Clarion Housing Association Limited (202116086)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116086

Clarion Housing Association Limited

29 June 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 is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of flooding in the property.

Background

2. On 12 July 2021, there was a flood at the property that damaged and contaminated the resident’s belongings with sewage water. The resident and her family were left waiting for several hours outside of the property while the landlord attempted to arrange temporary accommodation. Due to an acknowledged error on the landlord’s part, there was a delay in arranging accommodation for that night. On 15 July, the resident attended the property to remove personal goods after, she said, having been advised to do so by the landlord. The resident subsequently questioned this advice as she and other household members became ill after doing so.
3. During the time that the resident was temporarily decanted to a local hotel, the landlord acknowledged that its communication with her did not meet a satisfactory standard. This resulted in the decant process taking longer, with the resident remaining in the hotel until 2 August 2021. The landlord also acknowledged that there were delays in having the flooded property inspected.
4. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 24 July 2021, stating that she was unhappy with its handling of the out of hours emergency flooding issue, and the lack of communication she had received. The landlord gave its formal response on 12 August 2021; it offered explanations for its acknowledged failures and apologised for the ‘stress and inconvenience caused’. It also offered the resident £75 in ‘recognition of the issues that were involved’ in the resident’s complaint.
5. The resident was dissatisfied with the response and requested escalation of her complaint to stage two on 7 September 2021. The resident requested £20,616.62 in compensation for all the lost items, for which she provided a list of itemised goods that had been damaged by the flood. She also said that the whole issue had caused a great deal of stress.
6. The landlord gave its final response on 15 October 2021. Again, it acknowledged its failures and apologised for the inconvenience caused. Although it is not clear when, the resident had also raised concerns that there was a delay in receiving vouchers to cover the cost of living whilst temporarily away from her home, and that she did not feel she had been given the correct amount. The landlord addressed this in the final response and confirmed that it had paid the correct sum, which was £191.68 for 12 to 29 July 2021, and a further £120 for 29 July to 2 August 2021. The landlord also increased the compensation offer to £175. This was broken down as £25 for the delay in its stage two response and £150 as a discretionary offer for the inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

7. Section 4.21 states that awards of £50 to £250 can be made for ‘Failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact’.
8. The landlord’s decant policy states that ‘[The landlord] may reimburse up to £15 for each adult and £10 for each child, per day for households who have to stay in a hotel or bed and breakfast and do not have access to cooking facilities’.

Scope of investigation

9. The resident has referenced how landlord advice to collect her belongings from the flooded property impacted her health, causing herself and her family to become ill. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
10. The landlord’s final compensation offer included an offer of £25 for its delayed final stage response. As the resident has not requested the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s complaints handling, this issue has not been referenced any further. It is noted however, that such an amount is proportionate to the delay in providing the response.
11. This investigation has progressed based upon the information made available by the landlord. However, it is noted that key information has not been made available. For example, there is no record of the resident’s initial complaint, nor is there any information available prior to 16 July 2021 (four days after the flooding took place at the property). It is essential that landlords retain clear, accurate and easily accessible records to inform their decision making and provide an audit trail after the event. If a complaint is investigated, this Service will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, this Service may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a flood in the property

