Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202120596)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120596

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

19 December 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 the resident’s:
1. reports of collapsed ceilings, heating and hot water failures, plumbing blockages, leaks, unsanitary living conditions, and related repairs;
2. associated complaint and compensation claim.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy that began on 9 February 2009. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident lives in the property with her children. She has said that one of her daughters suffers a medical condition, which makes ready access to bathroom facilities essential. The landlord stated that it holds no vulnerability records for the household.

Repairs policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it would prioritise repairs by recognising the health and safety of the resident, and the urgency of the work.
It defined what it considered to be a ‘responsive repair’, which it said it would aim to complete within 28 days.
Its definition of an ‘emergency repair’ included collapsed ceilings, flooding, major leaks, and heating or hot water failures during the winter months. It said it would attend emergencies within 24 hours, and at a minimum make it safe. It said that it would return to complete any follow on works at an agreed appointed time.

Complaints policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a 2 stage complaint process. It said that it would aim to respond to complaints within 10 and 20 working days, at stage 1 and 2 respectively. It explained the circumstances in which it may need to extend these timeframes.

Compensation policy

The landlord’s policy stated that residents should be reminded that the landlordis a charitable organisation, and that compensation is only offered where a resident has suffered financial loss due to its service failure.
It stated that compensation should be used to return the resident, “back to where they were before the problem happened, it’s not something that they should profit from”.
It detailed its process for staff to award compensation, which it said should be completed within 30 days.

