Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202214075)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214075

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

11 April 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:
1. Response following a fire at the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and Summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord and has lived at the property since 2013.
The tenancy agreement states as follows:
1. The resident is responsible for maintaining the fences of the property.
2. The resident is responsible for insuring the contents of the property.
The landlord’s housing services policy states as follows:
1. Its repair responsibilities are set out in legislation, regulation and the tenancy agreement.
2. It aims to compete emergency repairs within 24 hours, general repairs within 10 working days and “repairs exclusions” within 20 working days.
The landlord and Tenant Act 1985 section 11 sets out the landlord’s repair obligations. Section 11 does not require the landlord to rebuild or reinstate the property after destruction or damage by fire, flood or storms.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1 it aims to respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 it aims to respond within 20 working days. If additional time is required at either stage it will keep the resident informed.

Summary of events

On 19 July 2022 the resident advised the landlord that there had been a fire the night before which had affected 6 properties, including the property. She advised that sheds, fences and gardens had also been burnt. She stated that the property was full of smoke and that she could not stay there as she had asthma. She asked to be decanted.
On 27 July 2022 the landlord sent an email to the resident (and other affected residents) and stated as follows:
1. It acknowledged that the incident must have been “very terrifying” and that sheds, fencing, grass and items in gardens had been damaged.
2. It was taking steps to rectify the damage caused to the back gardens and was looking into why the fire started. It had requested a copy of the report from the Fire Brigade and once this had been received it would discuss the next steps regarding insurance claims.
3. Its contractors had been on site and would continue to undertake works to remove debris, damaged items and a damaged tree.
4. It would look into the installation of temporary fencing.
5. It asked the resident to let it know if she had contents insurance.
On 31 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and stated as follows:
1. She asked when the damaged tree at the bottom of her garden would be removed.
2. She advised that she did not have contents insurance and had sought legal advice for her loss which was approximately £25,000.
3. Due to the lack of fencing there was no security around her garden which was easily accessible from a public alleyway.
4. The situation was affecting her health and she had been prescribed medication for breathing difficulties.
5. The refusal of the landlord to decant her meant she was still living with smoke damage.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 August 2022 and thanked it for its response (this response has not been provided to this Service). The resident stated as follows:
1. People had been walking down the alleyway to view the damage. She felt unable to leave the property unattended as she had security concerns.
2. The area looked like a “bomb site” which was impacting her family.
3. She requested to discuss the replacement fencing before it was installed.
4. She had instructed a company to quote for new fencing as she wanted it fixing urgently. She stated she would seek to be refunded or have the cost deducted from her rent payments as she could not wait weeks for it to be sorted. She advised that there were 5 young children living next door with 2 dogs, so privacy was a concern.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 September 2022 and thanked it for its response (this response has not been provided to this Service). She stated that a fencing contractor had attended a couple of weeks ago but there was still not a date for the fence to be replaced. She stated it was urgent as her dog continued to escape. She requested the landlord’s insurance details in respect of making a claim for the damage.
On 23 September 2022 the resident advised the landlord that a “serious incident” had occurred in the alleyway at the back of the property which had been witnessed by her son. She requested that the fence be replaced urgently.
On 3 October 2022 the resident submitted a complaint and stated as follows:
1. Her garden had been completely destroyed, she had lost over £25,000 of personal property and damage had been caused to her pond and the side roof.
2. 5 weeks prior to the fire she had reported a fallen tree to the landlord. It sent out a tree surgeon who deemed the tree unfit and said it needed to be removed. This did not happen and the tree had caused the fire to spread.
3. She was still without a fence 11 weeks after the fire. Her property was exposed and people’s dogs had used the garden as a toilet.
4. There had been a stabbing incident in the back alley which her son was exposed to due to the lack of fence. He is autistic and refused to sleep in his bedroom because there was access to the house from the back alley.
5. She could not let her dog out into the garden as he would escape. Her partner was disabled and could not manage the dog in the small section of garden she had tried to secure.
