Waltham Forest Council (202122526)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122526

Waltham Forest Council

11 September 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident‘s reports of subsidence.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of the property. The landlord is the freeholder. The property is a first floor flat.

Policies and procedures

The lease says that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the drains. The leaseholder is responsible for repairs inside their homes, except in the case of insured risks.
On the landlord’s website, it says that the leaseholder pays service charges, which are the leaseholder’s share of the costs of maintaining the building and services. These services include building insurance and major repairs. It says that a leaseholder building insurance cover is provided to leasehold properties. The landlord provides the insurer’s contact details, the policy number, and a link to the insurer’s website. It also says that if the leaseholder wants to make a claim the leaseholder must contact the insurer.
The leaseholder association and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities say that a leaseholder has a statutory right to information about insurance. When a leaseholder makes a written request for the information, the landlord must provide a summary of the building’s insurance cover within 21 days. The summary must show the sum for which the property is insured, the name, details of the insurer and the risks covered in the policy.
The repair policy says that generally, leaseholders are responsible for repairs inside their home (except in the case of insured risks) and the landlord is responsible for communal and external repairs, including drains. The repair policy also says that emergency repairs will be attended to within 24 hours, urgent repairs will be attended with 5 days and routine repairs will be attended within 21 calendar days.
The insurance summary of cover and policy cover says that the policy holder is the landlord. The policy is a leasehold building policy for the landlord. It provides indemnity to leaseholders against certain events such as subsidence, for which an excess of £1000 applies. It will not cover any costs the landlord agrees to pay without its written consent. It will deduct the excess from the amount it pays the landlord to settle the claim. Excess means the amount the policy holder will have to pay towards each separate claim. The term ‘You’ in the policy refers to the policyholder named on the schedule.
The leaseholder building insurance uses a loss adjuster to process claims on its behalf. For clarity, the leaseholder insurance and the loss adjuster will be referred as ‘the insurer’ in this report.
The landlord has a public liability insurance, for the purpose of clarity the public liability insurance and its handlers will be referred as ‘the liability insurance’ in this report.
This report refers to ‘the landlord’. ‘The landlord’ encompasses all functions for which the landlord is responsible for, such as its internal insurance team and its home ownership team.
The compensation policy says that it does not apply to disputes about matters covered by the landlord insurance policies. It says that in deciding whether to award compensation, the landlord must consider whether the complainant has suffered injustice because of the maladministration or fault. The landlord will award time and trouble payments when the complainant had spent time and effort pursuing the complaint. Time and trouble payments are not the same as distress caused by the landlord’s actions. It says that remedy payments for distress and for time and trouble are between £100 and £300. The policy also says that all parts of a compensation award should be cumulative.
The landlord’s complaint procedure has two stages. At stage one, the landlord will respond within 20 working days. If the resident remains unsatisfied, the resident can request for the complaint to be escalated to stage two. At stage two, the landlord will respond within 25 working days.

