Gateway Housing Association Limited (202105653)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105653

Gateway Housing Association Limited

11 February 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into his property, and his request for compensation for damaged belongings.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The property is a flat on the ground floor of the building. The resident has stated they have been registered as blind since 2017 and has a long-term health condition which affects his eyesight and breathing.
On 17 May 2021 there was a leak into the resident’s property caused by a burst water pipe. The landlord’s records show that this was out of hours and was treated as an emergency repair. Contractors and the fire brigade attended on the same evening to ‘make safe’ the leak.
The landlord’s records show that the resident called the landlord on 18 May 2021 as he was told that he would need to be temporarily moved from the property by a contractor. The landlord queried whether this was required internally. On 19 May 2021, the landlord called the resident to deliver some dehumidifiers. The resident said he was not at home to allow access as he was staying at a friend’s house due to the damage. He also made the landlord aware of his medical conditions which meant that he was not able to reside at the property. The resident was advised that he would need to contact his insurers in relation to any damaged items and the landlord would arrange for a surveyor to attend the property to inspect the damage and arrange for repairs to be carried out.
The resident asked for a complaint to be raised on 19 May 2021 and explained the following:
1. He believed that the landlord had acted unlawfully in accordance with the Equality Act 2021 by discriminating against him. He did not believe that the landlord had considered his disability when handling the leak into his property.
2. He detailed his vulnerabilities, noting that he was currently homeless and residing in his car due to the conditions in his property, which he felt were not suitable. He added that his current living conditions were affecting his mental health and he was dissatisfied with the level of support offered by the landlord.
3. He said the flood had affected the entire property and destroyed his possessions. He said that he had been injured due to the flood and spent seven hours in A&E being treated. He said that he was told he would be decanted (temporarily moved) from the property but this did not happen.
An inspection of the property was carried out on 22 May 2021. The surveyor found that:
1. The laminate flooring in the living room, hallway and kitchen had been damaged by the leak.
2. There was evidence of dampness to the bottom right frame of the boiler cupboard in the kitchen, and the threshold of the kitchen door was warped.
3. There was no evidence of dampness to the walls and skirting boards in the kitchen or bedroom when tested with a damp meter; the door frames, skirting boards and walls in the living room had dried out; and there was no evidence of dampness in the bathroom.
4. They recommended that the laminate throughout the property was removed, and de-humidifiers were supplied to allow areas to dry and new laminate flooring was installed. The work was arranged for 25 May 2021. The surveyor noted that the work did not require the resident to be decanted but that he was currently staying with a friend because of the leak.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 26 May 2021 and explained the following:
1. It noted that the leak had occurred on 17 May 2021 and had been stopped within three hours by its out of hours emergency repairs team. It acknowledged that the situation had caused the resident stress which resulted in him attending hospital but fortunately no treatment was needed. It noted that the resident had made contact on 18 May 2021 and was advised that it would investigate whether the resident needed to be decanted, but in the meantime the resident had advised they would continue to stay with a friend. A member of staff had offered to drop off some humidifiers on 19 May 2021, but the resident had advised that he was not available to allow access and would not be returning to the property until the flooring had been removed and repairs had been completed.
2. It explained that the laminate flooring was due to be replaced on 25 May 2021, however, the floor was still wet so could not be completed. The contractors had agreed to dry the flooring with dehumidifiers and return the following day to replace the laminate.
3. The landlord confirmed that the leak had been dealt with in line with its service standards. However, its service may have been slightly different if it had been made aware that the resident was registered blind. It said it had now updated its system to reflect his disability so that any other member of staff would be able to tailor its service accordingly.
4. It confirmed that the outstanding repairs to the resident’s boiler and laminate flooring would be completed by 1 June 2021. It also said it would ensure that the electrics were working and turned on. It had found no evidence that it had treated the resident unfairly or had discriminated against him. However, in view of the inconvenience caused by the resident staying at a friend’s house whilst it completed repairs it offered £100 compensation. In addition, it had carried out staff training in relation to record keeping.
5. It confirmed that if the resident remained dissatisfied, he could escalate his complaint to stage two of its internal complaints process.
The landlord’s records confirm that the laminate flooring was replaced on 2 June 2021. The contractors confirmed that there was no evidence of moisture in the skirting boards.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 29 June 2021 to explain that he had not received a complaint response from the landlord. He remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s treatment of him in its handling of the leak. He added that there was damp and mould in the kitchen cupboards following the leak. He wanted the landlord to compensate him for his damaged belongings, rectify the ongoing damp and mould and acknowledge the impact the leak had on him.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 16 July 2021, explaining the reasons why the resident remained dissatisfied. The landlord as asked to escalate the complaint to stage two and respond within 20 working days.
Following contact from the resident, who had not received a response, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 1 September 2021 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage two.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord again on 27 September 2021 as the resident had not received a response. The landlord was asked to respond within five working days.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 29 September 2021 and explained the following:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident and that he felt he had been poorly treated. It confirmed that the leak was attended to within its service standards for an emergency but appreciated that the resident had felt concerned as a result of the incident. It also acknowledged that the resident’s disability may have added to the distress of dealing with an urgent repair during the night.
2. It noted that the resident had requested a decant from his property due to the damage and explained that the decant process required an inspection to confirm what services and facilities had been affected. This would also identify any hazards to the resident and any vulnerabilities and disabilities. Following conversations with the resident, it had updated its records to reflect his disability and worked with him to reduce the impact of the flood.
3. It had attempted to deliver dehumidifiers on 19 May 2021, but the resident was not able to allow access as he was still staying at a friend’s house. A surveyor then attended on 22 May 2021 and confirmed that all facilities and services were safe, there were no apparent hazards, and it was safe for the resident to return home. It confirmed that all work could have been completed with the resident in situ.
4. It confirmed that it had completed a post-inspection of the property on 27 May 2021 and there was no evidence of damp or mould in the kitchen. In view of the resident’s reports, it had arranged an appointment for 5 October 2021 to inspect the areas in question.
5. It said that it did not pay compensation for damaged belongings as a result of incidents such as leaks and recommended that resident’s took out their own home contents insurance. It noted in this case that it had replaced the laminate flooring in the property and offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused by needing to stay at a friend’s house. It increased the offer to £150 to acknowledge the delay in issuing its stage two complaint response.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his complaint. He explained that the skirting boards in the living room hallway and bedroom needed replacing as they were coming away from the wall, the kitchen cabinets underneath the sink and the boiler needed replacing, the floor in the living room, hallway and the bedroom required replacing as it was loose and is uneven, the thermostat and the lighting wires in the living room needed replacing due to the dry wall cracking and being taken down. He also wanted compensation for his damaged personal possessions. The resident also noted that the current state of his property was significantly affecting his mental health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he explained that he was seeking compensation because he felt the landlord had discriminated against him because of his disability. He also stated that his current living conditions were affecting his mental health. Allegations of disability discrimination and personal injury as a consequence are serious legal complaints which must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law. As such, this Service cannot determine whether discrimination had taken place, as this is better suited to a court to decide. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in his property and his request for compensation.

