended to sell the property because it was not confident that the repairs completed by the neighbour’s contractor met the required planning and building regulation standards. The landlord’s decision about the sale of the property was its own to make given it was the freeholder of the property. Furthermore its decision to dispose of the property to protect the health and safety of any occupants was a reasonable consideration under the circumstances.
The landlord located alternative permanent accommodation for the resident in January 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to have sourced accommodation for the resident. Furthermore it sought to offer her a similar property with a garden and carried out works ahead of her moving in.
The landlord’s legal team reviewed its response to the structural damage to the property by the neighbour in its responses to the resident dated 30 September 2022 and 28 October 2022. The landlord recognised its failings in responding to the structural incident.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (recognition of its failings and the distress and inconvenience the matter caused to the resident) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord recognised that the resident had lived in alternative accommodation from the date of the structural incident in June 2020. It also recognised that it had not responded within a reasonable time and that it should have ensured the resident had had emergency temporary accommodation from its own stock, or with the assistance of the homeless persons unit. Furthermore the landlord admitted that it should have, within a reasonable period, decided whether the property could be repaired and if not, given consideration to providing permanent rehousing to the resident The landlord did not explicitly offer the resident any compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its failure to assist her with rehousing and the time taken to decide upon and communicate its decision to sell the property. In its email of 11 March 2023 the landlord said it wanted to award £1,000 for distress and inconvenience but it did not make this offer in the complaint response. An award of compensation for this is made below.
Taking all matters into consideration this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to the property following structural damage caused by a neighbour.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the reimbursement of the costs she incurred as a result of loss and damage to the property.

The resident submitted an itemised list of costs she had incurred to the landlord within her complaint on 28 May 2022. The landlord forwarded this to its legal team for an assessment and a response to be completed outside of its complaint procedure on 13 June 2022. This was an unreasonable amount of time for the landlord to have taken to forward the resident’s request for the reimbursement of costs internally. Furthermore, the landlord failed to explain to the resident that it had taken this decision, nor give an indication on how long it would take to provide her with a response. This was unreasonable given that she had raised that matter as a complaint and had an expectation that the matter would be addressed within 10 working days. The landlord’s lack of engagement with the resident about her request for the reimbursement of costs was a missed opportunity for the landlord to manage her expectations.
The resident contacted the landlord about the delay in receiving a response to her request for the reimbursement of costs on 17 August 2022 and on 5 September 2022 in which she said it had been too long for the legal team to respond to something that it could have done in a couple of days. The landlord responded to the resident on 28 September 2022 to say that its legal team would respond later the same week. It was unreasonable for the landlord to have taken 29 working days to tell her when it would provide her with a response. Furthermore it was unreasonable for the landlord to have waited 4 months to provide a response to the resident’s request for the reimbursement of costs.
In its response of 30 September 2022 the landlord indicated that it had reviewed the resident’s request for the reimbursement of costs and would offer her a compensation award of £20,002.61. It subsequently increased the award to £20,890.86 in its final response of 28 October 2022.
The landlord considered the resident’s compensation requests and indicated that its prior provision of a statutory home loss payment of £7,100 was part of its compensation award. The landlord explained that this payment had been provided as a goodwill gesture and calculated under the terms of the Lands Compensation Act 1973. The landlord held a contractual tenancy agreement with the resident who had been displaced from the property due to the structural damage and the landlord’s subsequent decision to sell the property. These circumstances were in keeping with the purpose of a home loss payment which was issued as compensation for the detriment that the loss of the property had caused the resident It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to have provided this statutory payment to the resident in line with the Act.
The landlord decided to pay the resident £9,326.59 for rent costs between the date of the incident in June 2020 and the date she moved her into alternative permanent accommodation in March 2022. The landlord calculated these costs using the social housing rent it charged for the property it had moved her into in January 2022 and not the actual costs the resident had incurred for the temporary accommodation she had lived in from June 2020. The landlord considered the evidence that the resident had provided of the rent she had incurred and said that it was not sufficient for it to determine that the rent had been demanded and/or paid. This was a reasonable decision for the landlord to make, given that the evidence provided by the resident consisted of hand written notes referring to only 5 months’ rent (out of the 9 months she was asking for), with no landlord name and no confirmation of receipt of payment. The landlord also agreed to write off the resident’s rent arrears to the value of £4,464.27.
The landlord said that it would not reimburse the resident for the costs that she had incurred for the refurbishment works she had undertaken in the property after the structural damage and prior to it being sold. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it does not reimburse residents if they decide to employ a repair contractor to assist them without getting its written permission and agreement beforehand. There was no evidence that the landlord had provided the resident with permission for these works to be completed, nor that the resident had requested it to. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to have declined her request for the reimbursement of these costs.
The landlord said that it would not reimburse the resident for the costs that the resident had incurred for the refurbishment of the new property she moved into in January 2022 which she said was to bring it up to the standards of the previous property. The landlord explained that it had issued a home loss payment in recognition of the loss of her previous tenancy.. It also said that the resident’s decision to complete building works or improvements had been her own choice and that carrying out the further works was beyond its obligation to provide her with habitable accommodation. As set out above the landlord’s compensation policy says that it does not reimburse residents if they decide to employ a repair contractor to assist them without getting its written permission and agreement beforehand. There was no evidence that the landlord had provided the resident with permission for these works to be completed. The landlord therefore acted appropriately in declining her request for the reimbursement of these costs.
The landlord explained that it was not liable for any of the costs associated with the resident’s reports of personal losses that had been incurred due to a burglary at the property following the structural damage. The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy states that it will not consider payment of compensation where a claim can be made on the customer’s home contents or buildings. It was reasonable for the landlord to have signposted the resident to make a claim on its own insurance.
The landlord considered its own policies when assessing what it would provide compensation for, and it explained this to the resident in its response letters and restated the offer in its complaint responses. The landlord acted reasonably when assessing the evidence of costs that had been provided and offered a proportionate level of compensation in the circumstances that satisfactorily resolved this aspect of the resident’s complaint. Taking all matters into account this Service finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the reimbursement of costs they incurred as a result of loss and damage to their property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as the landlord:
1. Did not acknowledge the resident’s email of 14 October 2021 as a stage 1 complaint until 23 November 2021 and only after the resident had chased a response the day before. The acknowledgement was sent 23 days later than its 5-day policy timescale.
2. Did not issue a stage 1 complaint response to the complaint it had acknowledged on 23 November 2021.
3. Did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint of 28 May 2022, nor provide a letter to her to explain the reason why it had decided not to log the matter as a complaint in line with its policy.
4. Forwarded the resident’s complaint and request for reimbursement of costs dated 28 May 2022 to its legal team on 13 June 2022 which was 10 working days after it had been received.
5. Provided a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 23 June 2023 which was 6 working days later than the target date it had provided in its acknowledgement letter. Furthermore it was 1 day later than the target time that had been provided by this service.
6. Did not provide referral information for the resident to contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that the landlord may refer matters to its legal team upon receipt of legal claims that have been issued by a court. It is accepted that the landlord wished for the expertise of its legal team to review the matter given the extent of the costs the resident was seeking to be reimbursed by the landlord. However there is no evidence that the resident had issued formal legal proceedings and so it was inappropriate for the landlord not to have responded to the matter under its complaints policy. This caused time and trouble to the resident.as there was a delay in receiving a response to the matters she has raised, and as the matter had been dealt with outside of the landlord’s complaint procedure the landlord’s response did not signpost the resident to this Service. Furthermore it led to the resident having to submit a further complaint 5 months later, after the legal team had responded, which could have been avoided if the principles and timescales of the complaint policy and code had been kept to when she had initially submitted her request for reimbursement.
The landlord reviewed its complaint handling and recognised that it had issued its stage 2 response later that the date it had previously told the resident. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology and an offer of compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for its complaint handling failure which it had considered to be a minor failure under its compensation and remedies policy. However, the landlord did not consider that it had failed to respond to her stage 1 complaint of 14 October 2021, nor consider the delays caused by its decision not to consider the resident’s request for the reimbursement of costs as a complaint. The amount of compensation was therefore not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings. An increased award of compensation is therefore awarded below.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