Summary of events

The resident reported structural issues to the landlord on 18 June 2020. She initially reported cracks from floor to ceiling on the bathroom and rear entrance wall. She also mentioned that the lino was becoming ‘wavy’ when it had been laid and sealed for years without any issues. She also reported a towel rail collapsing. The resident told the landlord that she was worried this could be linked to structural issues. She also said ‘I understand we now have a new buildings insurance covering these type of issues. I am very concerned about the safety of my flat and feel very depressed being at home, especially during lockdown, with everything crumbling around me.’
On 22 June 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to say that the phone number it had on record for her was incorrect. She provided her correct number. The resident said that since 2004 she had repeatedly provided her correct number to the landlord but that it failed to update its records accordingly.
The landlord inspected the property on 24 June 2020. It attended to assess what repairs were needed and whether the required repairs were the responsibility of the landlord or of the leaseholder. It attended within five days of the issue being reported. The landlord said that the repairs required were essential and fell within the remit of the insurance. It advised the resident to contact one of its internal team to discuss her claim.
On 24 June 2020, the resident emailed the landlord and set out her claim and details of the damage to her home. She listed various structural problems and sought advice on the next step.
On 25 June 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and provided her with a copy of the leasehold insurance policy schedule and a copy of the insurance summary cover. It advised the resident that if she wanted to make a building insurance claim, she was to contact the insurer directly.
The resident made an insurance claim to the insurer on the 26 June 2020.
The insurer sent three reports to the landlord:
1. On 9 July 2020, the insurer sent a report to the landlord’s relating to a survey carried out at the property. It confirmed that the initial cost of carrying out the necessary investigations would be met directly by the insurer. It also said that a claim accepted under the subsidence section of the policy would be subject to an excess payment of £1,000.
2. The insurer sent a second report to the landlord, following a visit to the property on 3 August 2020. It said that the damage was caused by subsidence due to a water leak.
3. On 9 December 2020, the insurer sent the engineering appraisal report to the landlord. It listed the area of damage at the property.
The evidence showed that there was no contact between the landlord, the insurer and the resident in January 2021 or February 2021.
The resident emailed the insurer and the landlord on 17 March 2021, asking for action to be taken. She said that the damage to her flat was getting worse and because of this she feared that she was in danger. She said that she ‘was very worried and stressed out to have to live in this way’.
The insurer contacted the landlord and the resident on 19 April 2021. A letter and a mandate were attached to the email, both were addressed to the landlord. The letter said that the landlord’s subsidence claim had been accepted. It proposed to carry out the repairs by October 2021. It advised that the excess of £1000 was to be paid prior to the work starting. It attached an authorisation mandate for the work and policy excess confirmation for the landlord to sign. The mandate was addressed to the landlord.
An internal email was sent on 26 April 2021. It asked for someone to contact the resident in relation to her insurance claim. It said that the resident had said that the insurer had accepted the claim but was waiting for the excess to be paid. It said that no record of an insurance claim or subsidence was on the system.
The resident emailed the insurer and the landlord on 16 May 2021. She described the damage to her property and asked for the schedule of work to be actioned to prevent further damage.
On 17 May 2021, the insurer chased the landlord for a response to the email it sent on 19 April 2021. It requested authorisation from the landlord for the work and payment for the excess. It also said that it had left a voice mail.
The resident made a stage one complaint to the landlord on 25 May 2021. The complaint was about the inaction of the landlord in resolving a subsidence claim reported the previous year. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on the same day.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 June 2021 to chase a response to her stage one complaint. She also asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two because of the delay responding to her complaint.
The resident said to the landlord on 22 June 2021, that as she understood it, the remedial work could not start without the landlord signing the mandate to authorise the work. She said that she had been waiting for the mandate to be signed for months and that the lack of action from the landlord had caused further damage to her property.
The resident contacted her local councillor for support on 24 August 2021. She explained that she had attempted to contact the landlord several times to ask the landlord to sign the mandate for the work to start. She said that she received no response to her emails or calls. She also said that she made a stage one complaint to the landlord and had received no response. She said, ‘This is extremely frustrating; living in poor conditions is taking its toll’.
The insurer emailed the landlord on 7 September 2021, asking the landlord to sign the mandate to authorise the repairs.
On 11 October 2021, the landlord contacted the insurer. It apologised for not responding to its query sooner. The landlord explained that the authorisation/mandate form requested by the insurer, was to be signed by the resident and not the landlord. It said that this was because the resident was responsible for paying for the excess. It said that the insurance policy was taken out on behalf of the landlord and its leaseholders. It said that the policy was set up so that the leaseholder and the insurer would deal with each other directly.
The landlord then signed the requested mandate and returned it to the insurer on 11 October 2021. The resident later said that she had found this confusing and was unclear as why the landlord had signed the mandate when it said the resident should have signed it.
