Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (201906755)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201906755

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

9 August 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:

handling of repairs to the resident’ property following a fire in the flat above.
response to the resident’s report of the loss of and the damage to his possessions.
complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a Council. The tenancy commenced on 15 June 2009. The property is a ground floor flat, there are four flats within the block each flat having its own front door access, there are no communal corridors or hallways. The front and rear gardens are communal but are only shared with the upstairs flat.
On 5 January 2019 there was a fire in the flat above the resident’s property. The water used by the fire brigade to extinguish the fire flooded the resident’s flat causing damage to both the property and the resident’s possessions. The landlord’s records note that it was notified of the fire by the fire brigade at 7:30pm and that the landlord arrived on site by 8:00pm. When the landlord arrived it noted that the resident was not in his property. Following an initial inspection of the resident’s property the landlord spoke to the resident to advise them of what was happening. The landlord advised the resident that the plan was that if the electrics were judged to be safe he would be allowed to move back in. Shortly after the electrician arrived on site the level of water in the flat had increased and it became clear that it was not safe for the resident to return, due to the water and risk of electrocution. The landlord’s records note that it contacted its Housing Management team as the resident and his partner would need temporary hotel accommodation. At 10:00pm the resident and his partner were booked into temporary hotel accommodation.
The following day the landlord’s Repairs Manager was made aware of the incident, contacted the resident at the hotel and took them to view the extent of the damage. The landlord noted that the resident was advised to remove any personal items back to the hotel as although the property was secure it was vulnerable to break-in. The landlord also noted that as the resident had expressed the desire to return to his home, arrangements were made with repairs contractors to pump the excess water from the property and to install six dehumidifiers. The landlord also noted that the contractor had agreed with the resident to temporarily move some of his furniture to its store so that the work could begin on the property. The landlord noted that the discussions were verbal between the contractor, the repairs manager and the resident.
On 8 January 2019 a check of the resident’s heating system and an electrical condition assessment were carried out at the resident’s property. The electrical contractor emailed the landlord its report on 31 January 2019. The contractor said that the wiring was in a bad state of repair due to significant water ingress. The contractor recommended a full rewire of the property.
On 9 January 2019 the landlord raised a job to remove the excess water and dry the carpets. The landlord’s records note that this was completed on 11 January 2019, following which the landlord said it became apparent the flat was not repairable within a short timescale and so its allocations team were contacted to arrange alternative accommodation for the resident. The landlord noted that four properties were affected by the fire, and that the resident’s property was heavily water damaged and required extensive works including plastering, rewiring and replacement kitchen units. The landlord noted that due to the estimated cost of the repairs it had passed the works to its insurance loss adjuster who would oversee the completion of the works. The landlord said that it had explained to the resident that the repairs would take a considerable period of time to complete and that it had asked the insurance loss adjuster to inform it of an estimated completion date once they have completed a tender process.
On 24 January 2019 the gas was capped off at the resident’s property.
The resident stayed in the hotel for 32 days, until 6 February 2019, at which point he accepted the landlord’s offer of alternative temporary accommodation. The landlord noted that the property was a one bedroom, part furnished flat and that it had provided the resident with an airbed, microwave, fridge freezer and two small heaters.
On 14 March 2019, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the lack of communication he had received from the landlord regarding the damage to his flat, stating that he had only received one update two weeks after the fire. The resident said that a lot of his belongings were water damaged and that items which had been placed in storage had also been damaged. The resident said that he wanted an update on the repairs to his flat and when he would be able to move back in.
On 5 April 2019, the landlord sent a stage one holding letter to the resident which was posted to the resident’s damaged property rather than the address of the property he was staying in at the time. The holding letter advised that the resident would receive a full response by 19 April 2019.
On 21 May 2019 the resident complained to the landlord again about the repairs to his flat and the lack of communication he had received. The resident said that he wanted an update on what repairs were being done to his flat and also when he would be able to move back into his flat. The resident said the only update he received was 2 weeks after the fire. The resident confirmed that he left the flat on 5 January 2019 and was put up in a hotel. The resident said that when he received his goods out of storage a lot were damaged and broken and he was left with very little. The resident said that when he was moved from the hotel into his temporary accommodation all the landlord gave him was given an airbed, a microwave and two small heaters.
