Wandle Housing Association Limited (202016772)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016772

Wandle Housing Association Limited

9 December 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

The complaint is about:
1. how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about a decant.
2. the landlord’s response to a request for a copy of its policies and procedures.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(i), complaint 1b as detailed above is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion 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.
During the course of the complaint, Mr K asked to be provided with a copy of the landlord’s policies and procedures in relation to decants. In response, the landlord provided extracts from the policy, but advising that it was unable to share the document as a whole. While it is acknowledged that Mr K was dissatisfied with the response, the Ombudsman cannot consider whether the landlord’s response was appropriate as part of this complaint.
The Information Commissioner’s Office’s (ICO) role is to uphold information rights in the public interest. As part of its role, the ICO can consider whether an organisation has responded appropriately to a request for information from a member of the public. If Mr K remains concerned about the response he received from the landlord, he may refer the matter to the ICO for further consideration.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is a terraced house, which the resident occupies together with his children. The resident was represented by his son, Mr K, during the course of the complaint to the landlord. Mr K subsequently referred the complaint to the Ombudsman on his father’s behalf.

Summary of events

On 1 November 2020, the resident and his family were decanted to a hotel following an escape of water into the property. The leak was the result of a burst water mains pipe, and it was deemed necessary to decant the resident and his family so that the property could be dried out and remedial works completed as necessary.
On 5 November, Mr K contacted the landlord with some queries regarding the decant and the subsistence allowance that had been provided. In his email, Mr K said:
1. The allowance of £15 per day was inadequate given the then current Covid-19 lockdown, and as the hotel was unable to provide breakfast. He added that the resident was diabetic, and needed specialist food.
2. An allowance to cover the cost of his siblings travelling to school would also be required, in addition to paid parking at the hotel.
3. The repairs would result in significant electricity usage at the property, and he wished to know when the landlord would reimburse this cost. He added that they would also need to be reimbursed for the cost of certain utilities including the TV licence and broadband.
4. He assumed the rent would be waived.
5. He wished to know the details of what further accommodation had been arranged, and queried whether an allowance could be provided so that they could source their own accommodation.
The landlord and Mr K continued to correspond about matters relating to the decant and the family’s stay in emergency accommodation. The Ombudsman has been provided with a copy of a letter from the landlord entitled “complaint response”. However, it is unclear when the letter was issued as it is undated. Nevertheless, in the letter the landlord said that it understood Mr K was unhappy as the hotel was unable to provide breakfast, and that he therefore considered compensation was due. The landlord said that it had liaised with its temporary accommodation contractor and had been informed that the hotel could not offer breakfast owing to Covid-19 restrictions. However, it was hoping to do so once the then current lockdown restrictions had been lifted. The landlord said that as a result it would backdate an additional £5 per person per day that breakfast was not offered.
On 18 November, following a telephone conversation with a named member of staff, Mr K wrote to the landlord and asked if a number of queries could be addressed. This included the subsistence payment – which Mr K believed to be inadequate, the issue of his siblings travelling to school and alternative accommodation. Mr K also confirmed that there were six members of the family residing at the property, including himself.
The landlord responded to Mr K on the same day and said:
1. It had made its calculations of subsistence payments based on the household occupants that it had on its system. The names of the occupants were confirmed during a conversation with the resident. Its policy enabled it to make payments for a maximum of five people; however, it had made a concession by making a payment for six people.
2. The policy was clear that payments were £15 per person, per day while in temporary accommodation. If they were to stay with family or friends, then it would make a disturbance allowance payment of £150 per week.
3. It understood that a named member of staff had been in discussion with Mr K about his concerns regarding the distance of the temporary accommodation from his siblings’ school. It added that it was waiting for confirmation from Mr K as to whether they wished for it to try to find a hotel nearer to the school.
4. Given the situation with Covid-19, and that the need to move Mr K and his family was due to an emergency, hotel accommodation had been hard to find. A further option was to find a serviced apartment for the members of the household; however, this was subject to availability within the area they chose.
5. Following previous conversations with the resident, it wished to be provided with the birth certificates and child benefit documents for Mr K’s younger siblings. This was so that it could ensure that the information it held about the household on its system was up to date.
