Evolve Housing + Support (202012898)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012898

Evolve Housing + Support

26 July 2021

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 refers to:
1. The landlord’s handling of a leak in the building.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for his damaged items.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
4. The resident’s concerns that the landlord had been negligent and his claim for damages.

Jurisdiction

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states:
1. The Ombudsman will not consider 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.
In his correspondence to this Service, the resident has accused the landlord of being negligent in its handling of the leak which subsequently damaged his possessions. The Ombudsman cannot determine liability for damage to his personal possessions, including DJ equipment. This is because such claims are normally a matter for insurers or the courts to decide. We will, however, consider whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures and consider any inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the landlords handling of the leak.

Background and summary of events

The resident was a licensee who had a licence arrangement to occupy a room within the property which is maintained by the landlord. The resident moved out of the property in February 2021. The property is comprised of separate flats and the resident occupied a room within a flat situated in the basement of the building.
The landlord’s records show that a leak from the ceiling was reported by the resident’s neighbour at 1:41am on 15 January 2021. The night staff member on duty reportedly attempted to find the stopcock in the garden soon after. At this stage, the staff member witnessed the resident using his DJ equipment in his room and asked him to turn the music down. They made five calls to colleagues between 1:50am and 4am for support in resolving the leak. The on-call manager was called for additional support. At this stage, the resident’s DJ equipment had become damaged and was moved to the property office for safekeeping. At around 5am the on-call manager arranged for an emergency plumber to attend the property. The plumber stated that they could not attend until 8am. They subsequently attended and cleared the blocked rainwater gully. It was established that the cause of the leak was due to a build-up of wet wipes in the drains which had caused a blockage.
A further leak was reported around 3pm that day, the contractors found that the drain was full of water again and arranged for the blockage to be removed the following day with a pump. The landlord offered to arrange for the resident to be moved to another site temporarily but this was declined. The contractors attended on 16 January 2021 to unblock the drain and remove the water with a pump. Dehumidifiers were placed within the property and the landlord arranged for the excess water to be removed from the flats.
On 16 January 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and asked it to compensate him for the damage to his belongings following the leak. He provided a list of items which were damaged including his bedding, bed and mattress, his DJ equipment, various speakers and electrical equipment, a laundry basket, three large suitcases, two rugs and other items.
A deep clean of the flats was completed on 19 January 2021 and the redecoration works needed following the flood were completed on 22 January 2021. The landlord ordered the resident a new bed, mattress and bedding that day.
The landlord’s records show that an internal email was sent on 25 January 2021 detailing the resident’s complaint and the actions it had taken so far. It confirmed that it had authorised the resident to take the newly purchased furniture with him when he moved out of the property, as he had bought his own when he moved in. It was unsure as to whether he had initially been given permission to remove the landlord’s furniture from the room. It confirmed that it had attended the resident’s room on 21 January 2021 and the DJ equipment did not appear to turn on (but it was not familiar with the equipment so could not verify this). Whilst messaging the landlord, the resident accidently sent a voice note in which he stated that he was selling DJ equipment that was fully functioning. The resident had then deleted the voice note and explained that this was sent in error as he was selling separate parts to a friend.
The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 26 January 2021 and explained the following:
1. It confirmed that its licence agreement stated that it had no liability for any of the licensee’s goods in the premises or in the common parts. It stated that its customers were encouraged to have their own contents insurance which could be used in these circumstances. It explained that although the resident had said that he had permission to dispose of the landlord’s furniture items, this was not usually permitted. If it allowed its customers to dispose of its furniture, it would need to purchase two sets of beds and other furniture for all residents who moved in.
2. It explained that the voice note the resident had sent to the office mobile had confirmed that the DJ decks and mixer were in good working order. It would therefore not compensate the resident or contribute towards replacing these items. It stated that the resident’s key worker had confirmed that the speakers were both working so it would not offer compensation for these items.
3. It offered a goodwill gesture of £200 to help the resident replace his laundry basket, suitcases, 2 box chests of drawers and a rug. It confirmed that the resident would need to provide his bank details for this to be provided.
The resident emailed the landlord that day and asked for a call back as he felt he was being mistreated by the landlord’s staff and said he would be taking legal action.
The landlord responded on 28 January 2021 and confirmed that it had now completed this investigation into his complaint. It explained that it had a two-stage complaints procedure; stage one was completed by the resident’s service manager and the complaint was escalated to stage two as he remained dissatisfied. It confirmed that the resident could contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident responded the following day and explained that he did not feel the landlord had provided a stage one response. He had been told that the service manager would be sending all information relevant to his complaint directly to the area manager for investigation. He confirmed that he was not told at this stage that the landlord would not contribute towards his damaged items.