On 11 October 2021, the landlord provided the stage one response:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding.
2. It said that it should have kept the resident informed on the process involved in relation to leaseholders’ insurance claims.
3. It said that it should have explained to the resident what the landlord’s role was when dealing with leaseholders’ claims.
4. It explained that the form it received to authorise and confirm the work is not for the landlord to agree. This is because the policy is set up for the resident as a leaseholder to liaise directly with the insurer and agree the works required.
5. It explained that the landlord would only need to approve work not covered by the leaseholder insurance. It said that in those instances, the resident would need to speak to the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 October 2021, asking for clarification on what happened, what was due to happen next and what was needed. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage two on 13 October 2021. The resident said that:
1. The landlord had failed to respond to her communications and communications from the insurer.
2. Following the response to her stage one complaint, she was still unclear on the correct process for insurance claims.
3. The landlord did not explain why they didn’t clarify the process at the start.
4. She was unclear on who would pay to the damage she occurred as the result of the delays for the work to start.
5. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to pay for all damages at her property and to compensate her for the time she spent chasing the issue and the distress and inconvenience it had caused her.
In an internal email and as part of the complaint investigation, the landlord said on 28 October 2021, that:
1. When the insurer raised an issue, it was the leaseholder’s responsibility to speak to the landlord’s relevant team. It said that all leaseholders were aware which team was their first point of contact.
2. The landlord would only pay the excess if the leaseholder made a liability claim against the landlord. In those cases, it was the leaseholder’s responsibility to say why the landlord was liable for the damage caused to the property.
3. It provided information on how to escalate the complaint if the resident remained unsatisfied.
The landlord provided the stage two response on 15 November 2021, its response was as followed:
1. Stage one response:
  1. It acknowledged that the stage one response was outside the published time frame.
  2. The stage one response was not in accordance with its complaint procedure as it did not address all the issues raised by the complaint, did not offer a resolution, and did not say how to escalate the complaint to the next stage of the procedure.
  3. It apologised for the failings in its complaint handling.
2. The insurance for leaseholders:
  1. It said that leaseholders are expected to contact the insurer directly to make a claim. Once a claim is made, all communications relating to the claim take place between the claimant and the insurer directly, rather than between the claimant and the landlord.
  1. It said that any queries that the insurers might raise regarding the claim, or if there is no cover under the policy, the leaseholder is responsible for bringing this to the attention of the landlord’s relevant team.
  2. It said that the landlord sent the leaseholder insurance policy to the resident in June 2020 and advised her to make a claim.
3. The claim and the insurance policy:
  1. It said that the resident was initially told to contact the landlord to submit her claim. It acknowledged that the advice was incorrect. It said that the landlord sign posted the resident to the correct process without delay and provided the resident with information on the leaseholder insurance policy.
  1. It said that the subsidence aspect of the damage and the repairs to the drains have been accepted as the responsibility of the landlord.
4. Delays caused by the landlord:
  1. It acknowledged that it did not respond to the insurer’s letter dated 19 April 2021, until 11 October 2021. It had been overlooked due to staff shortages.
  1. It explained that the insurer sent the letter for authorisation by mistake. Under the policy it didn’t need authorisation from the landlord to process the claim.
  2. It acknowledged that it should have dealt with the correspondence earlier to clarify the position. It concluded that a combination of failings between the insurer and the landlord contributed to the delays in progressing the claim.
5. It said that the damage to the property, including damage due to the repairs to the drain being delayed, would be considered by the insurer as part of the claim.
6. Compensation and remedies:
  1. It considered the resident’s claim for compensation. It accepted that a payment was appropriate in recognition of the time and trouble the resident spent in pursuing the matter and in recognition of any feelings of uncertainty that the resident experienced by the lack of response to her complaints. It offered £200 to the resident.
  1. It could not offer any compensation or payment in respect of the damage to the property as this would be covered by the insurance claim process.
  2. It would provide information on the leaseholder insurance claim process to the resident by 26 November 2021.
The landlord shared the stage two complaint response with senior leaders and relevant teams. It shared actions identified following the complaint, learning identified and the actions recommended to prevent the same issues happening again. It said that:
1. It identified that there was some confusion as to how and who should handle insurance claims. It said that because of this, the resident was told to contacts different teams and passed around the organisation.
2. It also identified that there was some confusion on who was responsible for the repair in a leasehold property. Because of this, the landlord carried out some repairs which were the responsibilities of the leaseholder.
3. It recognised that, at first, it might be difficult to identify who is responsible for each part of the insurance claim process. However, it proposed to map the insurance process to inform staff on the most effective way to direct and support a leaseholder making an insurance claim.
4. It also recommended that the information is provided with the leaseholders’ pack to clarify the landlord’s and resident’s responsibilities in making an insurance claim.
5. It asked for the departments’ feedback on the recommended actions by 3 December 2021.