The landlord issued its Stage one response on 30 May 2019. The landlord noted that its repairs manager had spoken with the resident and his partner and provided his contact details. The landlord confirmed that both the resident’s and his neighbours’ properties had been severely water damaged and required major repairs. The landlord said that its insurance loss adjuster was assessing the damage, following which it would allocate the works to a contractor to complete the repairs. The landlord noted that the resident was advised that a timescale could not be given at the time but that it would keep him updated on the situation. The landlord apologised to the resident if he believed the service he had experienced had fallen below the expected standard and for any inconvenience this has caused.
On 10 June 2019, the resident emailed the landlord a list of all the possession which they said had been ruined. This included over £4,000 of furniture and furnishings, including a three piece suite, carpets, a double bed and bedding, and almost £2,000 in electrical items, including a washer dryer, fridge freezer, electric cooker, microwave, TV, games console and games. The landlord responded the following day to say that it had forwarded the resident’s claim to its insurance team who had advised that the items the resident was claiming for would have to be covered by his home insurance, which the landlord said it understood the resident did not have. The landlord provided the resident with its insurance team’s contact number should he require any further clarification.
On 17 June 2019 a refurbishment survey was carried out at the resident’s property. The report recommended the full removal and replacement of all kitchen units, shelving, pipe boxing, skirting boards, wall tiling, all wall paper, plaster to living room ceiling & walls, skirting & curtain battens to living room and bedroom, vinyl flooring to kitchen and WC, 2 panes of glass in the bathroom window, the front door and six internal doors & frames and the filling of defective plaster, and repainting, of all walls, ceilings, skirtings, architraves, doors, curtain battens and timber boxing. The survey was emailed to the landlord by the surveyor on 3 July 2019 and forwarded to the loss adjuster by the landlord on 4 July 2019.
The landlord emailed the resident on 18 June 2019 to acknowledge their escalation request of 10 June 2019 and to confirm that it would issue its stage two response within 15 working days. The landlord also explained that if it were unable to provide a full response within that timescale it would let the resident know the reason and let them know when they could expect to receive the landlord’s final response.
The landlord issued Stage 2 holding letters to the resident on 9 and 25 July 2019.
On 18 July 2019, the loss adjuster emailed the landlord to say that prior to authorizing the works they had revisited the property and had a couple of queries regarding the plastering works to the living room, the replacement of the front door and the need for six rather than two curtain battens.
The landlord provided the loss adjuster with its response on 26 July 2019. The landlord explained that the reason it was allowing for replacing the plaster finish to the living room was that its removal would assist with any minor drying issues. As the loss adjuster had noted that the front door did not appear damaged, the landlord said that it would remove the front door but would allow for making good as necessary. The landlord also said that it would reduce the number of curtain battens from six to two. The loss adjuster replied the same day confirming that they were now happy for the works to be submitted to tender, noting the amendments regarding the front door and curtain battens.
On 5 August 2019, the landlord issued its Stage two response. The landlord apologised for its holding letter of 5 April 2019 being sent to his property and not to his decant address, and for the delay in its Stage one response. The landlord acknowledged that its complaints procedure had not been followed correctly and that the resident had not received the level of customer service that would be expected. The landlord recognised that the resident was eager to know when he could move back into his property and apologised if he felt he had not been kept informed of progress.
1. The landlord explained that due to the nature of the damage and that the works were subject to an insurance claim it had taken longer that would normally be expected for the works to be undertaken. The landlord explained that once the works had been agreed by the loss adjustor it would need to undertake a tendering exercise and to appoint a contractor to carry out the works. The landlord said that it did not yet have a definitive date for the works to be completed, but that the current estimate for when the works would be completed was the end of November 2019, if things progressed as planned. The repairs team had also been asked to inform the resident if there was any change to the estimated date of completion. The landlord noted that the resident had said that they considered the property they were decanted to unsuitable but had not explained why that was the case. The landlord said that it considered it the property to be suitable as it was similar to the property the resident had moved out of, a one bedroom flat within the same postcode area.