6. Mr K’s request for transportation costs was something that could be considered on the provision of further information. This included the child benefit documents, and the details of the siblings’ schools. The landlord added that it also required information relating to the transportation costs incurred.
7. While Mr K had advised that he and his brother had found independent accommodation, there had been no agreement for the household to be dispersed to find individual temporary accommodation. If they did wish to source their own accommodation, it had to be for the whole household and a sum of £150 per week would be payable.
8. It had also received information from its temporary accommodation contractor that the family had been in touch with a request to move hotel. The landlord asked that any such requests should be made directly to it, and it could then liaise with its contractor accordingly.
9. Rent remained payable while in temporary accommodation.
In closing, the landlord said that it hoped it had addressed Mr K’s concerns, and that it would wait to receive the documents which had been requested. It added that if Mr K should let it know if the family wished to be moved to a different hotel, or if they wished for it to try to source a serviced apartment.
On 19 November, Mr K wrote to the landlord and advised that he wished to make a formal complaint. In his correspondence, Mr K reiterated that he believed that an allowance of £15 per person per day was “insufficient” and was of the opinion that an allowance of £30 per person per day would be more appropriate.
It is not clear what transpired after this; however, the evidence shows that a telephone conversation took place between Mr K and the landlord on 23 December 2020, during which he expressed his dissatisfaction with the response he had received to his enquiries. The landlord subsequently wrote to the resident 31 December 2020. It explained that the letter was a stage two complaint response to dissatisfaction with the subsistence amount that had been provided for his family while they were in temporary accommodation. The landlord said:
1. The case had been reviewed with reference to the decant policy, and had been discussed with a manager.
2. As previously advised, the policy permits payments for households of up to a maximum of 5 people The amount payable is £15 per person, per day and the payments are made in arrears. Given the resident’s circumstances, a concession was made for a maximum of 6 people, and the allowance was increased to £20 per person, per day. This was as a result of the hotel not serving breakfast owing to Covid-19 restrictions.
3. It found that the stage one response had covered the issues which were raised, and that it had acted within its policies and standard processes. However, it was sorry to learn that the resident was disappointed with the service that had been provided.
4. It had received a number of emails from Mr K, and not all of these were clearly documented as complaints. Nevertheless, it wished to provide responses to the issues which were raised. It said:
  1. While it had received passports relating to the resident’s two younger children, and details of their school, it had not received the required Child Benefit documentation. Once this had been provided, it would be able to add the resident’s children to the household details. Furthermore, the transportation costs to school may be considered, but was not guaranteed. It therefore advised the resident to raise this via his insurer.
  2. The hotel where the family were residing could not provide access to a fridge or microwave.
  3. The temporary accommodation was comprised of bed and breakfast. As such, there were no laundry facilities. This was not something which a landlord would normally be responsible for, and it therefore suggested that the resident raised this with his insurer.
  4. The household was placed in emergency accommodation as a result of a leaking pipe, which was under the responsibility and management of Thames Water. It had taken a “considerable amount of time” to dry out the property and assess the impact of the leak. It was waiting on instructions from its insurers with regards to how long it may take for the property to become habitable again.
  5. It had considered a number of options; however, none of these provide suitable to accommodate all of the household. It acknowledged that this was disappointing; however, it hoped that the resident understood that finding a four-bedroom property within the resident’s desired area was very difficult.
  6. With regards to utilities at the property, it would be happy to compensate for any electric used while the property was being dried out. To calculate any reimbursement due, it would need to be provided with a previous and current bill. Once the difference had been calculated, the amount would be paid into the resident’s account. However, any concerns about broadband, council tax and the TV licence would have to be raised via the resident’s insurer.
  7. The resident would need to notify the local authority that they were currently residing elsewhere on a temporary basis.
  8. Rent remained payable while the family were in temporary accommodation. It had covered the cost of the temporary accommodation.
The landlord said that it believed it had addressed all of the resident’s concerns. However, he could refer his complaint to the Ombudsman Service if he remained dissatisfied.
Mr K subsequently referred the complaint to the Ombudsman in March 2021. In correspondence to this Service, he said that following the escape of water, they were moved to a hotel that was 30 minutes from their home and his siblings’ primary school. He said that the landlord refused to provide them with transportation to the school and to the property so that they could collect their belongings and post. Mr K also raised concerns that the hotel did not have laundry services, Wi-Fi or a kitchen and this was the cause of great inconvenience to them.
The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that the resident and his family were decanted from the property between 1 November 2020 and 10 April 2021.

The landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s Decant procedure (the procedure) sets out the circumstances in which a decant may be agreed and what process should be followed by the landlord.
The landlord’s Decant policy was updated at the end of November 2020 with changes made to the subsistence allowance. The previous version of the policy states – “Subsistence payment: in the unlikely event that we ask people to stay in Bed and Breakfast accommodation (in an emergency), we will pay £15 per person per day subsistence for up to five people.
The new, and current, policy states – “Subsistence payments: in the event that we ask people to stay in Bed and Breakfast accommodation. We will pay £20 per person per day subsistence for each member of the household”.
Both versions of the policy states that “where residents choose to stay with family or friends whilst works are carried out, we will pay a disturbance allowance of £150 per week.”.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s property sustained water damage following a burst water main pipe. The pipe was the responsibility of Thames Water. As such, responsibility for stopping the escape of water and repairing the pipe lay with Thames Water. The landlord’s responsibility was to ensure that the property was dried out, and that necessary repairs were carried out to return the property to its condition prior to the escape of water. The process of drying the property out and completing repairs could not take place with the resident and his family in situ, and it was therefore necessary to decant them.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the circumstances relating to the decant will have been the cause of significant inconvenience to the resident and his family. However, given that the property had to be vacated so that it could be dried out and repairs completed as necessary, there will have been some inconvenience that was unavoidable, but not attributable to the landlord. The Ombudsman’s role when assessing this complaint therefore, is to determine whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures when handling the resident’s decant.
The evidence shows that the landlord acted promptly in ensuring that the resident and his family were decanted to a hotel. As detailed above, on 5 November, Mr K contacted the landlord to express concern about some aspects of the decant; namely, the subsistence allowance – especially given that the hotel where they were staying could not provide breakfast, the inconvenience of the hotel being located a further distance from his siblings’ school than their home, and the issue of utilities within the home that had been paid for, but which could not be used as a result of the decant.
In response to Mr K’s enquiry, the landlord provided appropriate advice that was in line with its policy. In recognition of the fact that the hotel was unable to provide breakfast, the landlord appropriately increased the subsistence allowance by £5 per person per day. It is acknowledged that Mr K still deemed this figure to be insufficient; however, there was no obligation on the landlord to increase the allowance further at the time.
The evidence provided to the Ombudsman suggests that there was some overlap between general communication and the formal complaint correspondence. However, when the landlord issued its stage one complaint response, it provided Mr K with clear and appropriate advice in relation to the additional queries that he raised and confirmed that its initial subsistence allowance was in line with its policy – but this had been increased given that the hotel was unable to provide breakfast. In relation to the hotel’s distance from Mr K’s siblings’ school, the landlord advised that it could search for hotels closer to the school if the family wished – and that it was waiting for confirmation of this. It also confirmed that it could consider additional travel costs, if Mr K was able to provide evidence of this. The evidence available does not show that Mr K provided a response in relation to finding a hotel closer to the school; nor does it show that Mr K or the resident later provided the landlord with evidence of their increased travel costs.
The resident’s comments that there were no laundry facilities or Wi-Fi at the hotel are acknowledged – together with the inconvenience that would have been caused to the family as a result. However, the policy does not state that the landlord should ensure that decanted residents are provided with such facilities. As such, this was not a failing by the landlord.
In addition, there was no obligation on the landlord, under the tenancy agreement, the decant policy or otherwise to provide the resident or Mr K with reimbursement for utilities within the home that they were unable to use as a result of the decant. Although it is noted that the resident and his family were inconvenienced as a result of staying in the hotel, the landlord had appropriately explained that the resident could refer some of his concerns about other costs and the loss of utilities during the decant to his insurer. Within the stage two response, the landlord also explained that it was unable to find alternative accommodation which was close to the resident’s home. This demonstrates that the landlord had reasonably considered how to mitigate some of the resident’s loss and the inconvenience that was being caused; however, it had not been successful in finding a way of doing so. This was not a failing by the landlord.
However, given the evidence that is available, there was a failing in the landlord’s final response to the complaint. As detailed above, the landlord’s decant policy was updated at the end of November 2020 – after the decant had begun. Under the new policy, the landlord was required to provide an allowance of £20 per person, per day. As the new subsistence allowance under the policy was £20 per person per day, it would have been reasonable to increase the resident’s allowance to £25 per person per day to ensure that it covered the additional expense of sourcing breakfast. That no such increase was applied meant that from the end of November 2020, the landlord’s subsistence payments did not take into consideration that it had used its discretion to increase the allowance by £5 per person per day as breakfast was unavailable within the hotel.
The change in policy was in place by the time that the complaint reached stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. As such, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have identified the change in the subsistence allowance at the time, and to provide a further increase. It is not clear why the landlord did not take such action; however, that it did not, was a failing in the circumstances.
The evidence provided to the Ombudsman does not cover the period from the end of 2020 until 10 April 2021 when the resident and his family were able to return home. As such, it is not clear if or when the hotel was able to provide the resident and his family with breakfast. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate for the landlord to make such enquiries now and to backdate a payment of a further £5 per person per day from the date that the new policy came into force until breakfast was included as part of the accommodation. If the resident and his family were not offered breakfast during their stay, then the amount should be calculated with the last day of the decant as the end date.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the decant.

Reasons

While the landlord’s responses to the resident and Mr K were overall appropriate, it failed to identify that it had increased its subsistence allowance during the course of the decant as a result of an update to its policy. As the landlord had increased the resident’s allowance by £5 per person per day to reflect that they were having to source their own breakfast, this increase should have been applied to the new subsistence allowance for the duration of time that breakfast was unavailable within the hotel.

Orders and recommendations

Within five weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should calculate the period during which a £25 per person per day subsistence allowance should have been provided. This should cover the period from when the new version of the decant policy came into force until either breakfast was available, or the decant ended, as applicable. The landlord should then pay the resident the difference.
The landlord should pay the resident £50 for the inconvenience caused by failing to acknowledge that it had increased its subsistence allowance at the time of the stage two response to the complaint.

Recommendation

If the resident still wishes to claim reimbursement for travel costs incurred as a result of the decant, he or Mr K should provide receipts to the landlord for its consideration within six weeks of the date of this determination. The landlord should then consider any such request in line with its policy.