Bournville Village Trust (202333028)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333028

Bournville Village Trust

14 November 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 response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Water penetration into her kitchen.
2. Damage caused by:
  1. Tree roots.
  2. A leak from a radiator.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. Her tenancy commenced on 30 April 2005.
The resident has a diagnosis of degenerative osteoarthritis and has limited mobility. She requires specific bathing facilities to meet her needs.
The property is a 3 bedroom semi-detached house with a front and rear garden. A public footpath boarders the resident’s rear garden boundary. A third party is responsible for maintaining the footpath and the concrete boundary fence or wall (referred to as a fence for the purposes of this report). There were large trees growing in the resident’s garden on the boundary.

Water penetration into kitchen

In January 2022 the resident reported that water was coming through her kitchen ceiling from the bathroom above. The landlord attended and on 31 January concluded that there was no repair issue but that the current layout of the bathroom did not meet the resident’s needs. This was because the resident needed to take long showers up to an hour and a half of continuous showering due to her disability. The shower could not cope with the volume of water which resulted in water “cascading” onto the bathroom floor for a long period.
On 21 December 2022 the landlord made a referral to the local authority’s Occupational Therapist (OT) on behalf of the resident. The OT confirmed that they could not support any adaptations to the property as the current facilities suited their needs. The landlord subsequently agreed with the resident to re-configure the bathroom and install a walk-in bath. The landlord also agreed to replace the resident’s cooker hood and carry out remedial works following the leak. Works were completed in October 2023.

Damage caused by tree roots

On 6 September 2022 the landlord raised an order to inspect uneven slabs in the rear garden and replace any cracked slabs which were moving due to tree roots. A works order to carry out remedial works was raised on 12 September and completed on 26 September. On 9 December the landlord confirmed it would arrange for its arborist to inspect the trees.
On 25 May 2023 the resident advised the landlord that the concrete panels in the boundary fence were damaged and the garden had become uneven. The landlord applied to the local authority to fell the trees and they were removed in October. On 2 September the resident emailed the landlord to raise concerns about the stability of the boundary fence following removal of the trees. Following liaison with the third party responsible for maintaining the boundary fence, works were agreed in October 2024.

Leak from radiator

In January 2024 the landlord attended an appointment to fit trunking to her hallway radiator. In doing so the contractor dislodged a pipe causing a leak. On 10 June 2024 the landlord compensated the resident for the cost of replacing her flooring.