The resident arranged for his DJ equipment to be inspected by a professional company on 27 January 2021. It was found that the equipment was not working and the parts were beyond economical repair. On 1 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and attached an email he had received regarding his DJ equipment and a quote for a replacement. He believed that the landlord should reconsider its decision not to reimburse him for the cost of his equipment as its decision was based on its assumption that it was. He confirmed that he had been selling used parts which were in good working order in the voice note he had accidently sent to the landlord. On the same day, the landlord confirmed that it had concluded its internal complaints procedure and its decision could not be appealed further internally.
Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 4 March 2021. The landlord was asked to review its complaint response as the resident was concerned that the compensation offered was lower than it should have been; he felt that the landlord had assumed that his DJ equipment was working when it was not.
The landlord issued a review of its stage two response on 5 March 2021 and explained the following:
1. It confirmed that its decision had not changed regarding replacing or compensating the resident for his damaged equipment. It did not hold any liability for any of the resident’s personal items and goods in the premises as per the license agreement that he signed.
2. The resident’s key worker had previously advised that the speaker and fan were in working order and it would not compensate the resident for these. It confirmed that it was still happy to offer a goodwill gesture of £200.
3. It explained that it would investigate the resident’s concerns about its staff and the handling of the leak separately, outside of the complaints procedure.
The resident sent a series of emails following this response that detailed the impact on his mental health. He did not understand why the landlord had asked for the cost of his DJ equipment and not changed its decision.
The landlord responded and said that it had now provided its outcome. It confirmed that it would contact the resident’s care coordinator so that he could discuss his mental health further. It stated that it would not respond to any further correspondence by email or telephone as this had been passed to his care coordinator.
The resident sent a further series of emails following this response and explained that it did not say in his licence agreement that he would need to insure his expensive belongings. He added that he had initially raised concerns about the way the leak was handled and did not understand why the landlord was only investigating this matter now. He asked the landlord to review its CCTV footage to determine the record of events on the day of the leak and asked for further information about when his room was cleaned as he did not feel this was done properly. He also commented on the lack of stage one response.
The landlord’s records show that a further email was sent by the resident around this time detailing his record of events. He explained that he and his neighbour had informed the night staff of the leak at 10:30pm on 14 January 2021. The member of staff checked to see where the water was coming from and the resident was told that, despite the bathroom and his neighbour’s room being flooded, it would be ok and the morning staff would resolve the issue. He added that around 3:30am he had gone to the bathroom and stepped in water in his room and that is when the member of staff acted. He believed that the landlord had known about the water in his room but not taken any action to address this; he had removed his DJ equipment and stored this in the manager’s office as soon as he was aware of the flood in his room. He stated that he believed the landlord was liable for the damage caused as it could have been prevented if the landlord had called the emergency services straight away rather than waiting for five hours.
Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 9 March 2021 and asked it to address the resident’s concerns related to its handling of the leak in the property and the damage caused to his belongings.
The landlord issued its final response on 15 March 2021 and explained the following:
1. It acknowledged that the resident had further concerns that the night staff members did not respond to a leak in his room for five hours and he felt that the damage to his personal belongings would not have happened had the night staff taken action to resolve the leak when it was first reported.
2. It noted that the resident had said that he and his neighbour had reported the leak at 10:30pm on 14 January 2021, but that nothing was actioned until 3:30am. It explained that its records confirmed that it was the resident’s neighbour who had reported the leak at 1:41am on 15 January 2021. It had taken witness statements from all staff involved with the leak and had found that the member of staff on duty followed the correct process by investigating the leak to establish where the water was coming from. At this time, they had asked the resident to turn his music down and continued to attempt to find the stopcock in the garden of the property.
3. The landlord concluded that, at this stage, the resident was not affected by the leak as he was still using his DJ equipment. It added that if he had been affected, he would have vacated the room. Following this, the member of staff had contacted the night concierge manager who attended and called the out‑of–hours plumber. They were informed that the plumber could not attend until 7:30-8 am. Sometime between 2 am and 4 am the resident had moved his DJ equipment to its office as his room had been affected by the leak.
4. The landlord confirmed that the member of staff had taken the correct action in line with its maintenance reporting policies by calling the night manager. The night manager also followed the correct procedure by contacting the out of hours service to arrange for the leak to be attended. It noted that other staff members were on site to support at the time and the leak was resolved on 15 January 2021. It had also offered the resident alternative accommodation but this was declined. It also explained that it could not check the CCTV footage as this was only stored for 28 days in line with GDPR regulations.
5. It had found that the correct procedures were followed in a timely fashion by the staff member on duty when the leak was reported at 01:41am on 15 January 2021. It confirmed that its decision regarding financial compensation had not changed as it did not hold any liability for the resident’s items in the premises as per the licence agreement. It confirmed that it would still be willing to offer the resident £200 as a gesture of goodwill.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said he considers that the landlord’s handling of the leak and his request for compensation had impacted his mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the leak and the resident’s medical conditions. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of a leak in the building.

