Eastlight Community Homes Limited (202311363)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311363

Eastlight Community Homes Limited

28 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 handling of the resident’s report of the ceiling collapsing.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, who is a housing association. The tenancy commended on 12 November 2007. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord out of hours on 22 January 2023 to report that the ceiling in the spare bedroom had collapsed. The plastering and paper covering on the ceiling had fallen, the wooden structure of the ceiling remained in place. The landlord attended on the same day to make the room safe but was unable to until an asbestos test had been completed. The resident reports she chased the test results on several occasions but was told that the asbestos test results were lost.
The landlord’s contractor attended again on 6 February 2023 to remove the remaining ceiling and clear the debris. The resident noted that the contractor seemed unhappy with the work he had been asked to do and described the resident’s room as “cluttered”. A further visit took place in February 2023 to replaster the ceiling, the resident expressed confusion as she had previously been told this would take place in March 2023.
The resident complained on 15 February 2023. The resident raised the following concerns:
1. The repairs were not carried out in a timely manner.
2. The landlord’s communication was poor and she received several conflicting messages about when it would attend to complete the works.
3. The landlord had assumed when she was available for repairs to take place, the resident reported that she felt her time was not valuable to the landlord.
4. The landlord’s contractors were rude and seemed unhappy to be doing the requested work. One contractor described the resident’s room as “cluttered”.
5. The landlord’s contractors did not have consideration for the resident’s belongings and damage was caused to the resident’s possessions. The resident requested compensation for the damaged items and the cost of redecorating.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 March 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the incident and thanked the resident for her time in making herself available for appointments. It advised the repair had been completed within its repair policy time frames and it was not able to offer reimbursement for redecoration. It offered the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 March 2023 and noted she did not feel that the complaint response was sufficient. The resident reiterated her concerns and requested further compensation. The landlord agreed that the stage 1 response was insufficient and stated it would like to revise its stage 1 response.
The landlord provided its revised stage 1 response on 24 March 2023.
1. It accepted its communication had caused the resident confusion regarding when its contractors were going to visit, it had provided conflicting and incorrect information to the resident on several occasions.
2. It apologised for the distress caused by the delay in providing the asbestos results.
3. The landlord felt that repairs had been completed within its repair policy timeframes.
4. It outlined that the ceiling collapse was unexpected and it did expect that residents should make themselves available for repairs in order to rectify the situation as soon as possible.
5. It was unable to confirm whether the contractors had behaved inappropriately as it did not witness this.
6. The landlord stated it could not see any evidence of damage to the resident’s possessions from the photographs provided and advised its contractors had needed to move items in order to complete the work.
7. It directed the resident to make an insurance claim on her own insurance for the cost of redecorating.
8. It did not increase its compensation offer from its initial stage 1 response.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 March 2023 and on 8 May 2023 to request a stage 2 escalation. The resident noted:
1. She disagreed with the landlord’s describing the ceiling collapse as “unexpected” as the landlord had not inspected the ceiling since the resident moved in.
2. She did not believe the collapse was caused by a leak, as the landlord had stated.
3. The landlord had only provided timescales for its initial response, not the follow up work which was confusing.
4. The ceiling collapse meant could not use that room for her mindfulness activities which had impacted her mental health.
5. A cabinet had been scratched by the contractor placing items on to of it and her paints had been covered in dust when the contractor opened a drawer to place items inside it.
6. She felt further compensation was required for the redecoration and damage caused to her possessions.
7. She wanted the landlord to explain what steps it would take to improve its communication.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 request on 14 May 2023 and responded on 8 June 2023.
1. It outlined the steps it was taking to improve its communication, including replacing IT systems and reorganising the structure of its repair service.
2. It noted that the ceiling collapse was unexpected and affected a secondary bedroom which did not prevent the resident using the rest of the property.
3. It reiterated that there was no evidence to suggest damage to personal items.
4. It directed the resident to make an insurance claim on her home insurance for any damage.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

When the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint, she raised a concern that the landlord’s handling of the issues reported had impacted on her health and mental wellbeing. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit.
The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of the ceiling collapsing.