12. The resident reported that she lost several goods due to damage and contamination from the flood. By consequence, the resident has requested a sum of £20,616.62 to compensate her for these lost/damaged items from the landlord. This had been calculated by creating an itemised list of possessions that had been damaged by the water. The landlord’s insurer, in responding to the claim made for costs relating to these possessions, did not identify that the landlord was responsible for the flooding having taken place. However, the insurers decision is separate and distinct to any findings made here by the Ombudsman.
13. The Ombudsman is not concerned with issues relating to negligence of liability in the way that an insurer would, but rather with the landlord’s repair/maintenance responsibilities under the terms of the occupancy agreement and any relevant legal obligation. In this instance, there is no evidence that the flooding resulted from any landlord failure to maintain the property as it is clear from the evidence that external drainage was unable to cope with an unprecedented amount of rainfall. This resulted in the flooding at the property, rather than any failure on the landlord’s part to keep the property in a reasonable state of repair.
14. As such, the questions that the Ombudsman is required to answer is whether the landlord complied with its repair responsibilities and whether it acted appropriately in its attempts to resolve the resident’s inability to remain in the property due to the impact of the flooding.
15. By consequence, the resident’s considerable request for compensation due to the value of the goods that were damaged on the day of the flooding sits outside the remit of this investigation. The Ombudsman is unable to link the damage to these belongings to any service failure of the landlord and therefore is unable to order the landlord to pay compensation to reflect this. The resident does however have the option of progressing a claim with her own contents insurance provider in this respect, if she has not already done so.
16. Following the resident’s reports of the flood in the property on 12 July 2021, the resident said that her and her family were left waiting for several hours outside of the property for the landlord to arrange temporary accommodation for the night. Normally, the landlord would be expected to send someone to assess the situation and report back to the relevant agents with information regarding the severity of the issue, and whether a temporary decant was needed. This would have initiated the process to have the resident placed in temporary accommodation for the night, whilst the landlord arranged a decant for the resident.
17. However, the landlord explained in its stage one response (12 August 2021), that once its contractor’s out of hours contact centre had been informed of the flood, there was a delay in having somebody attend the property. The landlord did not explain what had caused this delay. Given that the resident had been informed of the situation, which involved 2-3ft of sewage water within the property, the contractor should have treated this with the utmost urgency as not only was it a threat to the property, but also a potential health hazard due to the unsanitary conditions of the water.
18. Once the contractor had attended the property, it failed to contact the relevant staff members to inform them of the situation, and instead contacted a different department. The landlord said that this led to the ‘delay in arranging temporary accommodation for the night’. Although this was a fault on the part of the contractor, it acts under the delegated responsibility and authority of the landlord. The landlord is therefore responsible for any acts or omissions on behalf of the contractor. Additionally, it is the landlord’s job to ensure that its contractor’s staff are aware of the correct procedures to follow in urgent events such as these.
19. The resident and her family were placed in a hotel as temporary accommodation between the night of the flood (12 July 2021) and 2 August 2021. This was an excessive amount of time for a family to be living in temporary accommodation, and potentially avoidable. The landlord explained in its final response (15 October 2021) that the delay was because ‘after the first night of [the landlord] placing [the resident] in hotel accommodation, [the landlord’s] Customer Support Team did not maintain contact with [the resident]’.
20. As well as delaying the resident and her family in moving into a more suitable temporary property, the lack of communication with the resident after what was a difficult experience for herself and her family, could have generated a feeling of uncertainty for the resident. This would have been further exacerbated by the landlord’s delay in sending out a surveyor to assess the damage caused to the property. As it was already a stressful situation for the resident, being unsure of the extent of damage caused to her property would have caused further stress and anxiety.
21. Had the landlord maintained contact with the resident and her family, and sent a surveyor within a reasonable time, it would have conveyed a sense of urgency and an indication that the landlord was doing everything it could to help the situation, and thus achieve a resolution to the issue. Additionally, keeping the resident informed would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations and improve trust between the resident and the landlord, further strengthening the tenant/landlord relationship.
22. In the landlord’s final response, it is made clear that the resident had raised concerns regarding the decant vouchers offered. The resident believed that there was a delay in receiving them, and also that it was the incorrect sum. The resident believed that she was entitled to a set sum of £40 per day to cover the cost of living whilst in temporary accommodation. The landlord’s website states that if the landlord is unable to find the resident a hotel with food ‘[the resident will] receive £15 per day for each adult and £10 for each child’. The wording here is more definitive than the policy document which states that the landlord ‘may reimburse up to…’ the sums noted online.
23. The landlord’s Decant Policy states that ‘[The landlord] may reimburse up to £15 for each adult and £10 for each child, per day for households who have to stay in a hotel or bed and breakfast and do not have access to cooking facilities’. The landlord confirmed in its final response that its customer support team had reviewed the payments made and confirmed that it had ‘made payments covering receipts received from 12 July 2021 to 29 July 2021, at a maximum of £40 per day totalling £191.68’. The landlord also said that it had given ‘Just Eat’ vouchers covering 29 July 2021 to 2 August 2021, totalling £120.
24. Without the receipts, this Service is unable to verify that the actual amounts paid by the resident had been reimbursed to her. However, £191.68 worth of food over 18 days would amount to roughly £10.64 per day for a family of three. Given that the landlord’s Decant Policy allows for up to £40 per day, and as the eighteen-day stay in a hotel was, in part, due to the landlord’s communication failures, this Service does not agree that the amount reimbursed represents a reasonable sum. It would have been both fair and reasonable for the landlord to use its discretion to increase to pay more than the receipts that had been provided, to better reflect the difficult experience of the resident, and the resulting stress and inconvenience it had caused.
