London Borough of Harrow (202418785)

Background

1. The resident, who has health conditions, lives in a flat on a sheltered housing scheme. Her property was affected by an unexpected leak from a flat above, and she was decanted until the landlord completed remedial works. She complained about the landlord’s handling of the repairs and the decant. This included that delays providing a dehumidifier caused damage to belongings, and that arranged accommodation was unsuitable for her health needs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to a leak from the flat above, including the resident’s decant.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to a leak from a flat above, including the resident’s decant.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The response to a leak from a flat above, including the resident’s decant

5. The landlord did not act reasonably or in line with expectations in policies in respect to its handling of the leak and decant. This likely led to some avoidable delays, and caused the resident uncertainty about whether any damage to belongings could have been avoided. It did not show it considered the resident’s health needs when booking accommodation, which likely caused some inconvenience and distress. It also did not reasonably address the resident’s complaint about damaged belongings and refer her to its insurer, which would have been reasonable in the circumstances.

The complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident has referred to issues that were raised after the original complaint, such as a lack of water and cracks. These issues were not the subject of the complaint that the landlord responded to at stage 2 in August 2024, so we have not investigated these. The resident has the option to ask the landlord to raise a new complaint about any additional issues, and to refer it to us for a separate investigation.

What we did investigate

8. The resident experienced a leak from a flat above on 16 June 2024, after which the fire service reportedly pumped some water from her property. The landlord arranged an electrics check, raised repairs to provide an ‘aquavac’ and a dehumidifier, and offered to accommodate the resident in the sheltered scheme’s guest room. It subsequently booked her into hotels after she said the guest room was unsuitable for her health conditions and offered to reimburse her incurred food costs.
9. The landlord reportedly provided a dehumidifier on 27 June 2024 and its surveyor inspected on 28 June 2024. The surveyor requested repairs staff to arrange for an ‘aquavac’ and another dehumidifier to be provided, which happened the same day.
10. The landlord progressed works to reinstate the property after a period of drying out, and assisted with removal of damaged belongings and storage of undamaged belongings in the guest room. The works commenced around 9 July 2024 and were completed around 26 July 2024, after which the resident returned to the property. It then completed some snagging works to treat mould, replace skirting and renew the carpet.
11. The landlord’s July 2024 stage 1 response assured the resident that it had been responding as best it could, confirmed works were scheduled, and confirmed it would dispose of some belongings for her. Its August 2024 stage 2 response then said that some snagging after the works would be referred to its contractor and it had adhered to its decant process, but that it would progress a quote to replace damaged carpet due to the length of time it took to provide a dehumidifier.
12. The resident does not seem to raise dissatisfaction with the leak itself. It does not seem disputed that this was a sudden, unpredicted leak due to a burst mains pipe that was attended and stopped in a timely manner. The landlord’s initial response to the leak therefore seems to have been appropriate.
13. The resident raised dissatisfaction that she was moved into different hotels, which were unsuitable for her health conditions or not conveniently located to a hospital where she had appointments. The type of accommodation the landlord provided, and its offer to reimburse food costs, was in line with its decant policy, and it was not unreasonable that she was accommodated in hotels if staying with family was not possible.
14. However, the landlord could have shown better regard to the resident’s health needs, and considered its discussions with her before booking accommodation, given she raised concerns about these from the start. Our decant guidance also has expectations for landlords to consider needs and vulnerabilities. The landlord seemed to book subsequent accommodation closer to home after she raised concerns about location, but it is understandable that she may have been distressed by its initial handling.
15. The resident raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s subsequent handling of the leak, including its communication, inaction and delay providing dehumidifiers. This led her to feel that some damage to her belongings was avoidable and that the landlord should compensate her for this. The landlord said it had responded as best it could, but it is not evident that this was always in line with policy or reasonable.
16. The landlord’s decant policy gives the expectation that when a resident is decanted for a leak in the type of situation here, a housing officer and repairs surveyor will inspect a property as soon as possible the next working day. It is not evident this happened, or that a surveyor inspected until 28 June 2024, almost 2 weeks after the leak.
17. This was unhelpful. It is not evident that the landlord had a clear plan, or that it took more substantive steps to resolve the impact of the leak on the resident’s property, until around when this happened. This likely led to avoidable delays and contributed to the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s communication and inaction.
18. The landlord said shortly after the leak that it would provide an ‘aquavac’ and dehumidifier, and it raised a repair for these. This was in line with the decant policy that action should be taken to minimise or reduce damage, through provision of dehumidifiers and water removing equipment. These were provided on 27 and 28 June 2024, broadly in line with the priority of the repair these were raised under.