The landlord‘s repair policy states that emergency repairs will be attended within 24 hours. Routine repairs are defined as repairs where there is no risk to the home, the issue may cause inconvenience but does not adversely affect the use of the home. The advertised timescale for routine repairs is 28 calendar days. Planned repairs are defined as those posing no risk to the resident or the home, the time frame advertised is 90 calendar days.
The landlord first attended within 24 hours of the ceiling collapsing, the contractor stated an asbestos survey needed to be completed before any works could take place. The landlord attended the same day to carry out the survey and on 6 February 2023 to clear the debris and dispose of it. The landlord’s plasterer attended on 11 February 2023 and the repair was completed on 13 March 2023. The total response time was 50 calendar days.
It is not clear from the evidence whether the landlord classed the repair as routine or planned. It originally attended within 24 hours which is within the time frames for an emergency repair. The response time of 50 calendar days is outside of the time frame provided for a routine repair when some inconvenience is caused. This is a failure of service.
The resident expressed frustration with the landlord’s communication. The resident reported that she was given conflicting dates for when the landlord was going to carry out repairs and contractors had turned up unannounced which caused confusion and distress. The resident also stated that she was not given the results of the asbestos survey and was then told the results had been lost which caused her distress because she was worried about her health.
The evidence provided by the landlord shows it received the results of the asbestos service on 23 January 2023 but did not pass this onto the resident. The resident was inconvenienced by needing to chase the landlord on several occasions for the results and was clearly distressed by the potential impact on her health from any asbestos that may have been present. The landlord has stated it does not usually share asbestos survey results with residents. This was dismissive of the resident’s concerns. It was inappropriate of the landlord to not update the resident when she was clearly distressed.
The landlord apologised for the distress caused by its repair communication. It explained that its repairs booking system did not alert residents when repairs were cancelled or rearranged, and members of its staff had given the resident incorrect information. It stated it was looking into ways to improve its communications but did not offer the resident any specific actions it would take or assurances that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
The resident was evidently distressed by the landlord’s communication. The resident reported that she felt like an inconvenience to the landlord, and that her time did not matter because she was expected to be available whenever the landlord wanted to attend.
While there is an expectation on the resident to facilitate the repairs by making themselves available, there is also an expectation on the landlord to give the resident reasonable notice of appointments and of any changes. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will give the resident at least 7 days notice in writing of when it needs to access the property. That it did not, is a failure.
The resident has alleged that the landlord’s contractor made an inappropriate comment about the resident’s property. Although we do not doubt the resident’s testimony, the landlord states there is no evidence that the contractor acted inappropriately. This Service cannot establish any evidence to support the resident’s assertions from the information provided. In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff.
In these circumstances, this Service would expect to see evidence that the landlord raised the resident’s concerns with its contractors and interviewed them to assert what happened. That it did not was inappropriate and a failure. The landlord missed the opportunity to investigate the resident’s concerns and demonstrate it was taking the matter seriously.
The resident reported that some personal items were damaged by the ceiling collapse and during the course of the repairs. This included a cabinet, sewing machine, a duvet, cushions, fabric, and other sewing equipment. The resident also reported that the room required redecorating. Photographs of the room were provided to the landlord. The landlord stated that it has reviewed the photos provided and could not see any evidence of items damaged and advised the resident to make a claim on her home contents insurance.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that where there is a risk of damage to a resident’s personal belongings during a repair, the resident must sign a disclaimer before the work will begin. There is no evidence that the resident was advised of the risks or asked to sign a disclaimer. This failure to follow its policy was inappropriate and did not manage the resident’s expectations.
The resident states she believes the ceiling collapse and resulting damage is a result of the landlord failure to inspect the ceiling during the time the resident has lived in the property. There is no evidence available that the resident gave the landlord any reason to inspect the ceiling previously or asked it to do so. The ceiling collapse appears to be an unexpected event rather than as a result of the landlord’s actions or lack of action.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that residents must arrange their own insurance for contents and personal belongings. It is not clear from the evidence if the resident has made an insurance claim. This term does not restrict the resident from making a claim on the landlord’s insurance where there is damage alleged to have been caused by the landlord. The landlord acted appropriately by referring the resident to make an insurance claim for property damage. It is recommended that the landlord share its insurance details with the resident, if she would like to make a claim.
The landlord’s overall response to the resident’s report of the ceiling collapse was maladministration because:
1. It took too long to complete the repair.
2. Its communication was inappropriate and caused distress.
3. It failed to investigate the resident’s concerns about its contractors.
4. It did not manage the resident’s expectations about damage to her property during the repair.
The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for its poor communication. This Service considers that this amount is not sufficient to redress all the failures identified in this report. The Ombudsman awards £400 compensation, this is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which is available on our website.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case, the landlord’s complaint process took too long, did not meet the Code, and lacked insight into the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s complaint handling policy that was in place at the time of the complaint stages that stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days.
The resident first complained on 15 February 2023, the landlord first responded on 8 March 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 response was vague and did not address all of the resident’s concerns. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 March 2023 to express frustration with vagueness the landlord’s response. The landlord accepted its initial response was inappropriate and reissued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 March 2023.
The Code states that it is not acceptable for there to be more than 2 stages in a complaint process as this makes the process too long and delays access to this Service. The landlord’s decision to revisit its stage 1 decision rather than escalate the complaint to stage 2 was inappropriate and a breach of the Code.
The resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 28 March 2023 and the landlord provided its response on 8 June 2023. This is outside of the landlord’s policy timeframes for a stage 2 response.
Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a failure to comply with the Code. This Service acknowledges that on occasions there will be circumstances that mean a complaint response cannot be provided by the initial time given by the landlord. In these cases, it would be reasonable to expect that a landlord would contact the resident to explain in detail the reasons for the delay. The landlord is also expected to provide a new timeframe whereby the resident would expect to receive a response. However, the landlord did not provide any updates nor reasoning for why it had exceeded the promised timeframe. This was a failure.
The landlord’s complaint handling amounts to maladministration. Its complaint handling took too long and did not follow the steps outlined in the Code. It did not identify its own failures in order to respond appropriately and offer redress. The Ombudsman considers that £200 compensation is reasonable to redress the failures identified.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the ceiling collapsing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failures noted in this determination. A copy should also be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this determination.
Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total compensation of £600. £150 of the landlord’s previous compensation offer can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £400 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation to the ceiling collapsing.
2. £200 in recognition of the complaint handling failures identified.

Recommendations

The landlord should share its insurance details with the resident so that she can make a claim if she wishes to do so.