Complaints process

On 25 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to raise her dissatisfaction (complaint A) about the following:
1. The bathroom had not been completed which was compounding the damage caused to the bathroom and kitchen. It also meant the cooker hood had not yet been replaced.
2. Tree roots were lifting the paving slabs in the rear garden making them unsteady. This restricted the resident’s access to and mobility around the garden.
3. “Countless” appointments had not been followed up.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 June 2023 as follows:
1. It attended the property on 26 June and found no evidence of leaks from the shower or pipework. The flooring was sealed sufficiently.
2. It had received a report from the OT which had not made any recommendations. Its teams were liaising to agree a way forward based on the resident’s medical need. It would update the resident in due course.
3. It would replace the cooker hood once works had been agreed.
4. When its arborist carried out an inspection they noted several trees had been removed by the resident. As the property sat within a conservation area the landlord was liaising with the local authority.
5. The removal of the remaining trees would be subject to planning permission which could take up to 8 weeks to be approved. In the meantime, it had raised a repair to inspect the slabs on 24 July.
On 11 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process, the main points being:
1. The landlord had not carried out tests when investigating the leak. The floor was not sealed correctly which was why there were leaks.
2. She had not received a copy of the OT’s report.
3. She had tried to seek an update about the trees and had left voicemails for the arborist however he had not responded.
4. Works to the slabs were to take place on 24 July however, the trees that were causing the damage would take up to 8 weeks to remove.
5. She was “thoroughly dissatisfied with this response.” She did not believe the landlord had conducted a thorough and impartial investigation of her complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 July 2023. Following its discussion with the resident it committed to carrying out actions, including:
1. Reimburse the cost incurred by the resident in obtaining a letter from her GP confirming her bathing requirements.
2. Investigate and rectify the cause of the leak to the shower drainage.
3. Fit an appropriate bath in lieu of the existing walk-in shower (item b may not be required if the bath could be agreed and obtained quickly).
4. Carry out a mould treatment to the bathroom.
5. Replace the fans in the bathroom and kitchen.
6. Supply and fix a new cooker hood.
7. Carry out remedial works, including decoration, to the kitchen.
8. Carry out required tree works once approval was obtained from local authority.
The resident contacted this Service on 18 December 2023 to report that the stage 2 complaint response had been issued before work had commenced. She said that during the period of the complaint she had constantly chased the landlord for updates only to be ignored. It had not had regard to the impact on her health.
On 23 January 2024 the resident raised a complaint (complaint B) about the leak from the radiator which had soaked her wooden flooring and carpet.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 February 2024 in which it confirmed it had visited the resident on 25 January to discuss the leak. It had subsequently arranged for a dehumidifier to be delivered the following day. It had also offered £150 towards the cost of replacing the damaged flooring.
On 5 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to advise that its offer was “totally unacceptable” and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
On 13 March 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, as follows:
1. It had visited the resident on 1 March to discuss ongoing issues. It was clear that the repairs process had been distressing for the resident.
2. It intended to talk to operatives and staff who had attended the property over the past few months as part of its learning from the process. It would remind them of its code of conduct.
3. It agreed to:
  1. Obtain a second flooring quote to carpet the hall, stairs, landing and front living room. Once it had obtained the quote it would agree compensation to cover distress & disturbance as well as quantifiable loss of existing flooring
  2. Tile behind the bath and install a new curtain rail to stop water escaping when showering.
On 19 July 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to raise her ongoing dissatisfaction (complaint C) with its response to her concerns about the boundary fence, the main points being:
1. Following removal of the trees and stumps the concrete fence panels had eroded and become loose.
2. She had been advised that several different solutions were to be provided. She was eventually told the fence was structurally sound despite previous contractors advising it should be replaced by something suitable which would give privacy.
3. The lawn was uneven despite being advised the garden would be made good following removal of the stump.
On 1 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, as follows:
1. It had inspected the boundary wall and back garden on 30 July and concluded that the fence was structurally sound. However, there were 2 large holes so it was no longer aligned straight.
2. Following its enquiries the landlord had established that a third party was responsible for maintaining the fence.
3. Having contacted the third party the landlord signposted the resident to their facilities team to make requests regarding the boundary fence.
4. It would continue to see if a solution could be found for garden.
On 13 September 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to express her frustration at having to liaise with the third party herself without any support from the landlord. She was also frustrated that the landlord had not established who was responsible for the fence earlier in the process.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 October 2024 when it confirmed that the third party had agreed to replace the wall with a timber fence. Works would then take place to ensure the fence was secure, including the removal of any existing tree roots and levelling the adjacent area.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

Its vulnerable resident’s policy says it has a wide range of services and processes in place to support customers. Some of these are aimed at people with disabilities, who may well not be vulnerable, but form part of its support for residents, who need it to do things “a little differently.”
Its equipment and adaptations policy says that it does not usually fund adaptation work within tenanted properties, as the duty to provide support lies with the local authority. If the local authority cannot fund the support required, it will consider the request, taking account of the individual circumstances and the funding available.
Its complaints policy in place prior to July 2024 says that it will:
1. Respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days from the day the complaint is assigned to the investigating officer.
2. Escalate a resident’s complaint to stage 2 if it meets the criteria set out in its complaints policy.
3. Respond to stage 2 complaints within 15 working days from the date the complaint is assigned to the investigating officer.
Its complaints policy in place from July 2024 onwards provided an update that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the date the complaint is assigned to the investigating officer.
Its compensation policy in place prior to April 2024 says that:
1. When things go wrong it will apologise and put things right as quickly as possible. It will consider an offer of compensation when an apology alone does not suffice and it recognises the impact the service loss or failure had on the resident.
2. Where damage occurs because of its negligence or that of its contractors, it will refer the issue to the insurance team. This includes damage to the resident’s personal possessions.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water penetration into her kitchen