The landlord’s handling of knowledge and information.

In an email dated 7 December 2023 the landlord said that it did not record any vulnerabilities for the resident, despite her referring to her health concerns in correspondence and conversation she had held. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to have recorded this information so that it could be sure that housing service provided were in consideration of her needs.
This Service would expect a landlord to keep robust records of its tenancy agreement and about resident’s vulnerability in order that it delivers effective housing services. Furthermore it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. Taking all matters into account this Service finds service failure in the landlord handling of knowledge and information.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to structural damage caused to the property by a neighbour.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to resident’s request for the reimbursement of the costs she incurred as a result of loss and damage to the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of knowledge and information.

Reasons

The landlord failed to respond to the needs of the resident when structural damaged occurred to the property by locating emergency rehousing. The landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to contact the resident, assess the property damage and advise the resident of its decision to sell the property and find her alternative permanent accommodation. It did not provide an offer of compensation that was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience that had been caused to the resident.
The landlord assessed whether to reimburse the resident for costs she had incurred in response to structural damage being caused to the property. The landlord acted reasonably when making an offer of compensation which satisfactorily resolved this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord failed to comply with its own complaints policy and the Code during its handling of the resident’s complaints. The landlord investigated its complaint handling and offered the resident a payment of £50 for its complaint handling failures. However this was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble that had been caused to the resident.
The landlord did not record whether the resident had any vulnerabilities despite her reporting these matters in various items of correspondence.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in responding to the structural damage caused to the property, and for its complaint handling failures. This is to be provided in writing within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
In addition to any previous compensation issued and within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1,400 in compensation made up as follows:
1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings in responding to the structural damage at the property caused by the neighbour.
2. £400 for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.