The landlord’s on–call policy and procedures confirm that staff should call the on‑call manager in circumstances concerning fire, floods or serious damage to the fabric of the building or where the advice of a manager is required. It also states that the member of staff on duty would be responsible for ensuring on–call managers are kept informed of incidents where waiting until the start of the working day would be detrimental to service continuity. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours. It defines an emergency repair as one that is immediately hazardous to the occupant or building and cannot be left unattended overnight.
The landlord acted appropriately by resolving the initial leak in line with its emergency repair timescales. There is no evidence to suggest that its actions were unreasonably delayed in this case and it has provided evidence which demonstrates that it attempted to initially resolve the issue in-house before contacting its out of hours contractors, who said that they could not attend until 8am on 15 January 2021. Following this initial resolution, a further leak was reported and the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for its contractors to resolve the issue within a further 24 hours, in line with its emergency timescales. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident alternative accommodation in view of this.
The resident’s version of events differs from the landlord as he states that the leak was reported at 10:30pm on 14 January rather than at 1:4am on 15 January 2021. He has also expressed concern that if the landlord had contacted the out of hours services sooner, his items would not have been damaged. The Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence from the time of the complaint to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. In this case, the landlord has acted appropriately by taking statements from various members of staff at the property and reviewing its records to establish what happened. The member of staff on duty kept detailed records of steps taken to resolve the leak. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had been made aware of the leak prior to the report at 1:41am, however the leak was resolved within 24 hours regardless, as per its repair policy timescales.
The landlord has also explained that the resident was witnessed using his DJ equipment following the report at 1:41am and it was reasonable for it to conclude that the resident was not affected by the leak at this time. If the resident had been affected by the leak at this time, it would be unlikely that he would be using electrical equipment within his room. We cannot comment on what would have happened if the landlord had contacted its out of hours plumber sooner as they might still not have been able to attend the property and resolve the issue immediately.
In summary, there has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the reported leak. The landlord acted in line with its obligations by resolving the initial leak within 24 hours. It has also demonstrated that it took appropriate steps to contact the relevant staff members and sought support in resolving this issue in line with its policies.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation.