6. The situation had impacted the family’s mental health and she was seeking medical advice for her son’s anxiety.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 October 2022. That same day the resident advised the landlord that her desired outcome was for the fence to be constructed properly and for the landlord to provide it’s insurance details in order to make a claim.
On 20 October 2022 the landlord advised the resident that its stage 1 response would be delayed. It offered her £50 compensation to acknowledge this delay.
On 21 October 2022 the landlord responded at stage 1 and stated as follows:
1. The fire occurred in one of the sheds in the back garden of another property. The Fire Brigade report determined that the cause of the fire was unknown and therefore it would not be taking further action.
2. Following the cleaning of the debris, its fencing contractors attended and provided temporary fencing. The tree which was damaged was also cut down.
3. The replacement fencing had been completed by 14 October 2022 and had been done on a like for like basis and to a good standard. It apologised for the time it had taken to resolve. It advised that it had needed to liaise with its insurance team to clarify if there would be any further involvement from them, due to total costings of the fencing.
4. It acknowledged that personal items may have been damaged. It advised that the resident would be required to claim any loss or damage through her home contents insurance. It advised that it would not be able to reimburse the loss of personal items and that a claim could not be submitted against its insurance.
5. If the resident had had the property professionally cleaned due to smoke damage it asked her to send evidence to confirm this. It would then consider if a discretionary payment could be made to reimburse these costs.
6. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to complete the repair and for inconvenience caused. To acknowledge this it offered £150 compensation made up as follows:
  1. £50 for the time taken to chase the complaint and the distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. £50 for the delayed repairs.
  3. £50 for the delay in the stage 1 response.
On 23 October 2022 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. She believed the cause and liability for the fire was with another tenant. She was not prepared to accept that the cause of the fire was unknown.
2. The landlord’s contractor had provided her with pallets to put up temporarily to stop her dog escaping. There was no temporary fencing provided.
3. The new fencing had not been installed properly as the contractors had refused to dig the ground and therefore placed the fencing on top of the mud. In addition the fence was not straight or the correct height to match. She had instructed her own contractor to rectify this.
4. She had informed the landlord of the fallen tree in June. The landlord had taken down the fallen part and informed her that the tree needed to be taken down immediately before it fell again. This did not happened and she believed the tree had caused the fire to spread.
5. She had lost over £25,000 worth of items in the fire, which had also caused damage to her conservatory roof and side entrance roofing which she had installed to improve the property. Her purpose-made pond had been destroyed and her expensive fish did not have the required filtration system. She wished to claim on the landlord’s insurance.
6. The stress and inconvenience had impacted on her family’s mental health and well-being.
7. The offer of £150 compensation was an “insult”.
On 24 November 2022 the landlord responded at stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. It had reviewed the workmanship of the fencing and it was happy with the works undertaken. The panels were replaced in accordance to the works required. Its contractor confirmed that it had advised residents that the panels would be different in level.
2. It had not instructed a contractor to provide temporary pallets and asked if the resident could provide details of this. Its fencing contractor advised that these pallets were in place at the time of it attending in respect of temporary fencing.
3. It acknowledged the frustrations with the delay in the works being completed, however as the works were being reviewed by its insurers, it needed to receive their confirmation before the works could proceed. It apologised for the impact of this but stated it was beyond its control.
4. Once approval had been given it had instructed its contractor at the first opportunity.
5. It could only rely on the conclusion of the report that the cause of the fire was unknown.
6. The tree had been removed on 15 August 2022.
7. It noted that the resident did not have contents insurance and offered advice on having this in place in the future. It reiterated that it could not assist with loss of personal items. As the source of the fire could not be determined it was not liable for the damage and as such, the resident could not claim on its buildings insurance.
8. It noted that the resident had requested to be compensated for the cost of temporary fencing. It advised that once the resident could provide information in relation to the pallets, it could review the request. It would cover the cost of plastic mesh that the resident had put up to secure her dogs if she could provide the receipt of purchase.
9. It reiterated its offer of £150 compensation.
On 15 January 2023 the resident referred her complaint to this Service on the following basis:
1. The poor quality of the repairs.
2. The loss of property and the inability to claim on the landlord’s insurance.
3. The condition of the garden following the fire.
4. The impact on the family’s mental health and finances of the fire.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

