London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202415338)

Background

1. The resident complained that there was damage to her living room flooring caused by the landlord’s contractors when undertaking repairs to her radiator. The landlord’s insurer considered the resident’s claim and declined liability for the damage.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns following repairs.
   2. The associated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns following repairs.
   2. Service failure in relation to its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns following repairs

4. The landlord took appropriate steps by referring the resident’s concerns about damage to flooring caused during repairs to its contractor for investigation in line with its repairs and compensation policies. However, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had fully addressed the resident’s concerns raised when she escalated her complaint to stage 2. In its final complaint response, the landlord did not show that it had appropriately considered its service standards in view of the resident’s concerns about its contractors.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response excessively outside of its expected timescale. While it apologised for the delay and offered some redress, the redress did not go far enough to account for the length of the delay and its failure to update the resident.

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.

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.

6. The landlord’s insurer advised the resident that it denied liability for damage to the resident’s flooring on 2 September 2024. Matters relating to legal liability for damage to personal property falls outside the remit of this investigation, as they require an assessment of legal responsibility that is determined through insurers or the courts. We can, however, consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s request for assistance and whether it has followed its procedures and good practice. This investigation will therefore focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports and its communication regarding its response to the resident’s concerns, but it will not assess or determine legal liability for the claimed losses.
7. The landlord’s Compensation and Refund guidance states that compensation for damage to belongings or decorations will only be paid where the landlord identifies it has been negligent. It also states that where a contractor causes damage, the landlord will refer the matter to its contractor to investigate and seek a fair outcome. The landlord’s published repairs responsibility and service standards further states that its contractors will be suitably qualified and will treat a resident’s home with courtesy and respect and take reasonable care not to damage property during works.
8. On 1 May 2024 the resident reported that during works by contractors in April 2024, they had removed her radiator without closing the valve, causing water to escape which she alleged left dark marks on her laminate flooring. The evidence confirms the contractor contacted the resident on 16 May 2024. This coincided with the landlord’s stage 1 response in which it confirmed a manager from its contractor would inspect the flooring on 29 May 2024. It was appropriate for the landlord to refer the matter to its contractor to investigate in line with its process. We note the landlord did not give advice to the resident about how to make an insurance claim in its stage 1 response, which would have been good practice.
9. The resident contacted the landlord several times in June 2024 seeking updates, as she had not heard from the contractor following its inspection. It was reasonable for the landlord to allow the contractor time to investigate the matter, but it would also have been appropriate for it to have provided updates to the resident during this period even if there were no progress updates to report. Despite this, the overall timeframe for the contractor’s investigation was not excessive. The contractor issued its findings to the resident on 10 July 2024.
10. The contractor’s findings set out the action it had taken to investigate the resident’s concerns – a manager from its contractors had inspected the flooring, and it had spoken to the contractors who had attended to carry out the radiator repair. However, the landlord did not provide those statements to this investigation. This was a gap in the evidence, and we have relied on the landlord’s activity logs. The contractor concluded there was no categorical evidence that its contractors’ actions directly caused or contributed to the markings on the flooring. They said any spillage had been minimal, which it cleared up immediately, that there was no visible water damage, and noted that the resident said previous leaks unrelated to the radiator had occurred in a similar area in the past.
11. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 July 2024 and disputed both the contractors account about who cleaned the water and her concerns about the behaviour of the manager who completed the inspection on 29 May 2024. She also stated the manager had appeared dismissive of her concerns. The resident told the landlord she believed the manager had made unprofessional comments that suggested the resident was exaggerating her claim for personal gain.
12. While it was appropriate for the landlord to consider its contractors technical opinion, it did not demonstrate that it had reviewed or addressed the resident’s additional concerns about the contractor’s behaviour or her comments disputing the findings of the contractor’s investigation. Nor did it demonstrate how it had satisfied itself the conduct of the contractors completing the repairs aligned with its service standards, including courtesy and care taken during repairs.
13. The landlord delayed its stage 2 response while awaiting the outcome of the resident’s liability claim. However, there is no evidence it informed the resident of the delay or explained the reasons for it – this is addressed further in the complaint handling section of our report.
14. When it issued its stage 2 response on 24 September 2024, the landlord repeated the contractor’s findings without carrying out a further review addressing the resident’s concerns about the contractor’s conduct. This was unreasonable because the resident had made a new complaint about the conduct of the contractor representative who attended to inspect the damage during the complaints process. As such it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered it as either a new complaint or as part of its stage 2 outcome.
15. The landlord’s policies require it to ensure contractors reach fair outcomes and to consider all available evidence before deciding whether a failure in service standards had occurred. It would have been fair and reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge that the contractor had corroborated a spillage and to assess whether the actions of its contractors met its service standards when undertaking the work. While it was not possible to prove the spillage caused the flooring damage, the landlord did not demonstrate it had properly evaluated the conduct of its contractors or the fairness of its investigation. Therefore, we find a service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns following repairs.
16. Where we find service failure, we must consider whether the landlord acted fairly, sought to put things right, and learnt from outcomes in line with our dispute resolution principles.
17. The landlord attempted to put things right for the resident by referring the matter to its contractor in line with its procedure, which was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
18. However, the resident disputed the contractor’s findings, and the landlord failed to review those concerns in its final complaint response. Further, it did not address the resident’s new complaint matter about the conduct of the landlord’s contractor representative who inspected her property on 29 May 2024 in its stage 2 response.
19. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s additional concerns meant it did not fully address the resident’s complaint, and therefore, it has not demonstrated it acted fairly to put things right. We recognise the disappointment caused to a resident when the landlord has not demonstrated it has listened to, or addressed concerns raised.
20. A considerable period has now passed since the resident raised her conduct complaint about the landlord’s contractor. This means the opportunity for obtaining reliable evidence to provide an effective complaint response is unlikely. Therefore, it would not be reasonable or proportionate to order the landlord to consider providing a response about this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
21. We, therefore, order the landlord to pay to the resident £150 and to issue an apology in recognition of its failure to properly consider or review the resident’s concerns, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result. This is proportionate to the impact of the identified failures.

22. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024).
23. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. If an extension is required due to complexity the landlord can extend its stage 1 and stage 2 response by 10 and 20 working days respectively. The landlord’s policy aligns with the expectations set out in the Code.
24. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint within 10 working days on 15 May 2024 which it acknowledged on the same date. This fell within the expected timescales set out in its policy. It also liaised with its contractor to progress the resident’s concerns, which is positive.
25. However, in its acknowledgment the landlord said it would contact the resident again in 2 working days to advise her of the next steps. The records do not show that it did so.
26. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 July 2024, but the landlord did not issue its stage 2 response until 24 September 2024, 53 days later, which fell excessively outside of its expected timescale.
27. When the resident escalated her complaint, she made a new complaint about the conduct of the landlord’s contractor who completed an inspection at her home on 29 May 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord had logged and acknowledged the resident’s concerns or that it made reasonable efforts to understand the resident’s dissatisfaction or to define the complaint. This prevented the early resolution of the resident’s issues, which was a complaint handling failure.
28. Further, we note the landlord had awaited the outcome of the resident’s liability claim dated 2 September 2024 before it issued its final complaint response on 24 September 2024. However, there is no evidence to indicate it kept the resident updated about the reason for the delay in its complaint handling. In some circumstances, it is reasonable for a landlord to delay its complaint response until it has processed a resident’s liability claim to avoid prejudice within its complaint outcome. However, any such extension should not exceed 20 working days. There is no evidence the landlord provided a written explanation to the resident to explain the delay, which was unreasonable.
29. While the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its delayed complaint response at stage 2, and offered some redress, the redress did not go far enough to reflect the extent of the delay, its complaint handling failures, and the lack of communication over the protracted period. Its failure to progress the new complaint matters prevented it from providing an early resolution to those issues.
30. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay to the resident £100 in addition to the £25 already offered by the landlord to account for its complaint handling failure which is in line with our remedies guidance for this type of complaint handling failure.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord’s record keeping was adequate, but it could have provided statements of its contractor’s investigation, and it could have provided a critical analysis of the evidence in its stage 2 response.

Communication

32. The landlord’s communication after its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response was poor. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have provided regular updates to the resident, even if there was no new information to provide.
33. The landlord did not provide information about how to make an insurance claim in its stage 1 response, which would have been good practice.

Complaint handling

34. The resident raised a new complaint about the conduct of the landlord’s contractor before escalating the complaint to stage 2 and it did not notify the resident of an extension in its complaints process at this stage. The landlord did not log and respond to the concerns though its complaints procedure which was a failure.
35. The landlord should ensure it has processes in place to identify and address complaints that arise during its complaint handling so it can provide early and local resolution of issues. It is important for the landlord to demonstrate a culture where landlord’s listen and communicate clearly to build trust in the landlord-resident relationship. This is highlighted in our Spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights (January 2024).