Summary of events

On 18 June 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that her main and ensuite bathrooms were leaking into the rooms below, and that human waste was leaking through her collapsed downstairs toilet ceiling. The landlord raised an emergency job, which its repairs record stated was attended the same day.
On 21 June 2021 the landlord raised a routine priority job for its drainage contractor to conduct a camera survey at the resident’s property, which its repairs record stated was completed on 27 July 2021.
On 22 June 2021 the landlord raised a routine job for the removal and reinstatement of the toilet ceiling, part of the living room ceiling, and a range of associated works.
On 11 October 2021 the landlord sent an emergency works instruction for the resident’s property to its drainage contractor. It said human waste was leaking from the resident’s bathroom through the ceiling to the room below. Over the remainder of October 2021, the landlord raised a further 10 jobs at the resident’s property, including 7 emergencies. The jobs were a mixture of drainage blockage clearances and heating and hot water failures. The repairs record stated that all were attended during the same month.
On 4 November 2021 the resident had said that the landlord reinstated her collapsed ceilings (the landlord’s repairs record stated that the full job raised on 22 June 2021, was completed on 16 December 2021).
On 19 November 2021 the resident made her complaint to the landlord. She stated that since she had moved into the property, she had experienced constant plumbing issues, heating breakdowns and limited facilities, which the landlord had failed to resolve. The resident’s key points were as follows:
1. She stated that for over 10 years she had suffered endless problems with either the kitchen, bathroom, or ensuite bathroom getting blocked or flooded, and the blockages causing her heating to fail. She complained that the landlord had failed to find a permanent solution, ignored the works recommended by its contractors, and was instead, “sticking a band aid over it all”.
2. She highlighted the financial losses she had suffered from increased water bills, electricity bills, loss of pay, laundrette costs, petrol to use other people’s washing facilities, damaged flooring, furniture, and other belongings.
3. She said that she had used all her annual leave to wait at home to give access to tradespeople, was signed off work with the stress of it all, and was at risk of losing her job.
4. She stated that it had taken the collapse of the ceiling in the downstairs toilet, for action to be taken. She said that there had been human waste coming through the ceiling for 4 months. She stated that during that time she had been told not to use the upstairs facilities, as each time more human waste would come through the ceiling, and that her bath and shower were unusable.
5. She described the impact of the unsanitary and limited facilities on her daughter’s medical condition.
6. She listed the issues and attendances from April 2018 to November 2021, and the times she had spent all day waiting in for tradespeople to attend.
7. She detailed the calls, chasing, and waiting in without anyone attending as agreed, that she said she had experienced on each of 20 separate days from 11 October 2021 until the time of her complaint. She said that the landlord’s communications had been so poor, that she felt like she had had to act as its secretary.
8. She described the stress of having been stuck in her property without facilities or heating, and in unsanitary conditions. She said that there was still a huge amount of work needed.
On 22 November 2021 the landlord’s manager visited the resident. The resident said that the manager had agreed to see if the landlord would replace her damaged flooring, but that it would not be with the expensive flooring she had installed. She said that the manager had stated multiple times that the landlord was a charity, and would only offer a goodwill gesture. The landlord raised 2 further emergency jobs for sink and drainage blockages, which were attended on 22 and 23 November 2021 respectively.
On 24 November 2021 the resident said that the manager had called and apologised for the multiple failings, poor communications, and the state that she had been living in. She said that the manager had advised that another contractor would attend, whose opinions were particularly trusted.
On 1 and 7 December 2021 the landlord raised a range of plumbing works for the resident’s bathroom, ensuite, and kitchen. The repairs record stated that the works were completed on 17 and 18 February 2022.
On 7 December 2021 the resident told this Service that the landlord had not responded to her complaint. This Service asked the landlord to do so within 10 working days.
On 16 and 17 December 2021 the landlord raised 6 jobs for the resident’s blocked sink, toilets and drainage, as well as her heating and hot water that had failed on 13 December 2021. The landlord’s manager confirmed the works that it had booked into the resident. The resident replied and detailed the further works that she said were also outstanding. She expressed her disappointment at the lack of progress since the manager’s visit. She provided a full timeline of events since that time, which described the service failings, waiting in, and poor communications that she said she had experienced. She said that she felt insulted that the landlord had considered the £500 it had offered her, remotely acceptable.
On 20 December 2021 the landlord’s email to the resident said that her complaint had been escalated to stage 2 on 22 November 2021. It asked whether she wanted a stage 1 response from the previous complaint owner. The resident told the landlord she did want a stage 1 response, and that she wanted all contact to now be by email.