Post internal complaint process

The resident emailed the landlord on 7 December 2021 and the 22 December 2021. She said that she has received emails from two different insurers asking her for information relating to her leaseholder’s insurance claim. She said that she was unsure whether it was a scam. She asked the landlord to explain the process and clarify whether the two insurers were genuine.
In internal emails sent during December 2021, staff said that they did not feel up to date with the insurance process for leaseholders. Staff also said that they were not aware of any written procedures.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 December 2021. She said that she also left a voice mail message. She asked the landlord to send the information on the insurance claim process as agreed in the stage two response.
The landlord contacted the resident on 22 December 2021 to apologise. It had agreed at the stage two response to provide the resident with the information on the leaseholder insurance claim process by 26 November 2021. The landlord said it had not sent the information because the person with the information was not in work. It said that it would send the information by January 2022.
On the 24 December 2021, the landlord’s liability insurance contacted the landlord. It said that the resident was refusing to engage and seemed confused about its role. It asked the landlord to clarify its role to the resident. The liability insurance chased the landlord for a response on 27 January 2022 and on 18 February 2022. The landlord responded on 23 February 2022 and told the insurers that it would clarify its role with the resident.
The landlord sent the information on the leaseholders’ insurance process to the resident on 1 March 2022. It also explained the process for making a public liability insurance claim against the landlord. It said that the insurance handlers who contacted the resident unannounced were from the public liability insurance. The resident asked for further clarifications and said that she didn’t fully understand what was said or the process.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In accordance with paragraph 42 (k) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on negligence nor the causation of, or liability for, damage to property. This would be more usually dealt with either as an insurance claim or through the courts.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (k) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the action or lack of actions of an insurer. Complaints concerning insurance claims are not within the Ombudsman jurisdiction. This is because the insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s actions.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of subsidence

