Citizen Housing Group Limited (202346243)

Background

1. The resident lives in a one bedroom flat. He signed the tenancy for the property on 11 December 2023 but within a couple of days he discovered a leak. The resident moved back to his former home on a temporary basis until the leak was repaired and the property was dry. He moved in to the property on 1 March 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord dealt with the reported leak at the property and the amount of compensation offered.
3. We have also considered how the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in relation to how the landlord dealt with the reported leak at the property and the amount of compensation offered.
5. There was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord delayed initially identifying a leak but did then take steps to address the issue in order to try and put things right.
   2. The landlord responded to the complaint in a timely way and took a proactive approach to trying to resolve 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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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.

9. The landlord has provided clear records which show it attended the property the day after the leak was reported but was unable to identify the source. The landlord’s repairs policy said it would attend and complete repairs to published timescales. At the time of the resident signing the tenancy, the standard was to attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and complete non-emergency repairs within 12 working days.
10. The landlord has accepted that it took until 2 February 2024, 34 working days, for the cause of the leak to be identified and a repair carried out. It therefore failed to meet its obligations, which was unreasonable. It did though, apologise that its service fell short.
11. The landlord’s relet standard makes it clear there should be no damage to the property, including leaks, when it is relet. The landlord has supplied a copy of a ‘void post inspection form’, which has a list of checks carried out on 7 December 2023, before the resident moved in. It reports all works were complete and no issues with the property were identified.
12. The landlord has explained there was an initial leak reported on 21 December 2023, and it provided a dehumidifier until 11 January 2024. There was then another leak found which meant another dehumidifier was installed at the property from 26 January 2024 until it was collected on 5 March 2024, after the resident move in.
13. It was appropriate the landlord ensured dehumidifiers were put in the property and arranged for the carpet to be replaced. While the leak meant the resident could not move in, he was able to remain in his former home, which minimised any disruption. The resident has told us he regularly visited the new property to check on it and some of the personal items he had left there were damaged. The resident has also raised concerns over the increase in his utility costs as a result of running dehumidifiers.
14. There is no dispute between the parties that there was a failure in the landlord’s service, as it accepted that it took a long time for the leak to be fixed. It is important to appreciate though, that the landlord communicated with the resident and took steps to try and put things right. The issue outstanding, is that the parties cannot agree on the amount of compensation that the landlord should pay.
15. The landlord’s ‘non statutory compensation framework’ (the framework) says compensation should be considered where a resident has suffered a loss due to the landlord’s negligence, and that can include replacing personal belongings that were damaged. It also says a customer should have their own contents insurance, but if making a claim for losses, they need to provide supporting evidence.
16. There is no evidence of the resident having contents insurance. The landlord initially offered the resident £155 compensation, which incorporated a payment towards the running costs of the dehumidifiers. This was in line with its framework and accepted by the resident but he then explained he had other losses. It is also clear there was a further leak after the resident received the first offer from the landlord, so the situation changed.
17. The second offer of compensation in the amount of £700, was made once the repair of the second leak was complete, and the landlord received evidence to support a claim for damage to his books and laptop. This offer was not accepted by the resident as he told the landlord that he wanted £400 compensation for his laptop. He has since told us that he also spent money on taxis going to the property occasionally and that some furniture was damaged. While the resident’s claim for these additional ‘losses’ is noted, he was unable to provide evidence in support of them. Therefore, no compensation was offered to the resident for that, which was reasonable.
18. The landlord’s framework says that compensation paid to reimburse someone for an item, is calculated on a like for like basis but also takes in to account depreciation. In addition, it says it will pay towards the running of a dehumidifier due to a leak at £5 a day from day 1.
19. The landlord noted the laptop had cost £400 when new, but as it was 3 years old, it was valued at £280.The landlord’s compensation offer was in line with its policy.
20. Although the resident said he did not move back to the property until 1 March 2024, evidence shows the landlord checked the property on 23 February 2024 and it was dry and new carpet had been laid. Therefore, it was ready to move back in to at that point. Having reported the leak on 13 December 2023, it was 72 days that the resident was unable to live in the property.
21. In accordance with the framework, the landlord should pay the resident £5 a day towards the cost of running a dehumidifier. That amounts to £105 to cover the period from 21 December 2023 until 11 January 2024, and £140 for the period from 26 January 2024 until 23 February 2024, when the property was dry. Therefore, the landlord’s offer to pay £245 was reasonable.
22. The landlord’s guidance also suggests a goodwill payment where there have been failings. Aside from compensating the resident for financial losses, it offered him £175 in total for time and the overall impact on him. The landlord’s compensation matrix in the framework states where there had been some inconvenience and distress due to service being below standard, but no permanent impact as is the case here, compensation of between £250 and £699 is reasonable.
23. The resident was inconvenienced for about 2 months, as a result of two leaks. Although he had the benefit of being able to stay in his previous home, which helped ease the impact of the leak, this was still inconvenient as he had to move in and out of the property and lost personal items. However, the landlord did try and put things right and offered compensation for the laptop despite the fact it could have refused the claim on the basis he should have had home insurance. The landlord’s offer of compensation for distress and inconvenience was not in line with its framework, so there was a service failure and compensation should be more than the £175 offered. However, the steps taken by the landlord already means compensation at the lower end of the amount recommended would be appropriate. Therefore, an additional £75 compensation (resulting in £250 in total for distress and inconvenience) would be reasonable and is in line with both the landlord’s and our remedies guidance. The total amount of compensation to be paid, is therefore £775.

26. The landlord’s complaints policy said it should acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and issue a response within 10 working days of it being logged. If escalated to stage 2, a response should be sent within 20 working days of escalation.
27. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses were sent in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. They addressed the issues raised and put forward offers to try and remedy matters. At stage 2 the landlord also offered to reconsider its offer of compensation if the resident provided evidence of losses. Once that was provided, it promptly increased the compensation offered, to try and resolve the complaint amicably. It could not have done this any earlier, as it needed the resident’s evidence, to support his claim for damages.
28. Overall, the landlord complied with its obligations as per its complaints policy and it took a proactive stance to trying to resolve the complaint. Therefore, there has been no maladministration.