On 22 December 2021 the resident advised this Service that her complaint had been escalated without her receiving a stage 1 response. This Service asked the landlord to provide the resident with its stage 1 response within 5 working days.
On 7 January 2022 the resident reported plumbing blockages throughout her property, that she said had been ongoing for months. The landlord raised an emergency job and attended the same day.
On 7 January 2022 the landlord issued the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It said that after the resident had expressed her dissatisfaction with the way it was handling her complaint, it had escalated it to stage 2. The key points of the landlord’s stage 1 response were as follows:
1. It stated that on 14 October 2021 it had sent its plumber and drainage contractor to an emergency call at the resident’s property. It said that its plumber had completed a temporary repair.
2. It said that its contractor had attended numerous times to try to work out what was causing the blockage, and that during this time the blockage had caused the resident’s boiler to stop working. It stated that it had replaced the resident’s boiler, but the repeat blockages caused the new one to stop working multiple times.
3. It said that once its contractor had attended with a camera, it had established that the cause of the blockages was the resident’s foul line, and it was getting quotations for the necessary works.
4. It apologised that the cause of the blockages had taken so long to find. It advised that it was looking into why its contractor had not attended the resident’s emergency callout within 24 hours, and why it had attended so many times without a camera.
On 9 January 2022 the resident expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord’s stage 1 response had only covered matters since October 2021, rather than the many years of issues she had raised.
Through the remainder of January 2022, the resident continued to report leaks and plumbing blockages in her property, that the landlord raised works for.
On 28 January 2022 the landlord sent an email to the resident titled, “stage 2 complaint”. The email confirmed various works and appointment dates for February and March 2022. It said that it would confirm its compensation offer to the resident after the works were complete.
In February 2022 the resident told this Service that she had received the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, but that it had only listed its intended works.
On 2 March 2022 the resident told the landlord that pest control had attended her property the previous day, and had advised that it would contact the landlord. She said that pest control had advised her that there was no point in it treating the sewage flies in her property and cupboards, as more would replace them in minutes.
On 16 March 2022 the resident told this Service that the landlord had confirmed that its email on 28 January 2022 was not its final complaint response.
On 24 March 2022 this Service asked the landlord to clarify the status of the resident’s complaint, and provide the resident with its final stage 2 response by 1 April 2022.
On 8 April 2022 the landlord issued the resident its stage 2 complaint response. It summarised its review of the resident’s drainage issue repair history since 2018. It stated that all associated responsive repairs had been completed, and listed the follow on works it would undertake. The key points of the landlord’s stage 2 response were as follows:
1. It apologised for the delays and communication issues the resident had experienced. It explained that this had been in part due to its property manager leaving its employment without a handover of the resident’s works. It advised of the learning it had taken from this.
2. It stated that it only offered compensation when its service failures had caused financial loss to a resident. It said it would discuss compensation with the resident after it had completed the resident’s follow on works, in line with its policy.
3. It said that it was unable to offer compensation for the resident’s health conditions or damaged belongings. It said that it had provided the resident with a claim form for its insurer.
4. It referred the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
On 3 May 2022 the resident replied in detail to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. She highlighted that the landlord had not provided an insurance claim form, despite it saying it had. The resident’s key points were as follows:
1. She stated that her property still had, “horrendous sewage flies and blockages”, as she said had been happening for years. She said that environmental health, pest control, and contractors had all advised the landlord of the extent of the works that were needed.
2. She complained that the landlord’s communication had gotten even worse since her complaint. She further complained that the landlord had only focused on more recent events, and had not considered her repairs history.
3. She went through all the completed and forthcoming works covered in the landlord’s stage two response, and highlighted what she said was incorrect.
4. She detailed the financial losses that she said she had incurred, along with the rent rebate and compensation for distress that she expected. She further detailed the outcomes she was seeking, including the works to be completed.
On 13 May 2022 the landlord told the resident that it was putting together a compensation offer that it hoped to make to her by 20 May 2022. It said that it would also aim to provide multiple works dates to the resident by the same date. It asked the resident to provide copies of her utility bills to allow it to calculate the amount it would reimburse her.
On 20 May 2022 the landlord offered the resident a choice of 3 dates in mid to late June 2022, for the works to begin. It asked again for copies of her utility bills, and advised that it was compiling a comprehensive compensation offer.

