Derby City Council (202402676)

Background

1. The resident lives in a first floor flat. After a fire in her property in March 2024, she raised concerns about the support provided by the landlord. She asked us to investigate as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint and how it dealt with her claim for compensation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The support offered following a fire in the resident’s home.
   2. The resident’s concerns about the cause of the fire.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of support offered following a fire in the resident’s home.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the cause of the fire.
6. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord offered appropriate support following the fire.
8. The landlord used appropriate evidence to consider the cause of the fire and explained its decision on loss of belongings to the resident clearly.
9. There was a delay in the landlord’s stage 1 response, and it did not address all issues raised during the complaint process.

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.

What we did not investigate

10. The resident has told us that she has concerns with how the landlord handled her move to temporary accommodation following the stage 2 response. She also told us she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of repairs to her garage. We may not investigate issues which have not been raised and responded to within the complaint process. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of these, she may wish to pursue a new complaint with it.

What we did investigate

11. The resident’s outstanding concerns are about the support the landlord offered in helping her clear the property, its offer of temporary accommodation and her request for compensation.
12. Following the fire, the landlord had to carry out significant repairs. It said the resident needed to clear some of her belongings to allow full access before it could complete the repairs. The landlord provided the resident with storage and in an email dated 28 March 2024, it confirmed the resident would be able to move her items.
13. It was reasonable and in line with the tenancy agreement for the landlord to ask the resident to clear the property for access to allow it to complete the required repairs. It was appropriate that it provided storage and confirmed the resident could move her items.
14. Between March and April 2024, the landlord’s notes show it spoke with the resident about clearing the property several times. On 19 April 2024, the resident said she needed over a month to complete the clearance, as she was working on her own. On 25 April 2024, the landlord told the resident about options to help remove damaged items, including permission for a skip or waste collection service. It said this would be at her cost.
15. The landlord contacted the resident and offered help with clearing large items on 5 July 2024, following the stage 2 response. It said the resident explained she was not ready yet, and it agreed she would contact them if she needed support.
16. The evidence reflects a delay in clearing the property between May and July 2024, which impacted the start of repairs. While there was no requirement for the landlord to clear the property, it missed an opportunity to offer support to the resident earlier than it did. This was a shortcoming in the landlord’s actions. However, as the resident declined this help in July 2024, it is not clear that this has impacted the outcome in this case.
17. Due to the repairs needed, the tenant could not stay in the property following the fire.
18. The information provided by the landlord shows it confirmed the resident had somewhere to stay on the date of the fire. It checked this 3 further times between March and April 2024. On 25 April 2024, the landlord said it advised the resident to let them know if her situation changed and she needed temporary accommodation.
19. It was appropriate that the landlord checked the resident had alternative accommodation to stay in following the fire, and it was positive it advised the resident that the offer would remain open during the repairs. The landlord’s decant policy was introduced in June 2024. Although there was not a policy at the time of the complaint, the actions taken by the landlord were reasonable and in line with its later policy. We have not seen any failings in its approach to temporary accommodation.
20. The resident said the landlord did not provide any compensation to support her after the loss of her belongings. The landlord’s policy says that for loss or damage to personal belongings, it will direct customers to their home contents insurance provider.
21. We have considered the landlord’s decision on loss of belongings further below. However, we would not usually expect the landlord to provide compensation for loss of belongings where they were not found to be at fault.

22. The resident and landlord dispute the cause of the fire. The resident believes that a faulty shower caused the fire.
23. The landlord considered whether the shower was the cause of the fire. The fire service provided reports and concluded that the fire was accidental and caused by a light fitting overheating, and the landlord used this information as the basis of its decision to not accept liability.
24. The landlord’s records show it included the shower and light fittings in its electrical safety checks. It carried out checks in 2014, 2018 and 2023, and the outcome of these checks were satisfactory. The landlord has evidenced it appropriately completed any repairs noted during these checks. We can see that the checks also recommended improvements. We have not seen evidence that the landlord completed these but the checks still classified those items as ‘satisfactory’.
25. The landlord carried out a stock condition survey on 19 February 2024 which did not identify risks in the bathroom or shower. The landlord acted in line with its policy and relevant code of practice to carry out checks at least every 5 years, and complete repairs noted in this.
26. The landlord did not provide compensation, and it said it would not support a claim for loss of belongings. It referred the resident to make a claim through her home contents insurance. It was reasonable for the landlord to use information from a specialist service in its decision, and it clearly explained its approach to the safety checks. We have not seen any failings in the landlord’s actions.
27. The resident has asked for compensation for the loss of her belongings, and for the impact of the fire on her. We have not seen evidence which suggests the fire was caused by the landlord’s failure, or that there were failings in its actions after the fire. It would not be fair to order the landlord to provide compensation for the loss of the resident’s belongings or the distress caused by the fire without evidence to show it was responsible for this.

28. The resident raised concerns about support offered by the landlord during the complaint process. At stage 1, she said the landlord had given her no help following the fire. On 30 April 2024, an MP also raised an enquiry to the landlord, and said the resident was looking for help and support. The landlord responded to the MP on 24 May 2024 and said it had dealt with the resident’s concerns through its complaint process.
29. However, in its stage 1 response, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns around the lack of support it offered. As this was a key element of her complaint, echoed by their MP, it was inappropriate that it failed to comment on it.
30. During the stage 2 investigation, a councillor contacted the landlord on 17 June 2024 and said the resident did not feel the landlord had treated her fairly, and she felt vulnerable and unsafe. The landlord responded to the councillor and outlined the steps it had taken to help. This was appropriate.
31. In its final response, the landlord said the resident also raised concerns that the only help she had received from the landlord was storage for her items. In response, it offered help with moving large items, but did not explain if it had upheld this part of the complaint.
32. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that the landlord should address and provide a decision on all points raised in a complaint. The landlord did not act in line with this in its handling of the resident’s concerns about support, despite the resident, MP and councillor raising this during the complaint process.
33. As such, the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the resident’s concerns through its complaint process. This was a failing, and it left the resident without a clear answer, and may have delayed the landlord offering help clearing items (as mentioned above).
34. The Code says the landlord should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to them within 10 working days. If it needs an extension, it should tell the resident, and the extension should not be more than 10 working days without a good reason.
35. The resident made her first complaint on 3 April 2024. The landlord told the resident it needed an extension on 7 May 2024, 23 working days later. This was not appropriate as there was a delay of 8 days in the landlord informing the resident of this.
36. The landlord explained it was waiting for a report from the fire service to make its decision on the complaint and gave a new response date of 21 May 2024. It responded on 15 May 2024, within the extension timeframe. It was reasonable for the landlord to request the extension, and it explained the reason for this.
37. The resident escalated her complaint in a letter dated 13 May 2024 (prior to the stage 1 response). The landlord said it received the complaint on 23 May 2024, and it emailed her that day to confirm she wanted to escalate the complaint. It extended the response time on 24 June 2024 and explained it needed further information to respond. It sent its final response on 3 July 2024. This was reasonable and in line with the Code.
38. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its response or its failure to respond to all concerns in its complaint responses. We have made orders to put this right.

Learning

Complaint handling

39. The learning for the landlord is to ensure it responds to complaints fully and within the timescales set out by the Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

40. The landlord’s records were appropriate in this case.

Communication

41. The landlord’s communication was appropriate in this case.