The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Town and Country Housing (201916063)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201916063

Town and Country Housing

19 April 2021


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint concerns:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant up until August 2020.
    2. Decant issues arising after August 2020.
    3. Historic issues of damp in the property since 2014.
    4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a water leak.
    5. The impact the condition of the property had on the resident and her family’s health.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Decant issues arising after August 2020

  1. In accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service, she has complained about current issues with the landlord’s handling and organising of her decant. These aspects of the complaint, while clearly linked to the matters being investigated, occurred after the landlord completed its investigations in August 2020. The resident would need to raise any current issues with the landlord as a new complaint, as it needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond before the Ombudsman can consider it.

Historic issues of damp

  1. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which “were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”. In the resident’s correspondence she has referred to issues concerning damp in her property which she explains first arose in 2014. However, no evidence has been provided for this investigation of a formal complaint being raised until the one which the landlord responded to in March 2020. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Because of that, in line with paragraph 39(e), this aspect of the complaint is not part of this investigation.

Impact on family health

  1. Paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service and with the landlord she has referred to how the condition of her property impacted her and her family’s health. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts, which are able to call on expert medical witnesses and evidence, and make legally binding judgements.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. According to the landlord’s records, the resident reported a water leak on 14 January 2020 that was coming “through [the] wall onto [the] electrics”. Work was completed on the same day to make the electrics safe. On 16 January 2020 the landlord and a surveyor visited the resident’s property and arranged for several repair works to take place including the removal of the cavity wall insulation due to damp.
  3. On 26 February 2020 the landlord advised the resident that for “operational reasons” it would permanently move her to another property. Its records show that it made this decision while works were underway as, even though the work could have been completed whilst she remained in the property, she had said that she had a medical condition which would be affected.
  4. The landlord’s records indicate that it visited the resident’s property on 9 March 2020 alongside an electrician who ensured that the “electrical sockets were safely surface mounted”. External damp operatives also attended on 9 March in order to assess the extent of the mould in the property.
  5. No evidence has been provided for this investigation of the resident’s original complaint. However, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 11 March 2020. It explained what repair work had been arranged in the resident’s property (extraction of the cavity wall insulation, repointing the right-hand flank wall, kitchen electrical works, and mould cleansing). It said that it had already discussed with the resident her options in terms of a decant when it visited the property on 9 March. It reiterated that she could be temporarily decanted until the repair work in her current property had been completed, or permanently decanted.
  6. It advised the resident how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied with the outcome.
  7. No evidence has been provided for this investigation of the resident escalating her complaint. Nonetheless, in its stage two complaint response, issued on 26 March 2020, the landlord summarised its understanding of her concerns. It said that the resident was dissatisfied with certain issues, not all of which fall under the remit of this investigation. It said that she felt that she had been “bounced” between its internal departments with no consistent points of contact. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had decided to change from offering her a permanent to a temporary decant, and that the landlord had not considered her and her family’s wellbeing.
  8. In response, the landlord:
    1. Explained that although a single point of contact would be preferable, given that the repair work and decant were both organised by different departments in the landlord’s team, this was not feasible. However, it said that it had spoken to its staff to discuss how it could “better co-ordinate [its] communications with you going forward”.
    2. It said that it had initially offered the resident a permanent decant but advised her on 11 March 2020 that a temporary decant could also be considered. It said that it offered the resident a “shorter temporary decant”, but the resident had declined this offer. It explained that given the COVID 19 lockdown restrictions, it would be unable to move the resident “in the very near future”. It acknowledged that the resident wanted to be decanted and said that it would “ensure that [she] also [had] a dedicated point of contact to manage [her] move”.
    3. It acknowledged that it would have been “helpful” for it to have set out the resident’s options for a decant in more detail and for it to have given the resident clarity about what it would do and when. It reassured the resident that it had learnt from this complaint in order to improve its future services.
    4. It confirmed that work would be carried out at the resident’s property to treat damp and remove mould. It said that it had acted in a timely manner to the resident’s reports but recognised that its communication “could have been better”. It said that even though it could not offer her an overall single point of contact, it gave her contact details for one officer who would deal with all her repair related questions, and details for another who would handle her decant. It said that once the COVID 19 restrictions were lifted, the resident would be given the option of either a temporary decant or permanent move and that this would be discussed in more detail at the time.
  9. The landlord concluded by explaining how the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied with the outcome.  
  10. At some point following the landlord’s response the resident’s local councillor contacted the landlord. The exact date is unknown; however, the landlord acknowledged the correspondence on 24 July 2020. In his letter, the councillor included several issues which do not fall under the parameters of this investigation. Overall, he concluded by saying that a home loss payment should have been discussed with the resident, and asked the landlord to review its stage one and two complaint responses.
  11. On 29 July 2020 the resident explained to the landlord her “proposals for a swift and final conclusion to this ongoing matter”. She asked for the mutual exchange she was currently engaged in to be “facilitated expeditiously” by the landlord, which she saw as an alternative to a decant. She said that this would include removal costs. She also asked for a “home loss/ hardship payment to reflect the extreme difficulties” that she had faced. She said that a “one time payment in lieu of the varied costs of decanting would make sense”. She asked for an apology from the landlord and for “lessons to be learnt”.
  12. On 6 August 2020 the landlord emailed the resident. It offered her £2,500 towards her removal and relocation costs. It said that it would be unable to offer her a home loss payment as the specific criteria did not apply to her circumstances. It said that it would consider compensation once it had concluded her complaint, and explained that it was happy for the mutual exchange to proceed.
  13. On 7 August 2020 the resident asked the landlord whether it had considered offering her a disturbance payment. The landlord responded on 10 August and said that its offer of £2,500 was intended to cover costs that would normally be covered by a disturbance payment.
  14. The landlord issued a further review of the resident’s complaint on 19 August 2020. The landlord addressed certain issue that do not form part of this investigation. However, it also explained that:
    1. It understood the resident’s frustrations and dissatisfaction in terms of her communicating with various individuals from the landlord’s internal team. It said that the resident had not had a positive experience being its tenant and said it understood why she had “taken a dim view” of it.
    2. It set out the key points of learning that it had taken from the resident’s complaint. It said that it would review how it could strengthen its internal processes to improve communication with residents. It explained that in terms of its record keeping, the resident’s complaint had demonstrated that it would be important for it to improve the way it monitors situations where dampness is involved.
    3. It confirmed its offer of £2,500 to cover the resident’s removal costs and for compensation in lieu of other decant expenses. It thanked the resident for bringing her concerns to its attention and offered its complaint response as a formal apology. It also offered the resident an additional £500 as a discretionary amount, in recognition that its service had not “met the required standard”.
  15. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied with the outcome.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the water leak