The resident reported concerned about structural issues to the landlord on 18 June 2020. The landlord attended the property within five days of her report, which was reasonable and in line with the time frame published within its repair policy.
Following the inspection of the property, the surveyor told the resident to contact the landlord to discuss making an insurance claim. The landlord acknowledged at the stage two response that this was the incorrect advice and that the resident should have been told to contact the insurer directly. This had minimal impact on the resident as the landlord provided the resident with the correct advice the following day.
The leaseholder association and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities say that the landlord has a duty to provide the resident with information about their insurance. On 25 June 2020, the landlord provided the resident with a copy of the leasehold insurance policy schedule and a copy of the insurance summary cover. It advised the resident that if she wanted to make a building insurance claim, she was to contact the insurer directly. Those were appropriate actions to take by the landlord and in accordance with its obligations.
The landlord’s website does not provide details of the process for making an insurance claim. The landlord said that the leaseholder is responsible for dealing directly with the insurer, agreeing to the work, and paying the excess. However, these facts are not clearly stated in the insurance policy or the landlord’s website. The insurance policy names the landlord as the policy holder but fails to mention the role of the leaseholders in making a claim. This lack of clarity and transparency in both the information on the website and the insurance policy led to confusion and frustration for the resident.
The landlord failed to properly explain the insurance process to the resident initially and at different points during the claim process. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to explain or provide guidance on the process. This would have prevented confusion and prevented the resident from spending considerable time chasing the landlord for actions. Overall, the landlord’s website and insurance policy lack clarity and fail to clearly outline the process for making an insurance claim, leaving the resident responsible for navigating the process without adequate guidance.
The landlord provided no evidence that it explained the process to the resident in detail. It was unfair of the landlord to assume that the resident knew the claims process, without sharing it directly with the resident. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to make sure that its policies and procedures are open, transparent, and accessible.
The landlord acknowledged in the stage one response that it should have explained its role to the resident when dealing with leaseholders’ claims. It also said that it should have kept the resident informed on the process for leaseholders’ insurance claims. The landlord apologised to the resident, which was an appropriate actions for the landlord to take. However, it failed to acknowledge the time and effort the resident spent chasing the landlord for answers and actions. The landlord also failed to explain why it waited approximately 16 months to share those aspects of the claim process with the resident. This caused avoidable delay, distress and frustration to the resident.
During those 16 months, it was clear from the evidence that there was confusion within the landlord’s teams about the insurance claim process. There were also missed opportunities for the landlord to clarify the process. The record of communications showed that it would have been reasonable for the resident to assume that the landlord had a role within the claim process. The landlord’s poor communication and lack of clarity contributed to and reinforced the confusion. Without the relevant information, it was reasonable for the resident to chase and question the landlord and not the insurer.
Throughout the process, the insurer was addressing correspondence to the landlord and not to the leaseholder. It sent inspections reports to the landlord and in the report, it sent in July 2020, it also mentioned that a claim accepted under the subsidence section of the policy was subject to £1000 excess. The landlord provided no evidence that it told the insurer that the excess should be paid by the resident and that the insurer should communicate with the resident directly.
The resident emailed the insurer and the landlord on 17 March 2021, asking for actions to be taken. The landlord provided no evidence that it had clarified to the resident that all communications should be between the resident and the insurer. This was a missed opportunity to clarify the insurance claim process and would have prevented the resident spending time and effort chasing the landlord for actions.
The insurer asked for the landlord to sign a mandate to authorise the work and payment of the excess in April 2021.The landlord did not respond until October 2021, after the resident made a stage one complaint. It said that the letter was missed due to a staff shortage. It did not explain how further communications from the insurer and the resident chasing a response via email and voice mail messages were not acted on. Those were unreasonable delays and missed opportunities for the landlord to clarify its role within the claim process and reduce the confusion for the resident.
When the resident emailed the landlord in April 2021 asking for the excess to be paid. The landlord did not tell the resident that she was responsible for paying it. Because of this, the resident assumed that the landlord was to pay the excess and did not question the insurer on the process. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident that she was to pay the excess and prevent further confusion and frustration for the resident.
In October 2021, the landlord signed the mandate to authorise the work and payment of the excess. The landlord then also told the resident and the insurer that it wasn’t for the landlord to sign the mandate or pay the excess. This was confusing for the resident. It impacted on the landlord tenant relationship because the resident lost trust and confidence in the landlord.
During her communication with the landlord, the resident asked several times for clarification and made it clear that she did not understand the process for making an insurance claim. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide her with clarity on the process.
The landlord told the resident in the stage two response that it had met its obligations and provided the resident with information on the insurance. It also told the resident about aspects of the claim process. It acknowledged and apologised for the 16 months delay in responding to the email from the insurer about the mandate and authorisation. Those were appropriate actions by the landlord.
