Trafford Housing Trust Limited (202125041)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125041

Trafford Housing Trust Limited

29 July 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about:

a.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the damage caused to his belongings by a flood from a blocked drainage system on his balcony.

b.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a flood in his property from a blocked drainage system on his balcony.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the 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.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(r) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

a.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the damage caused to his belongings by a flood from a blocked drainage system on his balcony.

4. The resident has asked to be paid by the landlord for the cost of his damaged belongings following a flood at his property from a blocked drainage system on his balcony. However, paragraph 39(r) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.” As this Service does not have the authority to determine liability or award damages for damaged belongings in the way that a court or insurer might, a determination will not be made on this aspect of the complaint.

Background

5. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat in a tower block.
6. On 5 December 2021, the resident advised the landlord of a leaking pipe on his balcony that had caused a flood ruining his belongings on the balcony and the living room carpet inside his property. Its records showed that plumber attended this at around 2pm on the same day and agreed to return on the following day, as this had occurred due to a blocked drain pipe from the balcony to the ground.
7. On the 6 December 2021, the landlord recorded that it raised a job for the blocked drain pipe, for which it re-attended the resident’s property on 8 December 2021, when it removed the pipe but he still reported that water was leaking onto his balcony. It noted that it therefore booked a ground worker job on the advice of its planners, as well as advising him that he needed to make a claim for any damage caused to his belongings and carpet via his own home contents insurance.
8. The resident then contacted the landlord again on 10 December 2021 to advise that his carpet smelt and needed to be replaced but that he did not have contents insurance to claim for these or his other belongings. He also stated that the leak at the property was not his fault and that it should assist him with this, for which it stated that it did not pay for contents insurance. On 13 December 2021, the landlord’s records showed that it re-attended the leak onto the resident’s balcony, after which this was repaired, but he claimed £555 from it for the estimated cost of his damaged carpet and belongings, for which it reiterated its previous advice to him to make a contents insurance claim.
9. The resident subsequently made a stage one complaint on 21 January 2022, as he wanted a reimbursement for the damage to his carpet and belongings, did not have contents insurance, and was unhappy with what had happened. The landlord went on to issue its stage one complaint response to him on 26 January 2022, in which it advised that the leak had been caused by the drainage system on his balcony. It also advised that it was not liable for events of this nature, and it repeated that a claim should be made via the resident’s contents insurance, although it acknowledged that he did not have this. However, the landlord confirmed that it would not be paying any damages to him for the leak.
10. The resident then escalated his complaint to the final stage of the complaints procedure on 2 February 2022, including because the landlord’s stage one complaint response had contained no information on the findings of the investigation into what had caused the leak at his property. It subsequently issued its final stage complaint response to him on 9 February 2022, in which it advised that the leak had been caused by the flooding of the drainage system, and that its property services team had confirmed that this could not have been foreseen by it.
11. The landlord also said that the resident’s leak report had been attended by it within good time and its service level agreements, and so it upheld its previous decision and explained that it could not reimburse any damage to contents from a leak, as this was considered an insurable event. He then complained to this Service that he was unhappy with its response to his reports of the flood at his property, and that he wanted to be reimbursed for his damaged carpet and belongings. The resident also requested compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused to him and for his report that the landlord had shown a lack of empathy towards him.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a flood in his property from a blocked drainage system on his balcony

12. Under the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, the leak onto the resident’s balcony was an emergency repair, as this was an uncontrollable water leak, that it ought to visit him for within eight hours. As he informed it of the leak on 5 December 2021 and it attended his property at around 2pm on the same day, it did so within the eight-hour timeframe.
13. The responsive repair policy then required the landlord to repair the leaking blocked drain pipe from the balcony to the ground that it found at the resident’s property within 20 working days, as a routine repair similar to a leaking gutter. It was therefore appropriate that it re-attended this on 6, 8 and 13 December 2021, when it removed the down pipe, booked a ground worker and repaired the leak, respectively. This was appropriate because the resident had advised the landlord on 8 December 2021 that water had continued to leak onto his balcony after it had removed the down pipe, which it therefore repaired within the policy’s 20-working-day timescale.
14. Subsequently, the landlord’s final stage complaint response informed the resident that the flooding of his balcony’s drainage system had caused the leak, and that its property services team had confirmed that the leak could not have been foreseen by it. As a result, it advised him from 8 December 2021 onwards to make a claim for the damage that he reported that the leak had caused to his carpet and belongings via his own home contents insurance. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy’s expectation for its residents take out adequate home contents insurance for their furniture, decorations and personal possessions against water damage, which the policy was not intended to replace.
15. It is of concern, however, that the landlord continued to advise the resident to make a contents insurance claim for his damaged carpet and belongings until its stage one complaint response of 21 January 2022, when he told it from 10 December 2021 that he did not have contents insurance. Together with the fact that he attributed the damage to it and sought to be reimbursed for this by it, this meant that it should have referred the issue to its insurance team, as its compensation policy required it to do so for damage to his personal possessions that he alleged had occurred because of its or its contractors’ negligence. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not do so, for which it has been ordered below to provide the resident with details to enable him to do this.
16. The landlord’s compensation policy also gave it discretion to award compensation for causing the resident distress and inconvenience, considering factors including how it had communicated with the resident, and doing so in an empathetic, fair and proportionate manner. As it nevertheless continued to advise him to make a contents insurance claim after he told it that he did not have contents insurance and it did not refer his damages claim to its insurance team, it should have considered exercising its discretion to compensate him for these failings.
17. Under this Service’s remedies guidance, failures to meet service standards for actions and responses resulting in some impact on the resident, including distress and inconvenience, may be remedied with compensation awards from £50 each. In this case, where the landlord failed to apply its compensation policy by repeatedly telling the resident to make a contents insurance claim instead of referring him to its insurance team, it has therefore been ordered below to pay him compensation at this rate for each of these failings, as well as to review its relevant staff training needs to try and prevent them from occurring again.

Determination (decision)

18. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a flood in his property from a blocked drainage system on his balcony.

Orders and recommendation

19. The landlord is ordered to:

a.     Pay the resident £100 compensation within four weeks, which is comprised of £50 for any distress and inconvenience that he experienced from its repeated advice to him to make a contents insurance claim for his damaged carpet and belongings after he told it that he did not have contents insurance, and £50 for not referring him to its insurance team to make such a claim.

b.     Provide the resident with details within four weeks to enable him to make a liability insurance claim to its insurance team for the damages to his carpet and belongings that he reported as a result of the leak from his balcony.

20. The landlord is recommended to review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its compensation policy to ensure their consideration of discretionary compensation and referrals to its insurance team whenever appropriate.
21. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders, and whether it will follow the above recommendation.