London Borough of Ealing (202402124)

Background

1. The resident and her son were placed in temporary accommodation for a year after a fire damaged her home. She says the landlord failed to provide adequate advice or support during this period. She is seeking reimbursement for the belongings she lost in the fire, as well as for items the landlord accidentally disposed of from her garden. She also wants compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the residents:
   1. concerns while she was living in temporary accommodation after a fire at her property.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns while she was living in temporary accommodation after a fire at her property.
   2. Service failure for the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord accepted that its communication had been poor and that it did not keep the resident updated about the repairs. It also acknowledged that its process for reimbursing temporary accommodation costs was inappropriate, and that its contractors should not have removed items from the resident’s garden. The landlord offered reasonable redress to resolve these issues and demonstrated learning from the complaint.
5. There were minor delays in the landlord acknowledging the complaint and issuing its responses. However, it did not acknowledge these delays within its complaint responses and therefore failed to offer suitable redress for them.

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 has 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. A fire occurred at the resident’s property on 10 August 2023. The landlord moved the resident and her son into emergency accommodation on the same day, before transferring them to temporary accommodation on 2 November 2023. They remained in temporary accommodation until 16 August 2024 while works were completed to make the property habitable.
7. The landlord acknowledged that its communication with the resident was poor and that it failed to keep her updated about the repairs. It also accepted that some of its processes were overly cumbersome, that its procedure for reimbursing expenses was inappropriate, and that its contractors should not have removed or disposed of items from the resident’s garden. The resident agrees that the substantive issues with the permanent property have been resolved, as she has now returned to her home. Therefore, the question before us is whether the landlord has provided sufficient remedy to recognise the impact of its failings and to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles.
8. To do this, we consider both the events which initially prompted the complaint and the landlord’s response. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
9. In assessing appropriate redress, we recognise the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of losing all her belongings in the fire and living in temporary accommodation for an extended period. The resident believes these events affected her and her son’s health and wellbeing. However, as we are not medical experts, we cannot determine whether the events caused any specific health impact. Similarly, we cannot make findings on liability for the damage or loss of the resident’s belongings. Such matters can be pursued through the landlord’s liability insurance, the resident’s own contents insurance, or through the courts. Our investigation has instead focused on whether the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in line with its policies and the impact its failures had on her.
10. The resident told us she did not have contents insurance at the time of the fire. The landlord’s complaints policy does not explain how residents can claim for loss or damage to personal belongings or household items. However, the landlord did ask the resident to provide details of any damaged items and agreed to refer the matter to its insurer. The resident submitted her claim on 8 September 2023, and the landlord forwarded it to its insurer on 14 September 2023.
11. The landlord’s insurer later rejected the claim. We understand that the refusal of the insurance claim would have been a significant disappointment to the resident. However, we are satisfied that the landlord followed a fair process in agreeing to refer to its insurer and it ensured this process happened promptly. The insurer had the opportunity to identify whether the landlord was liable for any damage to the resident’s belongings. As the insurer it is not a member of our Scheme, we cannot comment on the outcome of its investigation or the response provided.
12. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it can award compensation for distress, inconvenience, and the time and trouble a resident has been put to. It explains that the amount offered will depend on the impact on the resident and that it will refer to the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance when deciding on appropriate redress. According to our remedies guidance, an award of between £600 and £1000 is appropriate where a failure has had a significant impact on the resident and substantial redress is required.
13. The total compensation awarded by the landlord was £4636.06. It said this was for its poor communication (including its failure to tell the resident to pay rent and keep her updated about the repairs), cumbersome procedures which meant expenses were delayed and the loss of garden items. This amount exceeded the level recommended for cases with significant impact and reflects the landlord’s understanding of the highly distressing experience the resident went through. We are satisfied that the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable redress for the failures identified and the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience experienced by the resident while she was in temporary accommodation.
14. On 19 August 2024, after moving back into her property, the resident reported further outstanding repairs to the landlord and requested compensation for the distress and inconvenience this caused. These issues were not included in the resident’s original complaint or her escalation. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that it could not investigate these matters for that reason. We cannot consider issues that the landlord has not had an opportunity to address through its complaints process. The resident would need to ask the landlord whether it will accept a new complaint about these repairs, although we understand this may not be possible given the time that has passed.

15. The landlord operates a two‑stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days, and issue stage 2 responses within 20 working days. These timescales align with our Complaints Handling Code.
16. The resident submitted her complaint on 29 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged it slightly outside its required timeframe and issued its stage 1 response on 5 June 2024, 18 working days later, also outside its policy timescale. The landlord did not explain the reasons for these delays, meaning it failed to communicate effectively or manage the resident’s expectations.
17. The resident escalated her complaint on 15 August 2024. The landlord recorded a different escalation date in its stage 2 response, which reflects a record‑keeping failure. There is also no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the escalation in writing, which resulted in the resident chasing updates.
18. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 September 2024. Although this was 1 working day outside its timescale, there is no evidence this delay caused the resident any detriment.
19. While the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and provided clear explanations for its decisions, it did not acknowledge the delays and failures in its complaint handling. As a result, it did not offer appropriate redress. We have therefore made a finding of service failure and have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord provided adequate records to enable us to assess the issues within the scope of the investigation.

Communication

21. When the landlord is carrying out major works, it must provide clear, timely, and regular updates, including written action plans so that expectations and next steps are transparent to residents.