On 12 January 2022 an internal email reported that the landlord had attended the property the previous day in response to a “severe” leak into the kitchen. It said that the layout of the adapted bathroom was not “user friendly” for the resident’s disability as a shower room which was causing flooding. It requested that the situation be reviewed to find a “better solution” to meet the resident’s needs.
A further internal email dated 13 January 2022 recommended that the landlord should not contact the OT if the works required where an improvement or decision to change the layout. However, a further email sent later that day confirmed the landlord’s intention to request an OT assessment. Although this was not in line with its internal advice, it was in line with its equipment and adaptations policy.
An internal email sent on 31 January 2022 set out the damage caused to the kitchen by the leak. This included the extraction hood which had short circuited and was removed to make safe. It said it would book a schedule of works and would order a replacement cooker hood once the leak was rectified.
A further internal email, also dated 31 January, confirmed that the resident had called to seek an update. It asked for confirmation of whether it was pursuing an OT assessment or not. It said it had advised the resident the cooker hood had been ordered and she would be contacted in due course. The internal reply sent on the same day confirmed the landlord would not assess an individual or make recommendations and it would always seek advice from the OT. This was in line with its equipment and adaptations policy.
The repairs log shows that on 7 February 2022 the landlord raised a works order to investigate a leak from above including carrying out a water test “using” the existing shower onto the floor area to identify the leak into the kitchen. Given the content of the internal email of 12 January it is unclear why this was necessary.
On 16 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to seek an update on the cooker hood because the absence of an extractor was causing issues with damp in the property. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response. It would have been appropriate for it to carry out an inspection to satisfy itself whether interim works, such as a mould wash, were required while it was waiting to replace the cooker hood.
On 18 May 2022 an internal email was sent to clarify how the landlord intended to rectify the bathroom issue in terms of whether its maintenance team needed to carry out works. This was chased in a further internal email of 31 May, requesting that a decision be made. 4 months had passed since the landlord committed to pursuing an OT referral. On 6 June the enquiry was passed on to see if an inspection had been carried out. The email trail ended without a clear conclusion being reached. It is unclear why the landlord had not made the referral therefore the delay was unreasonable.
An internal email dated 7 July 2022 said the resident had called for an update because water was now leaking down her new kitchen window. The resident had said the bathroom had been inspected and needed to be reconfigured and requested an update. There is no evidence that the landlord replied which was inappropriate. This was because it showed a lack of concern for the impact on the resident, particularly in terms of the distress caused by the ongoing leak. Furthermore, it showed a lack of commitment to keeping its own asset in good repair.
On 3 October 2022 the landlord sent an internal email chasing the repair of the leak and associated remedial repairs. It said it needed to arrange with the resident to send a contractor to assess the leak as an emergency repair. A further internal email was sent on 5 October to a number of staff to try to get the matter resolved. The officer said they were “unsure who to chase so emailing both of you.” A works order was raised on 6 October to trace the leak in the bathroom because there had been an ongoing leak “for a while.”
It is clear there was a breakdown in internal communication between departments and a lack of clarity on how the landlord intended to proceed. This was the second time a works order had been raised to trace the leak despite the cause and solution being identified 9 months earlier.
The landlord emailed the local authority on 21 December 2022 to begin the process of making an OT referral. This was almost a year after the issues with the layout of the bathroom were first identified. The lengthy delay had a detrimental impact on the resident who was having to chase updates and live with the ongoing leak. The landlord failed to have regard to its duty under the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act.
On 29 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to ask when the issue with the flooding would be rectified because it was ongoing and the bathroom was in a state of disrepair. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response causing the resident distress and inconvenience when she emailed again on 25 May to chase. She added that the ongoing situation was aggravating the damage to the property. The delays to the works to the bathroom meant her cooker hood had not been replaced either.
An internal email of 21 June 2023 confirmed that tiling and electrical works to the kitchen had been completed but that the cooker hood was outstanding. It confirmed the bathroom was watertight and it was the usage which was causing the water penetration. It requested that the OT referral be chased or that an independent OT assessment be carried out.
As identified above, the landlord took almost a year to make the OT referral. This failure was compounded by its failure to monitor the response, only chasing 6 months later. By this point a total of 18 months had passed which was unacceptable, causing distress to the resident and additional damage to the property.
On 26 June 2023 the landlord raised a works order to investigate the leak, remedy and report back on action taken to resolve the issue. This was the third time it had done so despite the problem being identified over a year prior. It is concerning that internal miscommunication meant the landlord was still raising works orders to investigate the leak.
On 28 June 2023 the landlord emailed the local authority to chase the OT assessment. The OT replied on the same day to say that it was an “inappropriate referral.” The resident had been assessed in December 2021 and twice during 2022. The OT could not supply a walk in bath as it would not remove an adaption which met the resident’s needs.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 29 June 2023 provided the resident with an update. It confirmed it was discussing how best to proceed and would update the resident in due course. This was in line with its equipment and adaptations policy.
On 21 July 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it would pay for her to obtain a letter from her GP setting out her medical needs. It said it would plan works once it received the letter. This was an appropriate way to ensure that any works carried out met her needs. This investigation has not seen a copy of the GPs letter however, the landlord emailed the resident on 21 August to confirm receipt.
On 8 August 2023 the landlord emailed the details of the proposed walk in bath to the resident. It asked the resident to check it was suitable for her family’s needs because it could not be used as a standup shower. The resident emailed the landlord the following day, 9 August, to confirm she was happy with the proposed walk in bath. She understood that it was not suitable for stand up showers so would not be fitted with a shower screen. She asked for an update on how the works would progress.
The resident was caused time and trouble when she emailed the landlord again on 17 August 2023 to request an update on works. She was dissatisfied about the lack of communication. The landlord replied on the same day to say it would seek an update on works and that the bath was on order. Given the distress already caused by the lengthy delays it would have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure that its ongoing communication was meaningful and timely. That it did not do so was a failure.
On 21 August 2023 the landlord said it would attend the property on 31 August to assess what works were required. It confirmed that there was a 6 week lead time on the bath and a provisional date for fitting had been made for 4 October. It said it would assess the condition of the flooring before the bath was installed. If works were required they would be carried out before installation on 2 or 3 October. It appropriately set out what works would be carried out after the bath was installed.
On 30 August 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say an appointment that had been made for the following day to assess the bathroom had been rearranged to 5 September due to sickness. In her email to the landlord of 2 September the resident expressed her concern that this delay would have a knock on effect on the start date for works.
The landlord failed to respond causing the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when she emailed on 8 September 2023 to chase. She was concerned that works were “ad hoc and totally disorganised.”
The landlord replied on 11 September 2023 to advise the officer had been on annual leave and the resident should have received an out of office response. It appropriately apologised if that had not been the case. It said that following its inspection on 5 September it had set out the scope of works to fit the new bath and carry out associated works which were due to commence on 4 October.
On 18 September 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the start date and scope of works. It said the electrician that attended the first fix for the bathroom would also measure up for the new cooker hood. On 26 September it emailed the resident to pass on an update from the supplier that there was a delay in the delivery of the bath.
It proposed an alternative model which was accepted by the resident in her email sent the same day, 26 September. In its email to the resident of 27 September the landlord attached a timetable for the works which had been pushed back to start on 9 October. This was not unreasonable due to the issues with the supply of the bath which was outside of its control.
On 5 October 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to ask that when it commenced works to the bathroom it also strip the carpet outside the bathroom where water had soaked the carpet. She said it smelt and needed to be replaced. The landlord’s email to the resident of 6 October confirmed it would assess the flooring when on site.
On 16 October the resident emailed the landlord to report that the bath that had been delivered was not the correct one. She also raised her dissatisfaction about the conduct of the contractors in terms of the “mess” they had made and the tone they used when they spoke to her about the bath issue. They had tried to insist that the bath that was supplied would be fitted causing the resident distress. She was also caused time and trouble in having to contact the landlord herself to resolve the issue.
On 17 October 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say the wrong bath had been supplied and that the correct one was being delivered by the end of the week. The landlord appropriately provided a timely resolution. It also apologised for the “upheaval” and acknowledged that the resident was not well. It said that works were extensive requiring various trades to carry out work throughout the property.
On 27 October 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say the works would be completed by 31 October. It had inspected the carpet and did not consider it to be damaged however, it would inspect again once works were complete. The cooker hood would be delivered and fitted after completion of the bathroom works.
The landlord emailed the resident on 31 October 2023 to confirm that it would carry out a deep clean of the carpet in the hall, stairs and landing on 2 November. It was expecting the cooker hood to be delivered that day or the next and would be fitted soon after.
On 13 November 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say that although the carpets had been cleaned they were still damp and starting to smell. On 14 November the landlord offered the resident £150 as a goodwill payment towards the cost of damage to the carpet. It is unclear how it arrived at this amount or whether it was accepted by the resident.
On 19 November 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report a number of repairs that were outstanding in the bathroom. On 23 November the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that the responsible officer was on leave but that it would update the resident on 28 November. On 28 November the landlord emailed the resident to say it would resolve the outstanding repairs on 6 December. This was almost 2 years after the issues with the layout of the bathroom were first identified.
Given that works were due to be completed on 31 October it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have monitored progress, providing proactive updates to the resident on outstanding matters to manage her expectations. It was not reasonable for the resident to have to chase, compounding her distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response for complaint B dated 13 March 2024 referred to a visit it carried out to the property on 1 March. On 4 November the landlord provided this Service with a file note of the visit which sets out that the resident was dissatisfied because water was escaping from the shower when her son took stand up showers. She had also been distressed by the number of people attending the property during the works and had overheard the landlord’s staff talking about her whilst at the property.
The complaint response said it “was clear” that the repairs had been distressing for the resident and that it would learn from the process. It agreed works to the bathroom and carpets to try to put things right. Given that the resident had been aware the walk in bath was not suitable for stand up showers the landlord went over and above its obligations by providing a shower curtain. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered compensating the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the contractor’s conduct which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s failures amount to severe maladministration because there had been serious failings which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. It failed to identify its failures, its learning from the complaint and failed to try to put right the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £1500 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to her rear garden and concrete fence by tree roots

