Citizen Housing (202125268)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125268

Citizen Housing

11 August 2022


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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:
    1. A leak into the property and the resident’s request for compensation for the damage this caused.
    2. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    3. The associated formal complaint.

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 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
  1. In an email sent to the landlord on 16 March 2022 and in his correspondence with this Service, the resident has requested that a portion of his rent should be refunded as he was unable to live in the property between May 2021 and December 2021 due to the ASB he was experiencing. The landlord stated that as a separate complaint had been opened into how it had handled the resident’s ASB case,  this element would be considered as part of that complaint and not the complaint into how it handled the leak.
  2. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have exhausted a member’s complaint procedure. Therefore, it is not within the remit of this Service to consider any elements of the complaint relating to ASB in this report as this issue is still going through the landlord’s complaints procedure as a separate complaint.
  3. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s position on this aspect once the ASB complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaint process, he may then be able to take the complaint to this Service to consider.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
  2. On 31 August 2021 the resident informed the landlord that a water leak from the property above was dripping through his ceiling. The landlord raised emergency repairs to resolve the leak in the property above and to make safe the electrics in the resident’s property
  3. The source of the leak was identified on 1 September 2021 as the shower in the property above, and a new shower was installed on 2 September 2021. Work to reinstate the bathroom lights in the resident’s property was completed on 3 September 2021.
  4. The resident called the landlord on 21 September 2021 and requested to raise a complaint. The landlord’s notes of the call described the elements of the complaint as the resident’s dissatisfaction with how the landlord responded to the leak. As a resolution to the complaint the landlord noted that the resident requested compensation for personal items damaged by the leak.
  5. The landlord and resident then corresponded about his compensation request for several weeks. On 16 January 2022, the resident sent an email providing more detail about his compensation request. He informed the landlord that he was seeking £300 to cover the costs of the items that were damaged.
  6. A stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 11 February 2022. The landlord declined the resident’s request for compensation on the grounds that it had responded appropriately to the report of the leak and there was no evidence of negligence on its part. It advised the resident to contact his home contents insurer to claim for his damaged items. The landlord explained that it is standard practice for its maintenance team to take the lead in this situation rather than its neighbourhood team, but that the neighbourhood team were involved in helping to gain access to the property above. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing the complaint response and offered a £20 goodwill gesture in view of this.
  7. Following an escalation request by the resident, a stage two complaint response was sent on 17 March 2022. The landlord informed the resident that it was satisfied with its position set out in stage one relating to its decision to decline his compensation request. The landlord noted that during the escalation process the resident had informed it that he had been unable to stay in his property between May 2021 to December 2021 due to the leak and antisocial behaviour (ASB) and had requested the rent be refunded for this period. The landlord declined this request on the grounds that its maintenance team had not informed it that the resident required to be temporarily rehoused during repairs and that it would respond to how the ASB reports had been handled in a separate complaint the resident had raised into this matter.
  8. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as the landlord not taking responsibility for the leak, the poor communication from landlord staff members, the delays in the complaint process, and its decision to decline his compensation request. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord pay compensation for the damage to his personal items caused by the leak and to refund a portion of the rent for the time he was unable to live in the property as a result of the ASB he was experiencing.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs at an appointment time agreed with the tenant. Emergency repairs as defined as a repair that presents “an immediate health and safety risk or the structure of the home has been damaged”.
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
  3. The complaint policy goes on to state that if it is unable to provide the response within its published timescale, that the landlord will contact the complainant to inform them of the delay and to set a new deadline.

How the landlord handled a leak into the property and the resident’s compensation request for the damage this caused