  1. According to the landlord’s records, when the resident first reported a water leak in her property work was completed on the same day in order to ensure that the electrics were safe. The landlord then sent a surveyor to inspect the property two days later and subsequently organised for various repair works to be carried out in order to treat dampness, attend to the electrics, and treat the mould. However, the landlord did not provide its repairs policy for this investigation and it is therefore not wholly clear whether its actions were in accordance with its repairs policy. Nevertheless, despite the absence of such information, the landlord acted reasonably by taking responsibility for the problems in the resident’s property after having immediately responded to her reports of a water leak. It then took reasonable steps to carry out further investigations in the property and organised the necessary repair work.

Decant issues up to August 2020

  1. In its stage two complaint response the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about having been “bounced” between its internal departments in relation to repairs and the ongoing decant arrangements. It explained why the resident had corresponded with multiple departments, and said that, in response to her complaint, it had discussed internally how it could improve its communication with her. It also explained in detail why it had decided to offer her a temporary decant as opposed to the initial offer of a permanent move. It advised her that that due to the COVID 19 lockdown restrictions it would be unable to decant her “in the very near future” but reassured her that it would do so once permitted, and therefore managed her expectations. It also acknowledged its shortcomings in terms of how it had advised her of her options in terms of a decant. It said that it had learnt from this situation and demonstrated that it had taken reasonable steps to improve its communication with her by offering single points of contact for her decant and for her repairs. The landlord’s stage two complaint response clearly addressed the resident’s concerns in detail, it offered fair and reasonable explanations, and demonstrated learning points it had taken from her complaint, such as points of contact.
  2. Following involvement from the resident’s local councillor, the landlord reviewed the complaint and issued a final response on 19 August 2020. The resident had explained to the landlord on 29 July 2020 what points she wanted it to address to resolve her concerns. She asked the landlord to facilitate “expeditiously” a mutual exchange, for a home loss/hardship payment, for an apology, and for it to learn lessons from her complaint. Prior to its final complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £2,500 for her relocation costs. It later clarified that this would include costs that were typically covered by a disturbance payment and explained why it would not offer her a home loss payment. Then, in its final complaint response it offered the resident a further £500 in recognition that its service had not “met the required standard”. It also offered the resident a formal apology. Although the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, it addressed the points that she had raised and provided detailed explanations.
  3. It may be useful to understand that home loss compensation payments, and disturbance payments, such as were suggested by the resident and her councillor, are legislated for in the Land Compensation Act 1973, and are for situations where a tenant is “displaced from a dwelling on any land” in a range of circumstances set out in the Act, such as by an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers. Decants because of the need for repairs are not included, and so the landlord was correct when it explained this to the resident.
  4. The apologies and compensation offered by the landlord appear to be at least partly in consideration of its actions over a longer period than is examined in this investigation. For the reasons explained at the start of this report, it is not possible for this investigation to consider those more historic actions, or determine if the landlord suitably remedied them.
  5. Ultimately, from the evidence provided for this investigation and, importantly, in view of the specific timeframe and aspects that this investigation is examining (which does not include the historic issues underlying some of the resident’s concerns), there have been no clear failings on the landlord’s behalf. Its responses appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns, and in the circumstances, its offer of compensation appears reasonable when considered against the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a two stage process and yet, recognising the circumstances, it further reviewed the complaint. This demonstrates that it went above its obligations in order to closely examine all aspects of her complaints and provide a satisfactory outcome.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reports of a water leak.
  2.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of handling of the resident’s decant up until August 2020.

Reasons

  1. Given that this investigation is solely focusing on a specific time period, during this time the landlord acted fairly and took reasonable steps to resolve the resident’s complaints satisfactorily. There is no indication of any failings on its behalf, its complaint responses were detailed and offered reasonable explanations.