Summary of events after the completion of the landlord’s complaint process

On 13 June 2022 the resident provided her utility bills to the landlord, and stated that she had managed to arrange time off work for the 27 June 2022 start date. She asked if the landlord could combine some of the works, as she would be unpaid for the 1 week duration it had advised the works would take.
On 27 June 2022 the resident expressed her significant stress and annoyance that she had taken time off work and waited in all day, only to find out that the landlord had failed to tell her that the works were not going ahead that week.
During July 2022 the landlord and resident agreed that the works would begin on 2 August 2022. The landlord’s repairs record stated that the works were completed from 2 to 11 August 2022.
On 6 October 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and apologised for its service failings. It stated that it would complete a ‘lessons learnt’ review of its failures, and detailed its offer of compensation to the resident. The key points were as follows:
1. It explained that it had based its offer of compensation on the 30 weeks of service failure between 18 June 2021 and 1 March 2022.
2. It stated that it was offering £50 per week for the resident’s loss of bathroom facilities, and £50 per week for her unusable ensuite, for a total of £3000.
3. It said that it had additionally agreed to replace the resident’s hallway flooring as a gesture of goodwill.
The resident replied to the landlord (the copy of the email seen by this Service was undated). Her key points were as follows:
1. She highlighted that the compensation period that the landlord had quoted equalled 36.4 weeks, rather than the 30 weeks it had stated. She expressed her confusion about why the landlord had used 1 March 2022 to end its calculation. She said that the landlord was fully aware that the issues had not been resolved until August 2022. She said that this had meant she had been without facilities for 60 weeks.
2. She stated that the landlord had failed to consider that she had also had no use of her kitchen, had been unable to wash clothes or prepare food, had been frequently left without heating or hot water during the pandemic and the winter, and had been left to deal with “horrendous sewage flies”.
3. She stated that the landlord had done nothing for 4 months after the original emergency was reported on 18 June 2021, and highlighted the unsanitary conditions she had been left in. She said that the only toilet and basin that could be considered usable had been downstairs, but that to use it meant having to put up with human waste dripping on her from the collapsed ceiling above.
4. She said that the landlord had asked her for copies of her utilities bills, which she had provided, as well as before and after evidence demonstrating how inflated her water bill had been. She said the landlord had offered her nothing for this.
5. She said that the landlord had failed to consider the stress and financial loss she had suffered, and “what hell” her property had been to live in. She highlighted the difficulties that the issues and landlord’s failings had caused to her work, and that she had needed to change job. She said that her daughter, who was pregnant, had had to move out due to the health risks, and highlighted the impact on her other daughter, who has a medical condition with her bladder.
6. She stated that she had lost almost £7000 in wages. She said that the landlord had proof of her £2868 excess gas bill, and of her £500 and £1300 excess electricity and water bills respectively.
On 3 November 2022 the landlord told the resident it would review the details she had provided, and further respond by 11 November 2022. It explained that it could not consider the stress she had described herself as experiencing as part of its compensation. It said that it had therefore provided her with an insurance claim form for any personal injury or financial loss.
On 18 November 2022 the resident asked the landlord to clarify whether it still intended to reimburse her financial losses, and compensate her for her lack of facilities. She said that the information she had received from its insurer only related to accidents and injuries. The landlord advised the resident that its insurer would be dealing with all financial losses and personal injury matters.
During this investigation the resident advised this Service that her claim with the landlord’s insurer had been separated in two, with her financial losses handled as one claim, and the stress and mental health elements handled as a separate personal injury claim.
The resident advised that the landlord accepted liability in November 2022, and that its insurer quickly settled her financial loss claim, although she said she had incurred many costs that were not covered. She further explained that her personal injury claim had made little progress, despite her attending a medical appointment for it on 3 May 2023. She has advised that the last contact she received from the landlord’s insurer was in July 2023, and that she has had received no response to the emails that she had sent it since.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