On 1 September 2022 the landlord raised a works order to inspect the slabs in the rear garden and the step to the back door which were damaged by tree roots. Following its inspection on 6 September the landlord raised a works order on 12 September to carry out appropriate repairs. The repair logs shows that works were completed on 26 September.
While it was positive that the landlord carried out repairs there is no evidence that it took steps to address the trees. This was inappropriate because the resident had identified them as the cause of the damage.
This caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when she emailed the landlord again on 25 May 2023 to report ongoing damage caused by the tree roots.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 29 June 2023 the landlord said it would make an application to the local authority to seek permission to remove the trees. In the meantime it would make further repairs as necessary. It is positive that the landlord took steps to address the problem however, this came late in the process. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord managed the resident’s expectations by confirming how long the process might take.
Consequently, the resident was caused time and trouble when she emailed the landlord on 21 August 2023 to seek an update. She said she had been given various dates, including a start date of 29 August. There had been a miscommunication because the landlord’s email of the same day advised the resident that the local authority had until 29 August to make a decision on its application. On 30 August the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that works to the trees would commence on 16 October.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 2 September 2023 she said she was concerned that the landlord had not considered how the removal of the trees might impact on the boundary fence. She set out that the fence was not just for privacy but also for her security which had been compromised in the past due to incidents involving rubbish being thrown over, eggs thrown at her window and 5 break ins. She asked if the tree works could be brought forward.
The landlord emailed the resident on 11 September 2023 to provide an update. It reiterated that the tree works were due to commence on 16 October and said it would try to bring the date forward. It said that it would assess the condition of the fence once the trees were removed.
On 2 October 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say the tree works had been brought forward to 10 October. On 26 October the resident emailed the landlord to seek an update on the wall. On 27 October the landlord replied to say there were some tree stumps outstanding which needed to be removed and that it was waiting for a date from its contractor. It said photos taken following removal of the trees were awaiting assessment by its surveyor.
On 27 October 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to see if it had liaised with the third party regarding responsibility for the fence. The landlord replied on 31 October to say it was seeking an update and would advise the resident accordingly.
On 13 November 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to ask that anti climb paint and barbed wire be installed on the boundary fence similar to the front. The landlord emailed the resident the following day, 14 November, to confirm that the stumps would be removed on 17 November. It confirmed it had asked its contractor to provide a quote to secure the boundary fence, reinstate the barbed wire and apply anti climb paint.
There is no evidence that the landlord obtained a quote from its contractor or that it took any further steps to progress works to the fence. There is then a gap in the evidence until the resident emailed the landlord on 19 July 2024. She reiterated the concerns she had raised previously and reported her dissatisfaction about its inaction. On 30 July the landlord emailed the resident to say it was seeking an update about the fence. It is unclear what enquiries the landlord was making at this time.
The landlord provided an update in its stage 1 complaint response of 1 August 2024. It signposted the resident to liaise with the third party herself. As the freeholder of the property this was inappropriate, particularly given the resident’s vulnerabilities. Furthermore, the resident was caused disappointment because it had previously undertaken to carry out the works itself and was now putting the onus on the resident to resolve the matter through the third party.
The resident emailed the third party and on 10 September 2024 it confirmed that it would inspect the fence. In an email to the third party and the resident of the same day the landlord said it was “stepping away” as it no longer needed to be involved. It was inappropriate to put the responsibility on the resident because she had requested that it support her. Its response was not in line with its vulnerable residents’ policy. As the freeholder it was also in its interests to ensure its asset was protected.
On 13 September 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to set out her disappointment. After it had made assurances that it would carry out works to the fence she had to deal with the third party herself. She was also frustrated that the landlord did not establish responsibility for the wall earlier in the process.
Evidence shows that the landlord did then liaise with the third party to agree final details of the works, for example in email exchanges on 2 October 2024. The works proposed appropriately resolved the resident’s request for works.
From the point the resident first reported the damage caused by the trees in September 2022 it took the landlord over 2 years to reach a resolution. It is acknowledged that the process was complicated by the need to obtain planning permission and a third party being responsible for maintaining the fence. However, there were unreasonable delays and a lack of clarity about who would undertake works.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £500 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damage caused by a leak from her radiator

