Bassetlaw District Council (202313498)

Background

1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The introductory tenancy commenced on 27 November 2017.  The secure tenancy commenced on 27 November 2018. The property is a semi-detached house with 3 bedrooms. The resident lives with a partner and 3 children. The tenant has not reported any additional needs. On 6 February 2023 the landlord started work to remove and replace damp plaster in the house. The resident indicated that she was unhappy that the landlord failed to provide alternative temporary accommodation for the period of works. On 27 February 2023, the resident submitted an incident report to the landlord, stating that the contractor had damaged her flooring during the ongoing works.
2. On 29 August 2023 the resident completed a formal complaint form. The landlord responded on 19 September 2023 and issued its Stage 1 response which incorporated both issues and confirmed that both its insurer and contractor had denied the claim. It also stated that it paid compensation equal to one month’s rent on 20 February 2023 for not decanting the resident during the works.
3. The resident remained unhappy and requested escalation on 20 September 2023. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 25 January 2024. The resident contacted this service on 31 January 2024 as she remained unhappy with the offered remedies.

What the complaint is about

4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the flooring was damaged during remedial works in the property.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to move out during the remedial works.
6. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

7. We have found that:
   1. the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports that the flooring in the property was damaged during its remedial works.
   2. the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint about its handling of the resident’s requests to move out during the remedial works.
   3. the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint about its handling of the resident’s associated complaint satisfactorily.

We have made learning recommendations for the landlord.

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident’s reports that the flooring was damaged during remedial works in the property.

8. The landlord repeatedly failed to keep its commitment to update the resident during the insurance claim process. Because of these delays, the resident spent avoidable time and effort contacting the landlord. After the insurer and contractor rejected the claim, the landlord caused further avoidable delays by taking too long to review the issue. In its Stage 2 response, the landlord reviewed the issue under its compensation and disturbance policy and provided reasonable remedy. The landlord also indicated a commitment to learning from the residents’ experience and in particular ensuring residents are kept updated when there are prolonged delays so that they are not left feeling uncertain.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to move out during the remedial works.

9. The landlord failed to offer the resident suitable temporary housing before the works began. Later, during the works, the landlord’s in principle offer of temporary accommodation was deemed unsuitable by the resident. The landlord offered to refund one month’s rent as set out in its compensation and disturbance policy. Later in its stage 2 response the landlord committed to learning from the residents’ experience to improve how it considers and updates its records of available suitable temporary accommodation where initial works periods are extended.

The complaint handling.

10. The landlord failed to respond within the timescales in its complaints policy, causing inconvenience, frustration, and preventing the resident from escalating the matter to the Ombudsman sooner. In addition, its stage one did not review the damaged floor under its compensation and disturbance policy but rather only reiterated what the resident knew, that the claim had been denied, which caused further avoidable delays. However, its Stage 2 response was much improved, and within it the landlord offered reasonable compensation for its poor complaint handling, lack of updates, delays, and the resident’s time and trouble. It also committed to improve its communication around “stage 1 complaints that remain open” with outstanding actions for it.

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.

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

11. On 9 June 2023, the landlord found surface mould under the stairs and addressed the issue during its internal complaints process. The resident tells us they have also reported new problems: for example, missing grout in the upstairs bathroom and a leak into the downstairs bathroom. These issues were not part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord or part of their referral to this service. We encourage residents to raise complaints promptly, so the landlord has a fair chance to address them while they are still ongoing, and evidence is available. We have not seen that a new complaint about outstanding issues with these matters has completed the landlord’s complaints process. Therefore, we have not assessed them in this report. If the resident remains unhappy with the progress of any new complaint, they can escalate it through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

What we found

12. It is not disputed that there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the flooring was damaged during remedial works to the property in February 2023. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances, offered appropriate redress and made a commitment to appropriate learning.
13. The landlord’s contractors removed contaminated plaster and installed renovating plaster in the resident’s kitchen and lounge to address the issue of rising and penetrating damp. They carried out the work between 6 February 2023 and 7 March 2023. As set out in the ‘Types of Complaints’ section of the landlord’s formal complaints policy, a resident may complete and return an incident form if they believe the landlord has damaged their property. After receiving the form, the landlord’s insurers investigated the claim. On 27 February 2023, while the work was still underway, the resident reported to the landlord that the contractors had damaged her flooring.
14. As set out in this Service’s complaint handling code, outstanding actions should be tracked with appropriate updates provided to the resident. The landlord did not give the resident a formal stage 1 complaint response until 19 September 2023. Between March and July 2023, it referred the claim to its insurer and then to its contractor but failed to keep the resident updated on the progress of the claim. Instead, the resident had to chase progress by emailing on 12 April, 2 May, and 6 June 2023. This was a failure that forced the resident to spend unnecessary time and effort contacting the landlord.
15. The resident submitted a complaint form on 29 August 2023 after the contractor denied the damage claim on 14 August 2023. The resident believed the landlord was responsible for repairing the damaged flooring. In its stage 1 response on 19 September 2023, the landlord only acknowledged that the claim had been denied. However, if the insurer rejects a claim, the landlord can review the issue under its compensation and disturbance policy, which says it will compensate for damage to the resident’s home caused by its contractors. The landlord failed to consider the damage to the floor in line with its compensation and disturbance policy, in its stage 1 response. This caused an avoidable delay in addressing the damaged floor and in both parties reaching a resolution.
16. On 19 December 2023, the landlord inspected the property and found that the flooring was incorrectly reinstalled and had chips and missing pieces after the works. The landlord did not issue the stage 2 response until 25 January 2024, due to poor coordination between departments and a lack of overall oversight of the complaint. This resulted in a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the issues sooner. On 25 January 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response and agreed to fit new flooring for the resident.
17. On 31 January 2024, the resident told the landlord they did not want its contractors to fit the new flooring and asked for a £700 payment instead. The landlord agreed to reshape its stage 2 offer with a further £700 payment (if it did not replace the flooring) so the resident could arrange the remedial work. The resident accepted the offer the same day, and the landlord made the payment in February 2024.This shows the landlord reviewed the issue under its compensation and disturbance policy and provided a reasonable remedy. The landlord committed to improve its communication with residents when delays affect their complaints. This aims to ensure the landlord does not leave the resident feeling uncertain or worried.