The Ombudsman recognises that the resident had suffered with drainage problems, blockages, leaks, and other related issues at her property for several years prior to the events described above. However, this assessment is focused on the period from June 2021, when the resident reported her emergency repairs, to August 2022, when the landlord completed the works to her property.
The landlord did acknowledge its service failings at various points through this period. However, it appeared at times to give greater priority to avoiding or minimising any redress it might offer, over and above remedying the extremely challenging situation that the resident faced. This has been further considered in the complaint assessment below.
The resident has described the very high levels of stress and disruption that she suffered throughout this time, and the toll that it took on her physical and mental health. She provided this Service with a large volume of video and photographic evidence, along with her own detailed records of contacts, missed appointments, and attendances. The landlord repeatedly failed to act with appropriate urgency, or respond to the resident’s reports in line with its repairs policy. The Ombudsman has also seen no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s daughter’s vulnerability, which made access to bathroom facilities especially important.
The resident was left with limited and unsanitary facilities for a very prolonged period, and has described the distress, inconvenience and financial impact to her and her family. The Ombudsman has therefore found severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of collapsed ceilings, heating and hot water failures, plumbing blockages, leaks, unsanitary living conditions, and related repairs.
The resident reported leaks from both of her upstairs bathrooms, which had caused her downstairs toilet ceiling to collapse and leak human waste, on 18 June 2021. The landlord’s repairs record stated that it had raised an emergency repair, which it attended the same day in line with its policy.
On 21 June 2021, the landlord raised a routine priority job for its drainage contractor to complete a camera survey. The landlord’s repairs record stated that this was completed on 27 July 2021, 8 days beyond the 28 days stated in its policy. However, the resident has described the confusion around the contractor’s attendance. The landlord’s internal emails also evidenced that it was still chasing the contractor for its survey findings in October 2021, and its stage 1 complaint response apologised to the resident for the number of times the contractor had attended her property without a camera. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
On 22 June 2021, the landlord raised a routine job to attend to the resident’s collapsed ceilings, and other associated works. The resident has said that her ceilings were not reinstated until almost 20 weeks later, on 4 November 2021. The landlord’s repairs record stated that the full works raised on 22 June 2021, were not completed until some 6 months later, on 16 December 2021. The landlord later offered general explanations for the many unreasonable delays that the resident experienced, including its change of staff. However, this cannot explain why such essential work took so long to undertake. The landlords delays would have significantly impacted the resident’s ability to enjoy, or even make reasonable use, of her home.
Aside from the drainage contractor’s attendance in July 2021, the landlord’s repairs record suggested that it took little further action to resolve the severely limited facilities, and unsanitary disrepair of the resident’s property, until October 2021. On 11 October 2021 its works instruction to its contractor referred to human waste still leaking through the resident’s downstairs ceiling, 4 months after it had first been reported.
The landlord then raised multiple jobs through October 2021 for the resident’s drainage blockages, and her heating and hot water failures, which its repairs record stated were all completed within the same month. However, the resident kept very thorough records throughout, which detailed her intense stress and frustration at the amount of chasing of the landlord that she had found to be necessary. Her records further detailed her waiting in for numerous agreed appointments that went unattended through October 2021, until she made her complaint on 19 November 2021. The landlord’s actions were therefore again unreasonable.
Following the landlord’s receipt of the resident’s complaint, it was appropriate for its property manager to visit the resident on 22 November 2021. The landlord raised 2 further emergency drainage jobs, which were attended in line with its policy. The landlord’s contractor had still not diagnosed the root cause of the resident’s property’s drainage issues at this point. As such, it was appropriate for the landlord to suggest it would use an alternative contractor, whose expertise it trusted.
Nonetheless, this was 5 months after the resident’s emergency had occurred, and followed on from several years of historical drainage issues. The time taken by the landlord to identify the root cause of the resident’s property issues was a significant failing.
In early December 2021 the landlord raised a range of routine priority jobs for the resident’s bathrooms, kitchen, and plumbing. While these works were extensive, it is unreasonable that they took around 11 weeks to complete. This was far outside the timeframes stated in the landlord’s policy, and would have further added to the intense stress that the resident has described herself as experiencing.
The resident’s records also detailed the volume of chasing progress and updates that she found to be necessary, and the lengthy waits on the telephone to the landlord, which she said she experienced throughout. She also spent undue amounts of time negotiating and making arrangements directly with contractors. The resident’s comment that she felt as if she was having to act as the landlord’s secretary was understandable.
The resident described how the landlord’s failure to appropriately manage its contractors, or her works, significantly impacted her employment situation. She further described how the stress of her living conditions, and the landlord’s many service failings, led to her requiring an ambulance, being signed off work, and diagnosed with hypertension.
The issues with the resident’s property continued through into 2022, and the resident protested to the landlord throughout, about her lack of washing or food preparation facilities. After the landlord’s complaint process had been completed, the resident continued to report the “horrendous sewage flies”, which she again highlighted on 3 May 2022 had infested her property. She stated that the landlord had sent pest control on 1 March 2022, but that the state of her property was such that they had advised that the sewage flies were untreatable. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord acted with appropriate urgency to the very challenging living conditions that the resident was experiencing.
On 13 May 2022 the landlord raised drainage and related works for the resident’s property, which required her to take a week off work to allow access. The resident arranged the time off, and on 13 June 2022 agreed with the landlord for the works to begin on 27 June 2022. As had happened repeatedly before, the resident took the time off work and waited at home, only to find out that the landlord had not told her that the work had been postponed. This was a serious communication failure, and the resident’s description of her continued stress and annoyance was entirely understandable.
The landlord began the works to the resident’s property raised on 13 May 2022, on 2 August 2022. Its repairs record stated that the works were completed on 11 August 2022, a wholly unreasonable 60 weeks after the resident had first reported her emergency. On 6 October 2022, 6 months after the conclusion of its complaint process, the landlord wrote to the resident to apologise for its failings, and offer her compensation. The landlord’s complaint handling and offer of compensation have been considered in the assessment below.