2. With regards to the resident’s damaged possessions, the landlord said that its Insurance Team had confirmed that it was the resident’s responsibility to ensure that they had appropriate contents insurance in the event of any damage. The landlord said that this was also confirmed in a leaflet, showing the landlord’s and the tenant’s responsibilities, included in the pack the resident was provided when they signed for their property. As it understood that the resident did not have contents insurance, the landlord said that it had provided the resident was an airbed, microwave, fridge freezer and two small heaters. Due to the circumstances and the urgency of the situation it had attempted to assist the resident by arranging for his possessions to be stored with its contractor and if it had not done so the resident would have to have made his own arrangements at his own cost. At the time the items were taken into storage they were considered water damaged. The landlord apologised if any further damage had occurred but it could not ascertain at what stage items had been damaged. It understood that the resident had taken some of his items from the storage. The landlord asked the resident to confirm what his intentions were with regards to the items that remained or if they could be disposed of.
The scheme of works approved by the loss adjuster on 26 July 2019 were sent out to tender on 12 August 2019 with a closure date of 23 August 2019. The works were approved on 6 September 2019, with a four-week lead in period. The works were carried out in the week of 15 November 2019.
In his completed complaint form to this service of 18 January 2020, and subsequent conversations with this service, the resident confirmed that he moved back into his property around 20 December 2019. The resident said that the landlord let his possessions stand in inches of water for nearly 10 days before moving them to the contractor’s store. That he was placed in temporary accommodation and some of his belongings were returned but that some had gone missing and were broken but provided no details as to what items he was referring to. When he moved back into his flat, the extractor fan was not working, a plug socket had been fully plastered into the wall, his bath panel was broken and there was green mould in the back of his kitchen cupboard. The resident said that this had all been reported to the landlord, but nothing had been done about it.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’ property following a fire in the flat above.

The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Service Standards confirms that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and outside of the resident’s property, any fixtures and fittings it has provided and the safety of the resident’s property.
The landlord was therefore obliged to carry out the repairs necessary to remedy the damage caused by the water entering the resident’s property as a result of the fire brigade extinguishing a fire in the flat above.
The landlord acted reasonably in response to the initial report of water entering the resident’s property, taking steps to assess the damage caused and to ensure the property was safe by arranging for the heating and electrics to be inspected by its contractors within two days. The landlord also arranged for the water to be pumped from the resident’s property, although it is unclear why it took the landlord 6 days to do so.
It quickly became clear that the property was unsafe for the resident to return to and so the landlord acted appropriately by immediately arranging hotel accommodation for the resident and his partner on the day of the fire.
The landlord has advised that it had no decant policy at the time of the incident but that its general rule at that time was that where the need for hotel accommodation exceeded four weeks it would look to allocate temporary or permanent accommodation.
Once the resident’s stay in the hotel had exceeded four weeks, the landlord acted appropriately by arrange for the resident to move into temporary accommodation until the repairs were completed. As the resident had expressed his wish to return to his property once the repairs were completed, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for the resident to move into temporary accommodation rather than offer the resident a permanent move. In recognition of the resident’s reports of water damage to a number of his possessions, and that the temporary accommodation was part furnished, the landlord also provided the resident with an airbed, microwave, fridge freezer and two small heaters.
By mid to late January 2019, the landlord established that the repairs were extensive, including plastering, rewiring and replacement kitchen units, and as the damage was the result of a fire, which was an insurable risk, it was reasonable for it to contact its insurers to arrange for the property to be inspected by a loss adjuster who would then assess the damage and decide what works would need to be carried out.
There is no evidence as to when the landlord submitted its claim to its insurers. However, in its Stage one response of 30 May 2019, the landlord said that its insurance loss adjuster was assessing the damage, following which it would allocate the works to a contractor to complete the repairs. In its stage one response the landlord also advised the resident that it would keep them updated on the situation. There is however no evidence that the landlord did so. There is in fact no evidence of the landlord providing the resident with any updates on the repairs until its final complaint response in on 5 August 2019.
Once the repairs had been passed to the landlord’s insurers, it was the insurer and its loss adjuster that became responsible for assessing and agreeing the works necessary to rectify the damage caused by the water entering the resident’s property.
On 17 June 2019 a Refurbishment Survey was carried out at the resident’s property. The report confirmed that the works required were extensive including the full removal and replacement of all kitchen units, shelving, pipe boxing, skirting boards, wall tiling, all wall paper, plaster to living room ceiling & walls, skirting’s & curtain battens to living room and bedroom, vinyl flooring to kitchen and WC, 2 panes of glass in the bathroom window, the front door and six internal doors & frames and the filling of defective plaster, and repainting, of all walls, ceilings, skirtings, architraves, doors, curtain battens and timber boxing.