19. However, this was almost 2 weeks later, which does not reasonably reflect actions aimed to minimise and reduce damage for a leak. These would reasonably be expected to have had a higher priority and be provided sooner. The length of time the landlord took to reinstate the property was not excessive, but this likely prolonged the repairs and decant longer than necessary and caused the resident uncertainty about whether any damage could have been avoided if these were provided sooner.
20. The decant policy also gives expectations that steps will be taken as soon as possible to help residents sort out belongings, so undamaged belongings can be moved from affected areas or into storage arranged by a housing officer. It is not evident that the landlord offered assistance with belongings until around 8 July 2024, once there was a date for remedial works. Given the resident had been out of the property for over 3 weeks by then, the timing of this again does not seem in line with the apparent aim of the decant policy to help minimise damage.
21. The landlord progressed, completed and post-inspected remedial works in a reasonable manner after the 28 June 2024 inspection. It was positive to replace carpet, after it acknowledged that the length of time providing water removing equipment may have contributed to this needing renewal, and it took reasonable action to satisfy itself that the carpet was properly installed. However, the landlord did not address damage to other belongings.
22. The landlord noted that we had advised the resident to pursue a claim with the landlord, and it said it would investigate this in the complaint. It previously highlighted to the resident that tenants are encouraged to have contents insurance. However, its policy suggests that compensation only falls outside the property if “we can demonstrate that we have taken all reasonable action to resolve the matter,” and our guidance encourages landlords to consider if there were any actions or omissions. The landlord does not show that it investigated in line with its commitment, or in line with the expectation that it will investigate the circumstances in which damage has arisen and whether it has acted in line with its policies.
23. Our guidance says it may be unreasonable for a landlord to refer a resident to their contents insurance if there was damage that was gradual and not caused suddenly. A landlord can refer this type of claim to its liability insurer which can consider if the landlord was ‘negligent.’ It would have been reasonable for the landlord to do this, given the length of time it took to provide water removing equipment and its not providing support with belongings until works were about to start.
24. The landlord’s policies also give the expectation that for insurance–related matters, it would act more than it showed it did. The resident said contractors had placed wet items on clothing that would have to be replaced as a result. The compensation policy says that contractors will investigate claims and award compensation or refer to their insurer. The landlord did not address this or refer this to its contractor. The decant policy also says that it will photograph any items in the property at the start and end of decants, in case these are needed for insurance claims. It is unclear if the landlord did this in line with its policy. If it did, it would have been helpful for it to show it reviewed these as part of its investigation.
25. The Ombudsman does not have the authority to make definitive decisions about complaints involving insurance, negligence and liability. This is for the courts. This means that we cannot say the landlord is liable for any damage to the resident’s belongings and order it to compensate for these. However, given the landlord’s policies and the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate the resident’s complaint more than it did, and to refer her complaint about damaged belongings to its liability insurer. This is particularly since she said she did not have contents insurance and felt the landlord was negligent.
26. Overall, it is acknowledged that resolving the impact of the leak will have been challenging for the landlord, and that there were other complexities such as onboarding of new contractors. However, its actions were not reasonable or in line with its policies for multiple aspects, which the landlord has not reasonably acknowledged and remedied.   We do not consider that the landlord has put things right, and so we find maladministration in its response about the leak and decant. It must pay the resident £300 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to her and provide her with details of its liability insurer so that she may submit a claim to it if she wishes to do so.

27. The landlord has a 2- stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then aims to provide a formal response at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 in line with this, but it is unclear that it acknowledged the stage 2. However, it provided a formal response at both stages within the timescales set out in its policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The resident did not raise dissatisfaction with the landlord’s initial response to the leak, but the record keeping for this was a little unclear. It is also unclear whether the landlord acted in line with its decant policy to photograph the property and items in it at the start and end of the decant. The landlord could reflect on how to ensure its record keeping is accurate and detailed.

Communication

29. The level of communication was unhelpful at points, particularly before the surveyor inspected the property on 28 June 2024 and progressed works. There was also some confusion about who was responsible for updating the resident after the surveyor inspected. The landlord could reflect on how to better communicate for repairs involving decants, such as consider appointing single points of contact.

Handling of decant and insurance issues

30. The landlord could reflect on these issues alongside guidance we have published for decants and insurance, and consider any learning. This could include consideration of staff training needs to ensure it handles decants in line with its policy, and consideration of any changes to policy, procedures and processes to help clarify any confusion about insurance complaints.