  1. Overall, the landlord has acted appropriately and in line with its repairs policy in how it responded to the leak. It was appropriate for the landlord to treat the issue as an emergency and despite the delay in gaining access to the property above, the make-safe work was completed within 24 hours in line with its repairs policy. Furthermore, it is not in dispute that the follow-on work undertaken by the landlord has resolved the issue.
  2. The work to locate and resolve the leak was completed over a three-day period. There are no notes in the repair logs from the contractor informing the landlord that the resident’s property was inhabitable during this period. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord not to consider reimbursing a portion of the resident’s rent during this period in response to his complaint about the leak. As set out above, the Ombudsman cannot currently assess the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports and this has not been considered in our investigation when looking at whether he needed to move away from the property temporarily.
  3. The resident has disputed the landlord’s decision not to award compensation to reimburse him for the damage the leak caused to his possessions. The landlord explained that this decision was reached as the landlord was not responsible for causing the leak and acted in good time to resolve it. Therefore it could not be held liable for any damage to the resident’s personal items.
  4. The landlord’s repair logs state that it was previously informed by the resident on 10 August 2021 that the bathroom ceiling was flaking as a result of water damage. The landlord’s records state that repairs were completed by the contractor on 20 August 2021. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset specially, as in this case, when the leak is intermittent and is not always apparent during a repair appointment. The repair logs do not show any other reports from the resident relating to the leak form the property above prior to 10 August 2021.
  5. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was at fault for the leak or that it could have taken any action to stop the issue sooner and prevent damage to the resident’s possessions. The landlord arranged for its contractor to attend on the two occasions that the resident informed it of issues. On the second visit on 31 August 2021, when the leak was in progress, its contractors were able to identify the source of the leak and resolve the matter. Residents are advised to take out their own contents insurance to cover any damage to their personal possessions due to unforeseen events. This is because the landlord is not responsible for the cost of repairing or replacing residents’ personal possessions in this type of situation.
  6. For the landlord to accept liability for the damage to the personal items and offer compensation within its complaint process there would need to be evidence which showed that the landlord had not responded to the issue within a timely manner or in line with its repairs policy, or that it had ignored previous reports made to it about the leak. The evidence presented in this case does not support this position.
  7. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to decline the resident’s request for it to pay compensation to reimburse him for the costs of the damaged items as there is no evidence that the landlord had been made aware of the leak prior to 10 August 2021; and, once the landlord was informed, it arranged an inspection and completed repairs in a timely manner and in line with its policies once the source of the leak was identified. Although the upset caused to the resident by the damage caused by the leak is wholly understandable, the landlord does not need to do anything further regarding this complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord has recognised that there was delays during the complaint process. The resident first requested to raise a complaint on 21 September 2021 and a stage one response was not provided until 11 February 2022: a period of 100 working days.
  2. The landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident in the stage two complaint response for this delay. However, the level of compensation it offered to the resident (£20) was disproportionately low when the length of the delays is considered. Accordingly, while the landlord’s apology to the resident was appropriate, it should have paid a higher amount of compensation for the distress and inconvenience this caused.
  3. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website) recommends a payment of £50 to £250 in cases of service failure resulting in some impact on a complainant. As an example of when this level of redress should be considered, the guidance suggests “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact”.
  4. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £130 compensation, to bring to the total payment to £150, in recognition of the delay in providing the stage one response and for its poor communication in keeping the resident updated on the status of the stage one response.
  5. The resident has also stated his dissatisfaction with how the landlord handled the stage two response and has suggested that its delays in providing the response were a deliberate attempt to prevent the resident from bringing the case to this Service.
  6. The landlord’s call logs state that the resident called it on 16 February 2022 and disputed the decision reached at stage one of the landlord’s process. The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 February 2022 to confirm that the complaint had been escalated and that it would call him within 24 hours to discuss the complaint. The logs state that the landlord called the resident five times between 17 February 2022 and 7 March 2022 but it was unable to make contact. Following an email sent by the landlord informing the resident of its difficulties in contacting him, a telephone call occurred on 10 March 2022 where the outstanding issues of the complaint were discussed. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 14 March 2022 and informed him that it had extended its deadline to 28 March 2021 as it had yet to finish its investigations. The stage two response was then sent on 17 March 2022.
  7. It was appropriate for the landlord to ensure that it had investigated all the outstanding issues raised by the resident before it sent the stage two response. The landlord followed its complaint policy by informing the resident of the delay and providing a revised timescale. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that it after it spoke to the resident on 10 March 2022, it then raised the issues highlighted by him internally with the relevant teams and staff members. It then sent the stage two response within the revised timescale.
  8. Moreover, the stage two response was sent 22 working days after the resident requested an escalation, which was two working days over the original deadline set in the landlord’s complaints policy. This delay was not significant and therefore there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord with regards to this aspect of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled a leak into the property and the resident’s compensation request for the damage this caused. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling. 

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £130.
  2. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report.
  3. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.
  4. The compensation award is in addition to the £20 compensation already awarded by the landlord in its complaint process. This should also be paid to the resident, if the landlord has not already been paid.