The survey was emailed to the landlord by the surveyor on 3 July 2019. The landlord acted promptly by forwarding the report to the loss adjuster the following day.
Two weeks later, on 18 July 2019, the loss adjuster contacted the landlord requesting answers to a number of questions it had regarding the recommended works. Again the landlord acted reasonably providing its response within six working days, on 26 July 2019. The loss adjuster then approved the works going to tender the same day.
On 12 August 2019, 11 working days after the loss adjuster approved the works, the landlord issued the tender for the works with a closure date of 23 August 2019. This was reasonable period of time for the landlord to prepare and issue the tender documents. Within 10 working days of the tender period ending on 23 August 2019, the works were approved on 6 September 2019 and completed in the week of 15 November 2019, two months later.
In its final response the landlord acknowledge that due to the nature of the damage and the estimated cost of the repairs, it had taken longer that would normally be expected for the works to be undertaken.
Overall the repairs took over 11 Months to be completed. It is acknowledged that is a significant amount of time and understandably resulted in distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, having reviewed the evidence, and taking into account the extent of the works, that the works were subject to an insurance claim, and that the landlord had made arrangements for the resident to live elsewhere whilst the works were completed, I am satisfied that there was no service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the water damage repairs to the resident’s property.
Effective communication is vital and is especially important given the level of distress an absence of information can cause for residents in these circumstances. The Housing Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive – providing residents with regular and accurate information on the progress of repairs.
In its final response the landlord did offer the resident an apology if he felt he had not been kept informed of progress, but did not indicate that it believed it had failed to do so. However, having reviewed the evidence, the only evidence seen by this service, of the landlord providing the resident with updates about the repairs is through its complaint responses. There is no other evidence of the landlord keeping the resident fully informed and updated on the situation with regards to the works to his property. If the landlord had been in contact with the resident during this time, it has not provided any records to confirm this.
The landlord’s complaints policy makes no reference to compensation, nor has the landlord provided this service with a copy of its compensation policy.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance suggests awards in the region of £50 to £250 where the landlord has failed to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, and in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance above, the landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation for repeated failure to keep the resident up to date with the repairs at his property and for failing to provide the resident with those updates even though it had agreed to do so, for example in its stage one complaint response of 30 May 2019.
In his complaint to this service, the resident reported that there remained a number of outstanding repairs following their return to the property including the extractor fan was not working, a plug socket had been fully plastered into the wall, his bath panel was broken and there was green mould in the back of his kitchen cupboard. The resident said that this had all been reported to the landlord but nothing had been done about it. Whilst the landlord’s response to these matters has not been considered as part of this investigation a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss his concerns and to establish if there are any remaining repairs for which it is responsible, if it has not done so already.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of the loss of and damage to his possessions.

In an email to the landlord on 10 June 2019 the resident said that over £4,000 of furniture and furnishings and almost £2,000 in electrical items had been damaged as a result of the water entering their property.
It is acknowledged that the resident believed that the 6 days the landlord took to pump the water out of their property caused damage to their belongings and that some of their belongings had also been damaged whilst being stored by the landlord’s contractor. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on 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.
The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Service Standards which the landlord confirmed are provided to residents in their sign-up packs, state that the resident is responsible for arranging their own contents insurance. As that was the case it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to pursue a claim on their insurance policy for any damaged caused to their belongings in the aftermath of the fire.
Having established that the resident did not have any insurance, the landlord offered support by providing the resident with an airbed, fridge freezer, microwave and two small heaters. The resident having been decanted into a part furnished property.
Following the resident’s email of 10 June 2019, in which they listed all the possessions they said had been ruined following the fire. The landlord acted reasonably by forwarding the resident’s claim to its insurers, who confirmed that the items the resident was claiming for would have been covered by their own home insurance.
With regards to resident’s subsequent reports of damage to and loss of his personal possessions whilst they were being stored by the contractor. No evidence has been provided regarding the arrangements for the storage and the landlord has stated that all the discussions regarding this matter were made verbally between the contractor, the repairs manager and the resident when he attended the property. There is also no evidence of the resident providing the landlord with a list of the items that he alleged had been damaged or stolen whilst in storage.
