Believe Housing Limited (202123552)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123552

Believe Housing Limited

31 May 2023

 

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Request for reimbursement for damage caused to her car window screen by roof tiles that fell during a storm.
    2. Request for repairs to the roof following the storm.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. At the time of the complaint, the resident was a tenant of the landlord and lived in a house. The resident’s tenancy commenced on September 2020. The resident’s tenancy ended in November 2022.
  2. The resident’s complaint concerned her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s refusal to reimburse her for the cost of having her car window screen repaired. Prior to making her complaint, it is understood that the resident reported that tiles fell from her roof during a storm, causing her window screen to break. The resident said that it cost her £384 to have the damage repaired, and she believed that the landlord was liable for this. She said that the landlord had agreed to undertake roofing works prior to the storm occurring, but that they had not gone ahead due to the landlord postponing the works. The resident believed if the landlord had undertaken planned work to the roof sooner, then the storm would not have caused the existing roof tiles to fall and the damage to her car could have been avoided.
  3. In overall response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord said that as per its repairs and maintenance policy, it is the responsibility of its tenants to report any repair issues. It said the resident had not reported any roofing repairs since her tenancy begun, and that its planned programme of roofing work in the local area was not indicative that her roof was defective or in need of repair. It therefore said that it was unable to evidence that the resident’s car would not have been damaged should roofing works have been completed prior to the storm. It said the resident’s claim for this damage had been declined as it could not have predicted the storm would have caused damage. The landlord did acknowledge that it had delayed in dealing with the resident’s stage one complaint.
  4. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she maintained that the landlord was liable for the damage to her car window screen. It is understood that the resident believes that the roof tiles did not become loose as a result of the storm, but believes that they were already loose prior to storm’s occurrence. She was dissatisfied as she said that the landlord did not respond to her request for it to look into surveys prior to her moving into the property to ensure it was in a sufficient state of repair. She wanted the landlord to pay compensation for the stress she said experienced as a result of its poor communication, and for having to pay £384 to get her window screen repaired. She also mentioned that when she reported the fallen roof tiles following the storm, the landlord took no further action to repair the roof while she remained a tenant of the property. She requested that the landlord paid additional compensation due to the risk of her suffering further potential damage as a result of the roof not being repaired during that time.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident said that when she reported fallen roof tiles following the storm in November 2021, she received no response to this repair issue. In its submissions to the Ombudsman, the landlord confirmed that by the time the resident ended her tenancy, missing/loose roof tiles following the storm had not been repaired. The resident wanted the landlord to pay compensation, in part, for potential damage and risk to her that may have occurred as a result of the roof not being repaired following the storm.
  4. Although this issue is of concern, the Ombudsman is unable to consider this issue as part of our current investigation because this aspect was not raised to the landlord through its formal complaints process as part of this complaint. Although the resident highlighted the landlord’s lack of response to this matter in her escalation request, she did not elaborate if she believed the matter was relevant to her liability claim. Her claim related to events leading up to the storm rather than after it, and was the substantive issue of this complaint. Nor did she ask the landlord for compensation for this aspect, apart from reimbursement for the damage to her car and the stress this caused. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This is because the landlord has to be given the chance to respond to any issues at both stages of its complaint process before they are brought to the Ombudsman. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the above matter then she can raise a new complaint to the landlord about the issue. She many be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for damage caused to her car window screen

  1. The landlord has a compensation policy. This policy sets out that in instances where its tenants suggest that it is liable for damage caused to their personal belongings, it has a dedicated team that will consider such claims. The policy also sets out that a decision will be made whether a loss constitutes a claim on its liability insurance, and if this is determined to be the case, then the matter should be referred to its insurer.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident’s roof was installed in 1980, and due for renewal in 2040. This is in accordance with the Decent Homes Standard, which states that the lifetime for roof structures and roof finishes in houses and bungalows is fifty years before being considered ‘old’, and a timeframe considered appropriate for landlords to use when planning replacement works. However, the fifty-year lifetime for windows outlined in the Decent Homes Standard is not prescriptive, and a landlord would need to consider any premature failings in the roof prior to this and carry out repairs as required.
  3. A landlord’s obligation to keep the structure of the premises in repair begins once it is first notified of an issue. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the resident has a responsibility to inform the landlord of any disrepair they encounter on the property. It is appreciated that noticing roof issues can be challenging, as it is often the most inaccessible part of a building. Nonetheless, the resident acknowledged that no tiles had fallen prior to the storm and acknowledged that she did not report any issues with the roof prior to storm occurring. As such, it was apparent that the landlord did not agree to undertake planned maintenance to the roof prior to the storm, as a result of any repair issues reported by the resident. Based on the evidence, it is clear that both the resident and landlord were unaware of any issues with the roof before the school.
  4. It should be noted that the landlord’s inclusion of the resident’s home in a planned programme for maintenance work, is not evidence in itself of a pre-existing repair issue. Nonetheless, in this case, it would have been helpful if the landlord had clearly explained its reason for undertaking a planned programme of refurbishment works in the local area.
  5. The earliest mention of the specific nature of the roofing work the landlord agreed to undertake, was in internal communication between the landlord’s staff in November 2022. This communication confirmed that the planned scheme of works involved various properties in the local area, and would include the replacement of the resident’s roof. This communication also suggests that the resident’s roof had been included in the scheme, due to the number of repairs issues the landlord faced with roofing in many of its properties in the local area. However, it made no specific mention of any issues that had been identified with the resident’s individual roof.
  6. The landlord has provided a survey it undertook of the condition of the resident’s home in 2018. The survey also included notes of void work undertaken at the property after this date, in 2020, and recorded the landlord’s plan to undertake refurbishment work in 2023/2024. The specific purpose of this survey was not apparent from the evidence provided. Nonetheless, nothing in evidence seen in this investigation shows that the resident’s roof was assessed as requiring repair or replacement due to any repair issues with roof covering (such as tiles) before the storm occurred. The landlord’s explanation that it could not have predicted that the storms would cause damage and that the postponed planned programme of roofing works was not indicative that the roof was defective, was therefore reasonable in the circumstances. A landlord is not expected to assist with the cost of repairing damage to personal property in this type of situation.
  7. Although there is a lack of evidence to show the landlord was at fault for the damage sustained to the resident’s car, it was reasonable for it to refer the matter to its team that considers insurance claims, as the resident considered that it was responsible. Ultimately, the landlord did the appropriate thing by considering the resident’s claim and utilised it complaints process to set out its reasons for not agreeing to it. Overall, the landlord’s decision to not reimburse the resident for her damaged window screen was reasonable and in accordance with its policies and procedures.