Following the stage two response, the landlord identified areas for improvement in relation to the information it provides about the insurance claim processes. It recognised that there are gaps in the staff’s knowledge on the insurance claim procedures and on responsibilities for repairs in leasehold properties. Because of these failings, staff were not able to provide the resident with correct advice and this caused the resident’s concerns to remain unanswered. This was stressful and frustrating for the resident.
The landlord indicated at the complaint stages responses that it had identified its failings. It proposed actions to prevent the issues from happening again. It proposed to set up a document mapping the insurance process. It also recommended that the leaseholders’ pack includes information about the landlord’s and resident’s responsibilities in making an insurance claim. These were reasonable actions for the landlord to propose.
The landlord did not implement the actions it identified as remedies. The Ombudsman requested a copy of the document mapping the insurance process on two separate occasions, but the landlord failed to provide it and there was no evidence it had been completed. A search on the landlord’s website in May 2023 noted that the recommended improvements are not mentioned on the leasehold area of the website. The landlord also repeated failings by delaying responding to the resident’s concerns and request for clarity. The landlord failed to evidence that it had learned from its failings.
At the stage two response in November 2021, the landlord agreed to provide information on the insurance claims processes to the resident by 26 November 2021. The resident chased the landlord for the information, via email and telephone calls. The landlord provided the information on 1 March 2022. The landlord told the resident that it had not provided the information at the agreed time because the person who had the information was not in work. This was not a reasonable explanation for the 95 days delay in providing the information.
Between December 2021 and February 2022, the liability insurance contacted the landlord on three separate occasions. It said to the landlord that the resident seemed confused and asked the landlord to explain its role to the resident. It was unreasonable that when the landlord responded on 23 February 2022, it did not explain the 8 weeks delay in responding to the query. The landlord also failed to explain the 12 weeks delay in responding to the resident’s concerns about the liability insurance in December 2021. The landlord failed to recognise that those delays were unreasonable. It would have also been reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident that its liability insurance company would contact her. Because of those failings and delays, the resident experienced distress and anxiety.
The resident said that since 2004, she had repeatedly provided the landlord with her contact details, and that it had failed to update its records accordingly. An internal email showed that there was no record of the resident’s insurance claim on the system. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to keep accurate records. This would have prevented the resident from having to spend time and effort repeatedly requesting the updating of her records with the landlord. It would have also provided relevant information for internal reference and provided some confidence in the landlord’s record keeping.
The evidence provided by the landlord for this investigation was largely in the form of emails. It did not provide any copies of records kept on its systems. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide copies of its system records instead of emails as a mean of providing evidence. This would have provided confidence in its record keeping. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord consider the recommendations within the spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) to improve its record keeping and services. The report can be found at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf.
The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the actions or lack of actions of an insurer and determine whether there was a delay in processing the resident’s insurance claim. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot comment whether the landlord’s delays in responding to the insurer and to the resident contributed to a possible delay in processing the insurance claim. Neither could it determine whether the lack of transparency of landlord’s procedures and poor recordings prevented the claim from being processed as expected.
At the stage two response, the landlord offered to pay the resident a compensation of £200. It said that it was in recognition of the time and trouble the resident experienced in pursuing issues. It said that it was also in recognition of the feelings of uncertainty the resident experienced because the lack of response. The landlord’s offer was in line with its compensation policy with the offer being on the lower level of compensation it could offer.
When considering all the facts of the case, it is the Ombudsman opinion that the level of compensation offered is too low. It does not reflect that the resident spent 20 months from June 2020 to March 2022, chasing the landlord before having her queries fully answered. It was time consuming for the resident. The level of compensation does not reflect the distress, frustration and inconvenience the failings caused the resident. It does not reflect the landlord failures to acknowledge and address their repeated mistakes and the overall impact on the resident.
The Ombudsman considered its own remedies guidelines, which are published on its website and concluded that a more appropriate level of compensation is £600. The compensation reflects the poor communication, lack of action from the landlord. It reflects that the landlord acknowledged its failings but failed to put things right for a further 15 weeks. It also acknowledges that the resident spent a considerable amount of time and effort to pursue the issue, causing her distress, frustration, and uncertainty.
Overall, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord. This is because of its failings in responding to queries, the lack of transparency in its procedures and the gap in staff knowledge. The landlord’s failings impacted on the resident in a number of ways:
1. The resident spent time and effort chasing the landlord for response to her queries, concerns, and requests for clarity on the insurance claims processes.
2. The delays in addressing the resident’s concerns and queries also caused inconvenience, anxiety, and distress to the resident.
3. The lack of staff knowledge on how to direct and support a leaseholder making an insurance claim contributed to the delays in providing the resident with advice and clarity on the process.
4. The lack of transparency and information on the insurance claims processes caused confusion, which impacted on the resident ability to discuss and challenge the progress of her claim with the appropriate party.
5. The failings also impacted on the tenant landlord relationship with the resident losing confidence in the landlord.