The resident’s licence agreement states that the landlord has no liability for any of the licensee’s goods in the premises or the common parts. There has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for compensation. In line with the licence agreement, the landlord would not be responsible for compensating the resident for any items it had not purchased itself.
It was reasonable for the landlord to replace the resident’s bed, mattress and bedding, because these items would usually be provided when a resident moved into the property. It noted that the resident had removed the landlord’s furniture and replaced it with his own. There was no evidence that the resident had been given permission to do this, however it was reasonable for the landlord to agree that the resident could take the new furniture with him when he left the property in view of this.
It was also reasonable for the landlord to offer a goodwill gesture of £200 to support the resident in buying new furniture items and a suitcase. The landlord would not be obliged to offer this in view of the licence agreement; however, it was reasonable for it to do so given the overall inconvenience caused to the resident.
The resident has explained that he was not told that he needed to insure his own possessions. The Ombudsman notes that there is no documentary evidence of this being explained to the resident as part of his sign-up. However, this does not undermine the licence agreement or mean that the landlord should compensate the resident or replace these items. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its licence agreement and house rules document to ensure that residents are adequately informed of the need to insure their own items against any damage.
It was reasonable for the landlord to review the evidence the resident had provided in relation to his DJ equipment, as it had previously been under the impression that this had been working. There is little information to suggest this was initially the case and it would have been helpful for the landlord to make sure that the equipment was working the case before issuing its complaint response following the voice note message. Ultimately, the fact that the resident’s DJ equipment was not working, would not mean the landlord should change its decision regarding compensation as it did not have liability for the resident’s items.
The resident has confirmed that he believes the landlord is liable for the damage as he feels this could have been prevented. As above, this is not within the jurisdiction of this Service to consider, and the resident would be advised to seek legal advice on pursuing a claim for damages should he wish. Overall, the landlord’s goodwill gesture of £200 was reasonable given the inconvenience caused.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should provide a response within ten working days. A resident can request a review of the complaint if they are not satisfied with the stage one response or believe that the procedure was not followed correctly. At stage two an investigation should be completed and a response should be issued within 20 working days. At each stage of the complaints procedure an outcome letter should be given to the resident. Complaint responses must include information about how and when a complainant can request a review of the response from the landlord, and how and when they can refer a complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.
There has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint. The landlord said that stage one of its complaints process was completed by a service manager but has not provided evidence to suggest that this was the case. There is no evidence of a complaint response being issued until the landlord’s stage two response on 26 January 2021. In line with its complaints policy, the landlord would be expected to provide this response in writing, we would therefore have expected to see some evidence of this. The resident also disputes receiving a stage one response; accordingly, it is reasonable to presume that the landlord did not provide one.
In some cases, it may be reasonable for a complaint to be escalated to stage two before a stage one response is issued. However, the landlord would be expected to explain why it had made this decision. In this case the landlord has not provided any explanation as to why the complaint was not responded to at stage one. By failing to address the resident’s complaint at stage one, the landlord did not allow the resident sufficient opportunity to respond to its position and has not acted in line with its complaints policy. The landlord also failed to signpost the resident to the Ombudsman in its complaint response which may have led him to believe that his complaint could be escalated further internally.
The resident was able to contact this Service who asked the landlord to review the complaint given the new information, however, the landlord had the opportunity to identify this service failure prior to the involvement of the Ombudsman. This resulted in an unreasonable level of involvement by the resident and is likely to have caused him inconvenience.
The landlord would also be expected to address each aspect of a resident’s complaint at each stage or raise a separate stage one complaint for new issues. It is noted that the resident raised new complaint issues about the landlord’s handling of the leak after its stage two response. The landlord explained that it would investigate this matter outside of its complaints procedure in its response on 5 March 2021. It is ultimately up to the landlord to determine how it should approach these new issues, but given the resident’s frustration, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to either address the resident’s concerns within its current complaint or raise a separate complaint about the new issues.
In view of the errors identified, the landlord should offer the resident compensation in recognition of any inconvenience caused because of its handling of the associated complaint. The landlord should consider carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that complaints are handled in line with its complaints policy and procedures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of a leak in the building.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for compensation for his damaged items.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately by fixing the initial leak within 24 hours, in line with its repair policy timescales. There is no evidence to show that the landlord had unreasonably delayed this process.
In line with the licence agreement, the landlord would not be liable for the resident’s possessions within the premises. If the resident disputes this, he may wish to raise a claim for damages. The landlord’s goodwill gesture of £200 was reasonable given the circumstances.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it followed both stages of its complaints policy. This led to an unnecessary level of involvement by the resident who needed to contact this Service before the complaint was reviewed.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident £300, comprised of:
  1. £200 as previously offered as a gesture of goodwill.
  2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its licence agreement and house rules document to ensure that residents are adequately informed of the need to insure their own belongings against any damage.
The landlord should consider carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that complaints are handled in line with its complaints policy and procedures.