West Northamptonshire Council (202213917)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213917

West Northamptonshire Council

27 February 2025

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. A claim decision for damages caused by a flood.
2. The level of support the landlord gave when the resident made her claim.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord, a council. She lived in the 3-bedroom bungalow with her son until January 2022, when the property was flooded by sewer water. The resident permanently moved to another of the landlord’s properties, although this was initially meant to be on a temporary basis.
The resident has at times been supported by her son in her complaint because English is not her first language. For ease this report will refer to the actions of both as ‘the resident’. The property in question was managed on behalf of the council by Northamptonshire Partnership Homes which is an Arm’s Length Management Organisation. At times both organisations have been involved in the complaint. But for consistency this report will refer to ‘the landlord’ when discussing both organisations.
In June 2022 the resident submitted a claim against the landlord’s public liability insurance for damages to her contents. This was considered by the local authority’s insurance team. A claims handler from that team wrote to the resident in August 2022 informing her that the claim had been declined. They advised the resident to claim against the water company.
On 28 September 2022, the resident complained. The notes of her call state she said she was unhappy with an informal response to an earlier complaint she had made in May 2022. This was about her curtains being disposed of without her consent. She also complained that the water company had advised her that it was not liable to pay for her damaged contents.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response, dated 7 October 2022, that it had not found failings in its handling of the resident’s claim and disposal of belongings. It said that:
1. It provided an inventory of the belongings that had been damaged for the resident to make a claim.
2. It had also informed her that any other items, not damaged by the flood, would need to be removed prior to the works starting.
3. She had signed a form confirming that anything that had been left in the property may be destroyed.
Through the Ombudsman, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 9 June 2023. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response because it was different to what the water company had informed her about who was liable.
In the 1 September 2023 stage 2 response, the landlord said it reviewed the evidence and maintained that it was not responsible for the damage. However, it said that it should have supported the resident in making a claim against the water company. The landlord offered, as a solution, to consider compensating the resident for her damaged belongings and to pursue recovery from the water company.
After the complaints process ended, the resident submitted a list of items for which she was seeking reimbursement. The last contact we have seen from the landlord was in April 2024 when the resident was chasing an update on the claim. According to the landlord, it has not made an offer of compensation because it did not have the evidence it felt was needed.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because she said the landlord has not given her the support it said it would. The resident is seeking to be compensated for her contents, reimbursement of rent she paid while in temporary accommodation, and for compensation for the distress caused.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

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, we have determined that it is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate the resident’s complaint about:
1. A claim decision for damages caused by a flood.
Paragraph 42.f of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in his opinion, concern matters where he “considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
The resident complained that she has been given conflicting information about who is liable for the issue that caused the flood and which damaged her belongings. She believes that either the landlord or water company should pay for her financial losses and impact on her mental health.
We recognise that the resident was significantly impacted by the loss of her belongings. It is not though within our powers to establish who was liable. We are also unable to say if the landlord is liable to pay the resident damages. Determining liability and awarding damages requires a binding decision from a court or through an insurance claim. As the resident has made unsuccessful claims to both the landlord and the water company, she may wish to seek legal advice to consider other options available.

Scope of investigation

This investigation will consider the appropriateness of the landlord’s actions and information provided to the resident with regards to her damaged contents. Where available, we will rely on policy, guidance, and best practice. However, we will also consider the unique circumstances of the case and use our discretion in deciding if the landlord’s actions were reasonable.

