Accent Housing Limited (202211923)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211923

Accent Housing Limited

30 April 2024

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 the landlord’s handling of a leak, including its decision not to compensate the resident.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a mid-terrace 3 bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association, which owns and manages the property.
The resident reported on 15 February 2022 that she was getting a leak from her upstairs bathroom into her downstairs toilet. She also said her outhouse in the garden, which was attached to the bathroom by the wall, had been affected.
The landlord’s repair notes state it attended on 17 February 2022 and “overhauled” the bath combination wastepipe.
The resident reported on 18 March 2022 that the roof of her outhouse had collapsed.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 June 2022, stating:
1. It was found by one of the landlord’s workmen in February 2022 that the landlord had not fitted a pipe to her bath overflow when it fitted her bathroom several years prior. This had resulted in the water going through the overflow and seeping into the floor under the bath.
2. The leak had spread to the outhouse, which was attached to the outside wall. This had led to the outhouse roof collapsing and water damage to her possessions stored inside it.
3. The landlord had been unable to fix the roof when it was first reported because the resident had been in hospital for a long period. The job had now been assigned to an operative who was going to complete it.
4. She wanted the landlord to compensate her for the possessions that were ruined, and to remove these from her property. This included board games, floorboards, lounger chair covers, garden lights, a push chair, a pram and a car seat.
The landlord called the resident on 24 June 2022 and told her it would need to investigate the matter. It said it would contact her within 3 to 4 weeks.
The resident called the landlord for an update on 25 July 2022. The landlord called the resident later the same day and left her a voicemail message stating it would be unable to challenge the issue back to the contractor that fitted the bathroom in 2018 due to the length of time that had passed. The landlord said it would be unable to offer compensation and it recommended the resident make a claim on her contents insurance.
The resident continued to query this with the landlord during several calls between 29 July 2022 and 12 August 2022. On 12 August 2022, the landlord said it would raise a complaint and provide a formal response.
The resident called the landlord on 7 September 2022, 13 September 2022 and 22 September 2022 asking it to send a written response to the complaint.
The landlord sent a written response on 4 October 2022, in which it said that, due to the bathroom being fitted in 2018, it was “impossible to challenge it back to the install contractor”. The landlord told the resident she should make a claim on her contents insurance.
Following contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 6 February 2023 and told it to send a formal stage 1 complaint response by 27 February 2023. The landlord sent an acknowledgement to the resident on 13 February 2023.
On 14 February 2023, the landlord attended the property to inspect the bathroom floor for safety. The landlord reported there were no issues or signs of movement. It also took photographs of the items that had been damaged from the leak.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 24 February 2023, in which it said:
1. It had resolved the leak in the overflow pipe, which was reported the previous year.
2. It encouraged all its residents to take out home contents insurance as it did not compensate for personal belongings. The resident would need to claim on her contents insurance for her damaged items. It would not remove the damaged items from the property as this was not its responsibility.
3. It had inspected the bathroom floor and found this to be safe. It had also replaced the outhouse ceiling.
4. It would not be offering any compensation. If the resident remained unhappy, she could escalate to the next stage of its complaints procedure.
The resident requested an escalation to stage 2 of the complaints procedure on 27 February 2023. She said her possessions were damaged as a result of the landlord’s negligence when it fitted the bathroom. The resident said the bath overflow pipe had been missing altogether, rather than damaged as the landlord had suggested. The resident disputed that she should need to make a claim on her insurance when the issue was caused by the landlord’s negligence.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 27 March 2023, in which it said:
1. It recognised that the repairs undertaken to the bathroom were “due to a missing overflow pipe” and it sincerely apologised for this.
2. The resident would need to claim for the damaged items under her contents insurance. However, to recognise the inconvenience, it offered £100 as a goodwill gesture.
3. This concluded its complaints procedure and the resident could bring the matter to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident duly made her complaint to this Service on 22 March 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the leak and its decision not to compensate the resident