Complaint handling

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether its complaint handling and offer of redress were fair and proportionate in all the circumstances of the case. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account our Remedies Guidance, and whether the landlord acted in line with its own policy, and the Dispute Resolution Principles; Be fair, Put things right, and Learn from outcomes.
It was appropriate for the landlord’s property manager to visit the resident the next working day after she had made her complaint. The landlord’s policy stated that it only offered compensation where resident’s had suffered a financial loss due to its service failings, and encouraged staff to remind residents of its charitable status.
This meant that the landlord’s advice to the resident during its visit, was in line with its policy. However the landlord’s focus on minimising compensation, rather than being fair and putting things right during its complaints process, was not in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, and was a significant failing. The landlord also failed to handle the resident’s complaint in line with its own policy. As such the Ombudsman has found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and compensation claim.
The resident made her detailed complaint to the landlord on 19 November 2021, 5 months after she had reported the emergency at her property. It was appropriate for the landlord to follow up on its visit to the resident, by calling her 2 days later, and apologising for its multiple failings and the conditions that she was living in. However, on 7 December 2021, the resident said that she had not received a stage 1 response to her complaint, which the landlord still failed to do within an appropriate timescale, even after being asked to by this Service.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of the £500 compensation offer that the landlord made to the resident in December 2021, but has seen the resident’s response on 17 December 2021, which stated that she felt insulted by it. Following this it was neither in line with the landlord’s process, nor good practice, for it to advise the resident on 20 December 2021 that it had escalated her complaint to stage 2, without having issued a stage 1 response. At the same time the landlord did ask the resident if she still wanted a stage 1 response, which she confirmed that she did.
The landlord issued the resident its stage 1 response on 7 January 2022. It was unreasonable that this was 23 working days longer than the timescale stated in its own policy. The landlord’s response did accept and apologise for some of its failings, but made no offer of redress. It also made no reference to its lack of meaningful action during the 4 months that the resident lived with collapsed ceilings and leaking human waste, and only briefly considered some events from 14 October 2021. The landlord’s stage 1 response was therefore unreasonable.
The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response on 9 January 2022. Had the landlord followed its policy, it would have been appropriate for it to then escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2, and send an acknowledgement to her accordingly.
The landlord’s poor communication caused further confusion on 28 January 2022, when it sent an email to the resident titled “stage 2 complaint”, which only listed proposed works details. Following further enquiries and prompting by this Service, the landlord issued its actual stage 2 response to the resident on 8 April 2022. It was again not in line with the landlord’s policy that this was 77 working days after the landlord had said it had escalated the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did provide greater detail than it had at stage 1. It apologised to the resident for its repairs and communication failings, and did also explain the learning it had taken from her complaint. Nevertheless, the landlord’s response fell far short of being in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. The response provided a summary of relevant repairs to the resident’s property since 2018. However it somewhat downplayed its failings, and the resident’s lived experience, by quoting when works had been requested, rather than when they were actually carried out or completed.
The landlord’s concluding apology similarly understated the dire situation that the resident had described, by only acknowledging that repairs should have been identified sooner, and apologising “for any inconvenience caused”. The resident also continued to experience similar repairs and communications failings over the next 4 months until the works at her property were completed. As such, while the landlord did provide reasonable detail of its learning, there was little evidence of it in actual practice.
The landlord’s stage 2 response again highlighted its charitable status, and its policy of only offering compensation for financial losses. It said that it would discuss compensation with the resident following the completion of its works, in line with its policy. This Service requested a copy of the landlord’s compensation policy. The document it provided made no reference to only considering compensation after works were completed, but did say that payments should be made within 30 days, which the landlord failed to do.
The landlord did appropriately refer the resident to its insurer for the significant financial losses she had incurred as a result of its failings, although it did not provide her its claim form when it said that it had. However, following the resident’s reply on 3 May 2022 to the landlord’s stage 2 response, its approach appeared somewhat confused. On 13 May 2022, 3 months before the works that the landlord had advised must be completed before compensation would be discussed, it told the resident it was putting together a compensation offer, and requested her utility bills to calculate reimbursement.
It was further unreasonable that the landlord would not consider compensation for distress, time, and trouble, which in the resident’s case had been considerable. The Ombudsman found severe maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling, in a separate unrelated case determined on 4 August 2023. The landlord was ordered to self-assess its complaint handling against the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. As such, the Ombudsman has not made a further order in this report concerning the landlord’s complaint handling.
It is also noted that the landlord’s website now states that it will take into account disruption, delays, and distress, when considering compensation. Nevertheless, it is further noted that the landlord’s self-assessment published on its website, states that, as of February 2023, its compensation policy was under review. As such, the Ombudsman has made a related order regarding the landlord’s compensation policy.
The resident provided her utility bills to the landlord on 13 June 2022. It is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that any further progress of the matter was made, until the landlord wrote to her 4 months later on 6 October 2022. This was after the resident’s complaint had been duly made to the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s letter to the resident on 6 October 2022 again apologised for its failings, and advised of its intention to complete a ‘lessons learnt’ review of what had gone wrong. The Ombudsman has made an order regarding this review. The landlord offered the resident £100 per week compensation for its service failures, and her limited facilities, between 18 June 2021 and 1 March 2022, which it incorrectly calculated as being 30 weeks, for a total of £3000.
The resident responded in detail to the landlord’s offer, disputing its calculations, highlighting the impact the state of her property had had on her, and describing “what hell” it had been to live in. The landlord did make a substantial offer of compensation. However it did not make this offer until 6 months after the conclusion of its complaint process. It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to either its service failings, or the significant distress and loss of amenity caused to the resident. The resident has said that the landlord’s £3000 offer was not paid to her.
The resident has further said that the landlord accepted liability the month after it had made its compensation offer, and that its insurer swiftly settled her claim for financial losses. However she has said that her personal injury claim has stalled, and no progress has made with it in several months. The Ombudsman has made an order to this regard.
It is not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to determine medical liability. However the Ombudsman has considered the resident’s time, trouble, distress, and loss of amenity, in line with our Remedies Guidance. Our Remedies Guidance recognises the fact that ‘aggravating factors’ will make the emotional impact experienced by an individual resident unique to them. In this instance the unsanitary conditions meant that the resident’s pregnant daughter felt it necessary to move out of the property for health reasons. The resident’s other daughter suffers a medical bladder condition, that makes ready access to sanitary bathroom facilities essential.
The resident’s current rent is £152.45 per week. The resident’s toilet, washing, and food preparation facilities were severely curtailed from her reporting her emergency on 18 June 2021, until the landlord completed the necessary works in August 2022.
In light of the severe maladministration identified in this report, an amount of £3658.80 compensation has been ordered to reflect the impact that the landlord’s delays had on the resident’s use and enjoyment of her home (i.e. loss of amenities), being 40% of the resident’s rental liability for the 60 weeks of service failings identified in this report.
This amount is in addition to £800 for the distress caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures. A further £1000 has been awarded for the time, trouble and distress the resident experienced in pursuing and chasing the matter, and the landlord’s failure to evidence consideration of her daughter’s vulnerabilities. A total of £5458.80 compensation is therefore ordered.