18. The landlord started the remedial works on 6 February 2023. They set the scope of works based on an independent damp and timber inspection dated 24 May 2022. The report did not recommend that temporary accommodation was necessary during the works, which internal communications indicates were initially expected to last approximately two weeks. The works took longer than expected and finished on 7 March 2023 taking a total of 4 weeks.
19. No evidence has been seen to show the resident turned down an offer of suitable temporary accommodation before the works commenced on 6 February 2023.
20. On 6 February 2023, the resident told the landlord it was hard for a family of five, with two children under five and an eight-year-old, to live in the house during the works. The resident also asked the landlord to provide temporary housing during the works.
21. On 9 February 2023, the landlord in internal communications noted it was unable to put the tenant in a hotel as this was “currently in use” and it had two self-contained houses that wouldn’t be available for at least 15 days, by which time it expected the remedial works on the resident’s property to be completed. If the landlord had waited for suitable alternative housing to be ready, it would have likely delayed the work. That would have caused the damp to remained untreated for longer.
22. As set out in its compensation and disturbance policy, the landlord must ensure compensation leaves the resident in “no better or worse position than they would have been if the disturbance had not took place”. On 20 February 2023, the landlord agreed to pay a disturbance allowance equal to one month’s rent because it could not provide temporary accommodation. By refunding one month’s rent which covered the full period of the disruption, the landlord made reasonable effort to comply with its compensation and disturbance policy. In addition, within its Stage 2 reply on 25 January 2024, the landlord committed to improving how it records offers to move, including noting when it makes an offer and whether tenants accept or refuse, to avoid error or missed opportunity. The original in principle offer of self-contained accommodation was not renewed when the works period was extended. This lack of coordination represented a missed opportunity to reduce the adverse impact of the ongoing works and to provide additional support to the resident and their household.

23. This service’s complaint handling code says that a resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such. The landlord failed to capture the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction on 6 February 2023, that it had failed to provide alternative temporary accommodation, as a complaint.
24. The landlord only formally responded at stage 1, after 157 working days after this expression of dissatisfaction and 15 working days after it later accepted a formal stage one complaint on 29 August 2023 (6 February 2023 to 19 September 2023),which was not in line with its complaints policy nor is it consistent with this service’s complaint handling code.
25. On 29 September 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint escalation request dated 20 September 2023 and promised to respond “shortly.” However, it failed to provide the stage 2 response until 25 January 2024 some 88 working days later or agree an extension with the resident. In its Stage 2 response, on 25 January 2024, the landlord offered £600 (equivalent to “six weeks rent”) because of poor complaint handling, lack of updates and delays. It added £200 for the resident’s time and trouble, making £800 in total. The resident accepted the landlord’s offer on 31 January 2024. This amount matched our remedies guide, so we have not ordered additional compensation.
26. In its stage one response the landlord did not consider the residents claim for compensation for the damaged floor within its compensation and disturbance policy and instead referred the issue to its insurers and contractors. It was not until the resident pursued the matter further on 20 September 2023 that the landlord reviewed its position following the outcome of its referral. This caused avoidable time and trouble to the resident. As a result, the resident waited longer for a resolution and had to invest additional time and effort chasing updates.
27. It is without dispute that there were repeated failings and delays in the landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.  Notwithstanding the efforts to provide an adequate remedy at stage 2, the delays and failures caused the landlord to miss opportunities to address the resident’s concerns sooner. It also delayed this resident access to an investigation by this Service. However, when considered cumulatively the landlord offered adequate remedy and committed to learning from its failings. Given this a finding of reasonable redress is made.

Learning

Communication

28. In this case the landlord failed to keep the resident updated during the insurance claim process and instead relied on the resident to chase for updates. We recommend that the landlord should monitor, and provide regular updates while such claims are ongoing. We also recommend that if the insurer or its contractors reject a claim, the landlord should promptly refresh its position within its compensation policy framework and communicate that to the resident where that is considered appropriate.
29. We recommend that the landlord should review how it considers and updates its records of available suitable temporary accommodation where initial works periods are extended. The landlord should also consider the possibility of broadening its available temporary accommodation options to include for example private sector housing. It should also seek to ensure it does not miss opportunities as a result of competition with other internal demand.
30. We recommend that the landlord’s complaint staff maintain oversight of its commitments to ensure they deal with all complaint issues in stage 1 and stage 2 replies within the timescales set out in its complaint’s procedure. This includes learning from its failure to capture the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint. It should also commit to improve its communication around “stage 1 complaints that remain open” with outstanding actions for it. It should also ensure that all points raised in the complaint have been reviewed against its compensation and disturbance policy where appropriate.