Support for claim

One of the key parts of the resident’s complaint is that she feels the landlord did not do enough to help her make a claim.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for insuring the building. It advises that a tenant is “liable for insuring [their] own contents, personal belongings and any other items for which [they] are responsible”.
Records show the landlord (or its insurer) instructed a loss adjustor to create a report of the damage to the property. We can infer from this that the landlord met its obligations to insure the building.
The resident did not have a contents insurance policy at the time of the flood in mid-January 2022. There is no specific policy or guidance, that we have seen, which states what the landlord should do in this situation. Any actions it took, therefore, would have been discretionary. Even so, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide information to the resident about any options that may have been available for her to claim for her damaged belongings.
In the stage 1 response, the landlord indicated it had given the resident a reasonable amount of support and information by compiling evidence of her losses and sharing it with her. The available records show that the landlord did provide some appropriate support. This included the loss adjustor compiling a list of the resident’s belongings that were deemed unsalvageable. It also provided a copy of the loss adjustor’s damages report in mid-February 2022. These reports may have provided information that could support the resident evidencing her claim and losses.
While we have seen that the landlord gave some appropriate advice, it is not evident that this was as much as it could reasonably give. The resident informed the landlord that the water company had not accepted liability for her claim on 16 February 2022. She then made a claim against the landlord’s public liability insurance around 4 months later. It is not evidenced in the records that she was given information about this option freely by the landlord. We do not know if this is because of a record keeping failure or because it failed to advise her about this option. Either way, there is an indication that the landlord did not provide as much information as it reasonably could have in a timely way. While true, it did not have a direct impact on the resident’s ability to make a claim. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to expect she was caused some distress that may have been reduced if she had all relevant information given as earlier on as possible.
Additionally, it took the landlord until late September 2022 to advise the resident that she may wish to consider making a complaint about the water company or to seek legal advice. We should be clear that it was appropriate to give the resident these options, but that there is no good reason, that we have seen, that these could not have been provided sooner.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response of September 2023 that it could have done more to support the resident. It explained that it should have considered the “bigger picture”. We agree, for the reasons explained, that there was more it could, rather than should, have done. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to take accountability and to consider steps it could take to put things right. This is both in line with its complaints policy at the time and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
However, we do not agree it was reasonable for the landlord to state in a complaint response that the water company “should have accepted responsibility” for the resident’s claim. As explained earlier in this report, decisions on liability are made by an insurer or the courts. While the landlord believed the water company to be liable for the issue that gave rise to the flood, it does not necessarily follow it is responsible for the resulting damage. Again, an insurer or court could only make that connection. It was therefore inappropriate for the landlord to say this. Doing so raised an expectation that it was not able to guarantee.
The landlord advised that, as a solution, it would consider compensating the resident for her losses and recovering the costs from the water company. It advised that to do so it needed evidence of costs. There was no obligation for the landlord to offer to pursue the claim for the resident. Having offered to consider doing so, the Code usually expects the landlord to ensure any remedies are “followed through to completion.”
At the time of issuing this report, the landlord had not provided any compensation. We know from contact logs that the resident provided evidence of her losses in December 2023, although we have not seen what she submitted. The landlord advised it had asked the resident to clarify some of the costs she was claiming and did not receive a response. However, there is no direct evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord has been in contact with the resident after the stage 2 response. It is unclear if this is due to a record keeping failure or lack of action. Nonetheless, it is a failure that the resident has been left without a clear position after more than a year.
The landlord advised that there is little prospect that it would be able to recover any costs from the water company because of the time that had elapsed. We are unable to compel the landlord to compensate the resident for the belongings because we cannot say it is liable to do so. However, we recognise that the landlord’s poor communication throughout this case, but mainly after its final response, has caused the resident significant, avoidable distress. The landlord is ordered to apologise and pay the resident compensation, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Complaint handling

At the time of the complaint, the landlord had a 3 stage complaints policy, which aligned with the standards of the Code (2022). The policy stated that the landlord would acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5-working days. It would then commit to respond at stage 1 within 10-working days and 20-working days at stage 2.
While the landlord met its stage 1 timescale, its stage 2 response was delayed significantly. It is unclear from the records exactly when the resident escalated her complaint. This is partly because she was contacting different people. However, the evidence indicates the landlord should have known from around 10 October 2022 that the resident was challenging its initial response. The landlord should have, by its own standards and those set in the Code, escalated the complaint. Not doing this was a failure.
There was also a further delay in concluding the complaints process after we referred the matter in June 2023. However, the time it took was not wholly unreasonable in this case. The subject was complex and required liaising with different departments. During this time, the resident was given several meaningful updates.
While we recognise there were some good reasons for the delay in the stage 2 response, these do not account for much of the time it took. The main reason it took around 200 working days longer than its published timescales to give a final decision was because of a failure to escalate the complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge a failing in its complaint handling. It has therefore taken no actions to put things right, in line with its own policy or the Code. A finding of maladministration has been found and orders made to put right the impact of the protracted complaints process.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) the complaint about a claim decision for damages caused by a flood is outside of jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the:
1. Level of support the landlord gave the resident when she made her claim.
2. Complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide evidence showing it has complied with the following orders:
1. Write to apologise to the resident for the delays and communication failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £400, made up of:
  1. £200 for the poor communication around her request for support for a claim.
  2. £200 for the delays in the final response.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider reviewing its practices around communication with resident’s, particularly those who, like the resident, have been through a traumatic event. The landlord may find it helpful to consider specific recommendations the Ombudsman made in our January 2024 spotlight report on ‘Attitudes, respect and rights’.