Review of policies and practice

The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving disrepair. As a result of these; a wider order has been issued to the landlord under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
The landlord has been ordered to carry out a review, within 12 weeks, of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous cases and so the learning from this complaint should be incorporated into the wider review, ordered as part of case 202200596. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the wider order.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of collapsed ceilings, heating and hot water failures, plumbing blockages, leaks, unsanitary living conditions, and related repairs;
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint and compensation claim.

Reasons

The resident experienced 60 weeks that included limited or no bathing, clothes washing, toilet or food preparation facilities, unsanitary disrepair, and a sewage fly infestation. She spent 4 months living with a collapsed ceiling leaking human waste above her only usable toilet and basin, before the landlord took meaningful action. The landlord’s communications were poor. The resident spent significant effort chasing updates and progress. The landlord accepted its wholly unreasonable delays and service failings.
The landlord failed to act in line with its own complaints policy. It at times appeared more concerned with minimising both its failings, and any redress it might offer to the resident, than with being fair and putting things right.
The landlord did make a substantial offer of compensation to the resident. However, this was not until 6 months after it had concluded its complaint process, and after the resident’s complaint had been duly made to the Ombudsman.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. The landlord’s chief executive apologises in person to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. The landlord writes to the resident, and this Service, and provides an update of the status of her personal injury insurance claim.
3. The landlord pays the resident a total of £5458.80 compensation, made up of:
  1. £3658.80 for the impact its service failings and delays had on the resident’s use and enjoyment of her home (i.e., loss of amenities);
  2. £1000 for the time, trouble, and distress the resident experienced in pursuing the matter;
  3. £800 for the time, trouble, and distress caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.
4. The landlord writes to this Service and provides the findings of its ‘lessons learnt’ review, which it advised the resident it would undertake in October 2022.
5. The landlord writes to this Service and provides the findings of its February 2023 compensation policy review, referred to in its complaints self-assessment.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.