Given that the landlord had been party to arrangements for storage of the resident’s items it would have been prudent for the landlord to have suggested that an inventory be drawn up of the resident’s items and the condition of those items when they were taken into storage. This would have allowed both parties to quickly establish whether, as the resident alleged, items had been lost or damaged during storage. There is no evidence of the landlord, the resident or the contractor doing so.
As the resident had alleged their belongings had been damaged and stolen whilst being stored by the landlord’s contractor, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to refer the resident’s concerns to its contractor to consider. There is no evidence that the landlord did so nor of the landlord advising the resident to contact the contractor directly to discuss his allegations. There is also no evidence of the landlord advising the resident to contact the police if he believed his belongings had been stolen.
Overall, and having considered all the evidence, whilst the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports of water damage to his belongings was reasonable, the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to investigate, and provide the resident with reasonable advice, following the subsequent report of the loss of and damage to his possessions whilst in storage with its contractor.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a two stage complaints policy. The policy states that the landlord will try to provide the resident with a full response within 10 working days of receipt and if this is not possible will write to the resident to let them know why there is a delay and the estimated time it will take to provide the full response. The policy states that stage two responses will be issued within 15 working days.
The resident logged his formal complaint with the landlord on 14 March 2019.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 April 2019 to advise that it would not be able to issue its full response until 19 April 2019. The landlord also sent its holding letter to the resident’s damaged property rather than the address of the property he was staying in at the time and failed to provide with resident with an explanation as to why there was a delay.
The landlord then failed to issue its response within the timescales given in its holding letter by not issuing its Stage one response until 30 May 2019 more approximately 30 working days after 19 April 2019, and only after the resident again contacted the landlord about his complaint on 21 May 2019.
On 18 June 2019, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s email of 10 June 2019 and confirmed that it would issue its stage two response within 15 working days, by 1 July 2019. Whilst the landlord’s complaints policy allows for the landlord sending holding letter to explain that its response may be delayed, the landlord did not issue Stage 2 holding letters to the resident until 9 and then 25 July 2019.
In its stage two response the landlord acknowledged that its complaints procedure had not been followed correctly and that the resident had not received the level of customer service that would be expected. The landlord also apologised for its holding letter of 5 April 2019 being sent to his damaged property and not to his decanted address, and for the delay in its Stage one response. However, given the length of the delay, the landlord’s repeated failure to comply with its complaints policy and it sending its holding letter to the wrong address this was not sufficient redress to satisfactorily resolve this aspect of the complaint and therefore an order for compensation has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’ property following a fire in the flat above.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s subsequent report of the loss of and damage to his possessions.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord’s handling of the water damage repairs was reasonable, the landlord repeated failed to keep the resident up to date with the repairs at his property and to provide the resident with updates even though it had agreed to do so.
The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Service Standards which the landlord confirmed are provided to residents in their sign-up packs, state that the resident is responsible for arranging their own contents insurance. As that was the case it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to pursue a claim on their insurance policy for any damaged caused to their belongings as a result of the fire. As the landlord was party to the arrangement regarding the storage it would be reasonable for it to arrange for an inventory to be drawn up prior to the items being stored. The landlord did not do so. The landlord also failed to take reasonable steps to investigate, and provide the resident with reasonable advice, following his subsequent report of the loss of and damage to his possessions whilst in storage with its contractor.
The landlord repeatedly failed to comply with the timescales set out in its complaints policy and sent its initial holding letter to the damaged property rather to the resident’s decant property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

That within 28 days of this determination, the landlord is to pay the resident a total of £400 compensation, made up as follows:
1. £200 for its failure to communicate with the resident in a reasonable and timely manner regarding the repairs to their property.
2. £100 for its failure to take reasonable steps to investigate, and provide the resident with appropriate advice, following his subsequent report of the loss of and damage to his belongings whilst in storage with its contractor.
3. £100 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
4. The landlord is to confirm to this service that it has complied with all of the above orders and to confirm what its intentions are with regards to the following recommendations.

Recommendation

If it has not done so already:
1. That the landlord carry out refresher training with its complaint handling staff to ensure that they are all familiar, and comply, with the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
2. The landlord to contact the resident to establish if the following repairs remain outstanding and if so carry out the repairs it is responsible for:
  1. the extractor fan not working.
  2. a plug socket being fully plastered into the wall.
  3. broken bath panel.
  4. green mould in the back of his kitchen cupboard.