On 31 May 2023 solicitors instructed by the resident wrote to the landlord a ‘letter of claim’ in respect of the cause of the fire, damage to items and the fencing repair.
The landlord advised this Service on 9 April 2024 that, to date, no formal legal proceedings had commenced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is noted the resident requested compensation for damaged belongings and reported a potential impact on her and the households health as a result of the fire. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider these aspects of the resident’s complaint nor can any finding be made as to the liability for the fire. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint, its handling of repairs and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused.
The resident has confirmed that she has instructed a solicitor, however the landlord has confirmed that, at this stage, no formal legal proceedings have been raised. The Ombudsman’s view is that a matter does not become ‘legal’ until proceedings have been ‘issued’. The issuing of proceedings involves filing details of the claim, such as the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim, at court. Therefore, at the time of writing this report, the matters remain within the jurisdiction of this Service, based upon the evidence available.

The landlord’s response following a fire

This Service is not able to make a binding decision about the cause of the fire. It is acknowledged that the resident believed that the fire had been caused by another tenant of the landlord and that as such the landlord was required to progress through its insurer in relation to the resident’s damaged belongings. The landlord was entitled to rely upon the expert opinion it received from the fire service in relation to the cause of the fire and for it to subsequently base its response to the issues that arose following the fire on this expert opinion.
The landlord was responsive to the resident’s concerns and acknowledged that the occurrence of the fire would have caused significant distress to the resident. Following this it advised the resident that it would be taking action to rectify the damage and installing temporary fencing. It appropriately advised her that it was waiting for a copy of the report from the Fire Brigade before it considered insurance claims.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about smoke damage inside the property. It acted appropriately in offering to consider a discretionary payment to reimburse such professional cleaning costs if the resident provided such receipts. It is not clear if these were provided however the landlord’s actions in offering this was appropriate.
Once it was determined via the fire report that the cause of the fire could not be determined, the landlord acted appropriately in advising the resident that a claim could not be made against its insurance policy and that the appropriate method of resolution would be to claim against the resident’s home contents insurance. It is noted that the resident did not have contents insurance for the property. This is something which is the resident’s responsibility, as set out in the tenancy agreement.
The tenancy agreement is also clear that the resident is responsible for the fencing at the property. Despite this, the landlord sought to provide temporary fencing (although it appears this was erected by the resident prior to the landlord doing so). As the resident had done so herself, the landlord offered to cover the cost of this temporary fencing. This was reasonable. The landlord subsequently replaced the fencing on a like for like basis, despite the fencing being the resident’s responsibility. This demonstrated a resident-focused approach, with the landlord acting beyond its repair responsibilities in trying to put things right for her.
Despite the landlord not having a repair responsibility in respect of the fence, once it endeavoured to replace the fencing, it should have done so in line with the timeframe set out in its repairs policy. It is noted that the replacement fencing took from July to October 2022, a period of around 12 weeks. It is noted however that some of this delay was due to the landlord waiting for the fire report, which was reasonable for it do prior to commencing the works. The landlord acknowledged this delay within its complaint response and offered £50 compensation. Given that the landlord acted above its repair responsibilities and provided new fencing to the resident, this offer was reasonable in the circumstances. As such there was reasonable redress.

Complaint handling

The landlord took 14 working days to respond at stage 1 and 23 working days to respond at stage 2. These responses were outside of the complaint timeframes of 10 and 20 working days respectively. It is acknowledged however that the delays were not lengthy and did not significantly impact the resident’s ability to bring her case to this Service.
The landlord acknowledged the delays in its stage 1 complaint responses and offered compensation totalling £100 for the delay, time taken chasing the complaint and distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord did not acknowledge that its stage 2 response was late, albeit this was only delayed by a period of 3 days. Nevertheless it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged this delay and apologised.
In summary, when considered overall, the landlord offered reasonable redress (£100 compensation) to acknowledge the impact of the complaint handling failures on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response following a fire.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately in signposting the resident to contents insurance in respect of the damaged caused by the fire. It
The landlord’s complaint responses were both slightly delayed. Compensation offered at stage 1 was appropriate to acknowledge the impact this failure had on the resident.

Orders and/or recommendations

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord reoffer compensation totalling £150 to the resident.