 

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaints handling. The Code states that landlords must respond to a stage one complaint within ten working days. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. At stage two, landlords must respond to the complaint within twenty working days. This should be the landlord’s final response. Where there are failing on its part, landlord’s must acknowledge where something has gone wrong and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy that states customer contact could be classified as a request for service, in instances that are not usually regarded as a complaint such as a matter for where there is an appropriate right of appeal of reasonable redress such as an insurance claim.
  3. In this case, the resident initially asked to raise a complaint in January 2022 and March 2022. It reasonable that the landlord did not respond to these requests as formal complaints, but instead referred the resident to its team that considers insurance claims. This was in accordance with its complaints policy, as the resident’s requests on those occasions related solely to reimbursement for damage to her car, which she believed the landlord was liable for.
  4. However, the resident made a complaint to the landlord again in August 2022 which related to the landlord’s handling of the liability claim. Not only was she dissatisfied with the outcome of the claim, but with the length of time that it had taken the landlord to consider the claim, and that she had had to chase it up for a response. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not respond to this, and that the resident had to contact it again in October 2022 to progress her complaint. The considerable delay in dealing with the complaint meant that the landlord failed to resolve matters at the earliest opportunity.
  5. Although the landlord acknowledged the delay in progressing the complaint in its stage one response and upheld this aspect, it did not apologise for the delay nor acknowledge the impact of its complaint handling on the resident. By simply acknowledging the delay but offering no form of redress, the landlord failed to do enough to put things right for the resident. This was a failing in the landlord’s service.
  6. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord confirmed that the relevant team received the resident’s claim form on 7 March 2022. Although the evidence suggests that the resident did not chase the outcome of the claim until five months later in August 2022, it was unreasonable that the resident had to do this, given that the claim form sets the expectation that claims will take an average of twenty-eight days to be considered. Although the landlord acknowledged this delay in its initial complaint response and said that the investigation process had taken longer due to the high number of claims it received following the storm, it did not acknowledge the impact this would have likely had on the resident. Nor did it apologise for its lack of communication and failure to manage her expectations in that regard. Again, this was failure that the landlord somewhat acknowledged but failed to sufficiently put right.
  7. In final response to the resident’s complaint on 19 December 2022, the landlord refused to escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaint’s procedure. It explained that it would not investigate the outcome of the resident’s liability claim as a formal complaint as it had a separate appeals process. This was reasonable in the circumstances, as the resident’s outstanding issues at that point related solely to the outcome of her claim. The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to the relevant team, should she wish to provide additional information in appeal of the decision.
  8. As part of her escalation request the resident specifically asked the landlord to “review evidence of any exterior surveys prior to the date she moved in”. The landlord did clearly address this in the main. This was a failing as the Code confirms that landlords must address all points raised in a complaint. However, the impact was not significant given that the landlord set out the resident’s right to appeal the outcome, which would have had presented her the opportunity to set out her grounds for review.
  9. Overall, the landlord’s combined service failures meant that its handling of the resident’s complaint was poor. As such, compensation is due to the resident for the inconvenience, distress, and time and trouble she will have likely experienced as a result of the landlord’s failings. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation for its complaint handling. This amount is in line with The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website) which suggests awards in this range for instances where the landlord has acknowledged failings but failed to adequately address the detriment to the resident. A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to review its complaint handling in this case and implement the necessary remedial action to improve its complaint handling going forward.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for damage caused to her car window screen by roof tiles that fell during a storm.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £200 compensation for its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord carry out a review of its complaint handling in this case and implement the necessary remedial action to ensure it complies with the Complaint Handling Code going forward.