Section 7 of the landlord’s repairs policy (“repair timescales”) contains 2 categories of repairs:
1. Emergency repairs, which are considered dangerous or pose an immediate risk to health or safety. These repairs are meant to be “made safe” within 4 hours and completed within 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs, where the disrepair does not pose an immediate risk to residents, the property or possessions. These repairs are meant to be completed within 28 days.
A leak is considered an emergency repair under the landlord’s policy. This is confirmed in the “right to repair” section of the policy, which includes several examples of emergency repairs, including “leaking water from a water or heating pipe, tank or cistern”. Under the landlord’s right to repair policy, residents are entitled to £10 plus a further £2 per day for any delays in completing emergency repairs.
The resident reported the leak on 15 February 2022 but, based on the landlord’s records, this was not repaired until 17 February 2022. This was 1 day outside the required timescale. We have also seen no evidence to show the landlord attended within 4 hours to make sure the area was safe.
We have seen no evidence to suggest the landlord considered its right to repair policy in relation to this leak, which would have been appropriate given the delay in completing the emergency repair.
Section 3, appendix 1 of the landlord’s compensation procedure states the landlord can compensate for “damage to customer’s property caused by disrepair”. It says “the damage needs to be inspected and an estimate of the value of the damaged items (not the cost of replacement) needs to be calculated. The valued amount should be offered as an ex-gratia compensation award”.
The resident has told us that the repair operative who completed the work on 17 February 2022 removed the panels around her bath and told her there was no pipe connecting the bath overflow to the waste system. The landlord said in its initial responses that there was a leak from the overflow pipe. However, in its stage 2 response it agreed with the resident that there had been no overflow pipe in place.
Based on the above, the resident has grounds to make a claim on the landlord’s liability insurance, or to be compensated directly under its compensation policy, for her damaged items. This is due to the defective installation of the bath by the landlord in 2018. We have seen no evidence to show the landlord has ever provided this as an option to the resident. The Ombudsman will order the landlord to assist the resident in making a claim on its liability insurance for the damaged goods. We are unable to predetermine what the outcome of the liability insurance claim will be, as this will be up to the insurance company to decide. However, we find it a failing that the landlord never provided this option to the resident. Failing a payment by the insurers, we would expect the landlord to directly compensate the resident for the damaged items.
It was inappropriate for the landlord to suggest the resident should have made a claim on her contents insurance. There was no requirement in the tenancy for the resident to have contents insurance and, with the current cost of living crisis, there was a good chance the resident would not have this. The leak was caused by the landlord, not the resident, and so it was always appropriate for the landlord to bear the cost of the consequences of the leak.
For the failure to complete the emergency repair in the required timescale, the failure to consider its right to repair or compensation policies, the conflicting information provided about the cause of the leak, and the failure to allow the resident to make a claim on its liability insurance, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak and its decision not to compensate the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Section 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. This matches the definition which was included in section 1.2 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time of the complaint. Under section 1.3 of the Code at the time, landlords were expected to know when it was appropriate to raise a complaint on behalf of the resident, without the need for the resident to use the word “complaint”.
Section 4.1 of the Code at the time said that, while responding to some concerns from residents quickly and informally without use of the complaints procedure could sometimes be appropriate, “landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay”.
The landlord missed many opportunities to raise a complaint for the resident when this would have been appropriate. The resident’s email on 14 June 2022 fit the definition of a complaint, as did the 6 telephone calls she made to the landlord between 29 July 2022 and 22 September 2022. The landlord told the resident it would raise a formal complaint on 12 August 2022, but it did not do this.
The landlord told the resident on 24 June 2022 that it would provide a response within 3 to 4 weeks. However, it did not do this and it only called the resident on 25 July 2022 in response to a call the resident had made requesting an update.
The landlord eventually sent a written response to the resident on 4 October 2022, but this was an informal response. This response contained no details as to how the resident could escalate her complaint. The landlord only raised a formal complaint when this Service told it to do this in February 2023. Given the nature of the resident’s queries, it was not appropriate for the landlord to deal with the matter informally as it did. The landlord failed to follow section 4.1 of the Code when it responded in this manner.
Sections 6 and 7 of the landlord’s complaints procedure state the landlord will acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 24 hours, and provide a response at both stages within 5 working days.
The landlord sent its stage 1 acknowledgement after 7 days, which was 6 days over its target. It sent the stage 1 response after 14 working days, which was 9 working days over the target in its procedure. The landlord did not send a stage 2 acknowledgement. It provided its stage 2 response on 27 March 2023, which was 20 working days after the resident requested the escalation. This was 15 working days over its target.
As noted in paragraph 24 of this report, the landlord provided contradictory information in its different complaint stage responses about the cause of the leak. This is evidence of a lack of due care and attention when investigating the complaint.
Section 6.2 of the Code at the time of the complaint stated any resolution offered by landlords needed to “reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result”. While the landlord recognised in its stage 2 response that the leak had been caused by no overflow pipe being fitted when it installed the bathroom, it did not offer to compensate the resident for this as would have been appropriate. Instead, it incorrectly told the resident she should claim on her own contents insurance. This was inappropriate, and a failure under section 6.2 of the Code at the time.
For the long delays in raising a complaint, the delays caused by the inappropriate informal response, the stage 1 and stage 2 delays, the conflicting information provided, and the failure to provide an appropriate resolution, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The leak, including its decision not to compensate the resident.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides details of its liability insurance to the resident and assistance with making a claim. If the landlord’s insurers refuse to compensate the resident for the damaged items, the landlord will do this directly.
It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord arranges for the removal of the damaged items from the resident’s property. If the landlord cannot complete this, it should provide the resident with a payment to cover her costs of arranging this privately.
It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord sends the resident an apology written by a senior member of staff.
It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides a payment of £450. This is in addition to the payment of £100 previously offered and comprises:
1. £150 for the failure to attend the emergency appointment in time and failure to signpost the resident to its liability insurance.
2. £300 for the complaint handling failures identified, and the resulting delays and inconvenience.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord trains its staff on the appropriate use of its own insurance as set out in its compensation policy and procedure.