25. Additionally, the resident noted that regarding the fact that she had to keep receipts ‘[the resident] didn’t know this and most of the receipts were thrown away’. There was no evidence that the landlord had informed the resident that the receipts for her time in temporary accommodation must be retained. It is a failure on the landlord’s part to not keep the resident informed of key aspects of the decant process. It is unfair to assume that the receipts would be kept, and by not informing the resident of the need to retain the receipts, the resident had missed out on potential financial help from the landlord. This should have been communicated to the resident on the night of the flood, when being moved into the hotel. The landlord’s failure to do so is further indicative of its failures in communication.
26. In all the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it both fair and reasonable for the landlord to increase the reimbursement payment to the maximum available under its policy. This reflects the resident’s inconvenience and distress whilst temporarily absent from their home, plus the confusion over the retention of receipts. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered to pay the difference between the amount already paid for the 18 days and the maximum amount payable for the same period – this amounts to an additional £528.32.
27. The resident also raised concerns that she had been advised to enter the contaminated property on 15 July 2021, in order to retrieve personal belongings. The resident suggested that this had caused illness to herself and her family. As mentioned in the ‘scope of investigation’, this Service can not make judgments on the causation of or liability for health issues, however, this Service is able to consider how the landlord responded to these claims.
28. The landlord addressed this in its final response. It noted that one of its agents visited the property on 15 July 2021. Upon his arrival he saw that the resident was at the property. The property had not yet been professionally cleaned and therefore was still contaminated. In its final response, the landlord said that it had been ‘unable to establish’ who advised the resident to attend on 15 July 2021 but assured that it would have been done in good faith. This further highlights the landlord’s communication failures. All agents dealing with the resident should have been made aware that the property hat not been professionally cleaned, and that it remained a potential health hazard to the resident.
29. Upon leaving the temporary accommodation, the resident and her family were decanted into a vacant flat within the same building. It was appropriate for the landlord to decant the resident into the same building as this minimised the change in lifestyle that would potentially arise from moving into a different property. Trips to work and school remain the same distance, and the resident remains in an area that she is familiar with. It is unclear if the resident is still residing in this decant property and if so, when the work is estimated to be completed. However, it is clear that work to clean and repair the property began on 30 July 2021.
30. In the absence of any detailed information about the repairs taking place at the property, it has not been possible to determine any service failure with the landlord’s response to the flooding issue from a repairs handling perspective. It is clear that the landlord acknowledged its repair responsibility, took steps to temporarily decant the resident whilst works took place and then, when it became apparent that works would take an extended period, it arranged suitable alternative accommodation in the same building. Works to resolve a major flooding incident will often prove extensive and therefore entail a lengthy delay in fully resolving any issues. In this case, given the lack of clarity over the works and the time that has elapsed since the flooding incident, it is ordered that the landlord provide a written update to the resident, confirming when works will be completed at the property, if this has not already happened.
31. In recognition of the acknowledged service failures in communication, delays in arranging accommodation, and stress and inconvenience caused, the landlord offered £75 compensation in its stage one response. Following the resident’s dissatisfaction, this was later increased to £150 in its final response (plus a further £25 for a late complaint response). The landlord also apologised to the resident and informed her of the lessons it had learned from her complaint.
32. Whilst the landlord’s apology and confirmation of lessons it had learnt were appropriate, the amount of compensation it offered was not, in the Ombudsman’s view, reasonable or proportionate to the level of detriment experienced. The household were delayed in being placed in temporary accommodation initially, then were left in temporary accommodation for an extended period, with both issues resulting from acknowledged landlord failure. Given the serious nature of the flooding that took place, including the damage to the resident’s belongings and reports of illness, it was essential that the landlord ensure as comfortable and straightforward a process as possible. Instead, the resident experienced delays, confusion and a lack of communication. In all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers a compensation payment of £400 to reflect the resident’s experience in this time, this will be payable in addition to the additional reimbursement costs as detailed above.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a flood at the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

34. The landlord is ordered to pay £928.32 in compensation, broken down as follows:

1. £528.32 as additional reimbursement of daily living costs whilst resident in temporary accommodation.
2. £400 to reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience that resulted from the landlord’s service failures.
3. The above amount to include the £150 compensation offered for these same service failures during the complaints process.

35. The landlord to provide written confirmation to the resident (and this Service) as to the actual or expected completion date for any works to the property.
36. The landlord to evidence compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

37. It is recommended that the landlord updates its Decant Policy on its website, to reflect the wording used in its actual Decant Policy. Additionally, the policy should make residents aware that they must retain any receipts during their stay in temporary accommodation.
38. It is also recommended that the landlord carries out a formal review of its record keeping practices to ensure that it keeps correspondence relating to complaints for a reasonable length of time and is able to provide such information to this Service upon request.