In her email to the landlord of 23 January 2024 the resident said that her flooring was “soaked” and needed to be replaced.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 1 February 2024 confirmed that it had visited the resident to discuss the incident. This investigation has not seen evidence of what was discussed therefore it is unclear what steps the landlord took to assess the damage and costs incurred by the resident. This is a record keeping failure. There is no evidence as to how the landlord arrived at its offer of £150 which was inappropriate.
In her email to the landlord of 5 February 2024 the resident confirmed that £150 would not cover the cost of the flooring let alone the fitting. In its stage 2 complaint response of 13 March 2024 the landlord said it would obtain a second quote. Once it had obtained the quote it would agree compensation for “distress and disturbance” in addition to the quantifiable loss of the existing flooring. However, there is no evidence that it did so which was inappropriate.
On 10 April 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to say it was awaiting the quote. However, on 23 May it said it was experiencing difficulties obtaining the quote due to the lack of available carpet fitters. It asked the resident to provide the one she had obtained.
On 10 June 2024 the landlord offered the resident £1836 compensation to “cover all the flooring” which she accepted on 12 June.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation was not in line with its compensation policy in place at the time. This is because it did not refer the matter to its insurance team. However, this investigation recognises that the landlord compensated the resident for the quantifiable costs therefore there was no detriment caused.
The landlord’s failure to offer compensation for distress and inconvenience amounts to service failure because it failed to honour its commitment to do so. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the amount of compensation offered did not fully reflect the detriment caused to the resident.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling

The resident raised her stage 1 complaint (A) on 25 May 2023. The landlord provided its response on 29 June which was 24 working days later and 14 days out of time. The landlord’s response did not acknowledge the delay. It also failed to provide an explanation and failed to put things right. Its stage 2 complaint of 11 July was appropriately issued within time.
On 23 January 2024 the resident raised a further stage 1 complaint (B). The landlord’s response of 1 February was appropriately issued within time. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 5 February. The landlord provided its response on 13 March. This was 27 working days later and 12 days out of time.
It thanked the resident for agreeing an extension to the response timeline. However, it is unclear when the extension was agreed and for how long. This is a record keeping failure which impacted on this Service’s ability to assess whether the landlord’s response was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord’s complaint responses for complaint C were appropriately issued within time.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, and the stage 1 complaint response has been issued, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.
The stage 2 complaint response for complaint C of 13 March 2024 referred to issues with the bathroom works which had not been raised at stage 1. This was inappropriate because, in line with the Code, the landlord should have raised a separate stage 1 complaint. This would have ensured that it conducted a thorough investigation into the complaint including consideration of any redress if felt might be appropriate. That it did not do so was a failure.
The Code says that the landlord must respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. The landlord’s complaints policy says that its response timescales for stage 2 complaints starts when the complaint is assigned to the investigating officer. This is inappropriate because it does not take into account any delay in assigning the complaint which would impact on its complaint handling service to residents.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water penetration into her kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to her rear garden and concrete fence by tree roots.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damage caused by a leak from her radiator.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to:
  1. Apologise for the failures identified by this investigation.
  2. Set out its offer of compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the leak from the radiator.
  3. Explain what action it took in respect of its contractor’s conduct during the bathroom works, setting out its learning from the complaint.
2. Pay the resident £2150 compensation comprised of:
  1. £1500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of water penetration into her kitchen.
  2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of damaged caused to her rear garden and concrete fence by tree roots.
  3. £50 for the distress caused by its failure in its response to the resident’s report of damage caused by a leak from her radiator.
  4. £100 for the adverse effect caused by its complaint handling failures.