Complaint handling

The complaint handling Code (the Code) sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. It says that the landlord must respond to a stage one complaint within 10 working days and a stage two within 20 working days. It says that the landlord must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The remedy offered must clearly set out what will happen and must be followed through to completion. The Code can be found at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/
The resident made a stage one complaint to the landlord on 25 May 2021. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 June 2021, by phone and email, asking for a response to her complaint. She also contacted her local councillor for support. The landlord provided no evidence that it responded to the resident or the councillor prior to its stage one response on 11 October 2021. The response was 79 days outside the landlord’s published time frame and 89 days outside the Code’s published time frame. It apologised for the delay in responding but provided no explanation for the delay. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain to the resident why the extended delay occurred.
The resident requested the complaint to be escalated to stage two on 13 October 2021. The landlord provided the stage two response on 15 November 2021. The response was three days outside the Code and landlord’s published time frame. The landlord offered no apology or explanation for the delay. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged this. By not doing so it failed to demonstrate that it had learned from the failings at the stage one response when it failed to respond within time frame.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage two response that the stage one response was not in accordance with its complaint procedure and apologised. This was an appropriate action to take by the landlord.
The landlord said in its stage two response that it would provide the resident with clarity and information on the insurance claim process by 26 November 2021. This was in accordance with the Code, which says that the remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when.
The Code also says that any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. The landlord did not provide the resident with the agreed information until 1 March 2022. The landlord did not provide a reasonable explanation for the 95 days delay in providing the information. By doing so it repeated earlier failures and it did not show that it had learnt from its previous failings.
The landlord indicated at the complaint stages responses that it had identified its failings. After the internal complaint process, it proposed actions to prevent the issues from happening again. Those were appropriate actions for the landlord to take. Those actions were also compliant with the Code, which says that landlords should look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether anything needs to be ‘put right’ in terms of process or systems to the benefit of all residents. However, the landlord failed to implement the recommended improvements and evidence that it learned from its failings.
The landlord has a two-stage complaint policy; but it does not fully comply with the complaint handling code. It says that it will respond to a stage one complaint within 20 working days, the Code says that a landlord must respond within 10 working days. The policy also says that the landlord will respond to stage two within 25 days, the Code says that the landlord must respond within 20 days.
The landlord completed its self-assessment against the Code in September 2022. It said that its time frame to respond to complaint is not compliant with the code. The Scheme says that members will be expected to comply with any best practice set by the Ombudsman, including the Complaint Handling Code. Compliance with the Code is important to ensure consistent and effective complaint handling across the sector.
Overall, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord in the handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because it failed to respond within time scale and failed to address all points raised by the resident at stage one. It also failed to evidence learning and follow remedies through to completion. This resulted in the resident’s concerns to remain unanswered, causing the resident frustration, time and inconvenience chasing a response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of subsidence.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of subsidence

There was maladministration on the part of the landlord because of its poor communication, poor record keeping, the gaps in staff knowledge, the lack of transparency of its procedures and its failures to learn. The landlord’s failings caused the resident confusion, frustration, inconvenience, and distress. The resident spent time and effort resolving the issue. The landlord’s failings caused the resident to have her queries remaining answered for 20 months. The failings also impacted on the tenant landlord relationship with the resident losing confidence in the landlord.

Complaint handling

There was maladministration on the part of the landlord because it failed to respond within time scale and failed to address all points raised by the resident. It also failed to evidence learning and implement the improvements identified. This resulted in the resident’s concerns to remain unanswered, causing the resident frustration, time and inconvenience chasing a response

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident.
2. Pay £800 directly to the resident (inclusive of £200 the landlord has offered at the stage two, which should be deducted from this amount if the landlord has already paid it to the resident). This is equivalent to:
  1. £400 to the resident in compensation to reflect distress and inconvenience the resident experienced in relation to the landlord’s response to the reports of subsistence.
  2. £200 to the resident in compensation to reflect the time and effort the resident took to have her queries answered, and the uncertainty the resident experienced over a considerable period
  3. Pay £200 to the resident to reflect the landlord’s failings in handling the resident’s complaint, and the time and inconvenience this caused the resident.
3. Evidence that all staff providing a service to leaseholders are trained on (or to confirm the date by which the training will be delivered):
  1. The insurance claim processes.
  1. Party responsible for repairs in leasehold properties.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. To process map the insurance process for leaseholders and include the information on its website and in the leaseholder pack. The landlord is to provide a copy to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord self-assess against the spotlight report on KIM. https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf
The Ombudsman recommends that on completion of its next self-assessment against the Code, in September 2023, the landlord considers bringing its complaint policy in full compliance with the Code.