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord would be responsible for repairs needed to internal walls, floors, ceilings doors and frames but not the internal painting and decorating. The resident is responsible for the floor coverings in the property, which includes laminate flooring.
The landlord is responsible for repairs required to water pipes and electrical wiring. Where the landlord is required to enter the property to carry out repairs, the resident would be responsible for allowing reasonable access. The resident is responsible for taking out home contents insurance in case of damage. The landlord will only consider compensation for damage to a resident’s property or decorations if it has occurred as a result of its failure to complete a repair in accordance with its repair policy and obligations.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs such as leaks should be attended to within four hours and complete within 24 hours. Where emergency repairs are required, the landlord should initially arrange for the issue to be made safe, further follow-on works may then be required. Urgent repairs, including those needed to floorboards (where they are dangerous) should be completed within seven days. Routine repairs should be completed within 30 days. For vulnerable tenants, for example those with disabilities, it may treat routine repairs as urgent and urgent repairs as emergencies. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it would consider decanting a resident where the nature of repairs required means that the resident would be at significant risk if they remained in the property whilst works were taking place.
There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its initial handling of the leak into the resident’s property. It is understandable that the unexpected leak into his property caused significant distress for the resident. It is noted that the resident believed that the landlord failed to take into consideration his disability in its handling of the repairs and his request to be decanted. Ultimately, there is no evidence to suggest that landlord had been made aware of the resident’s disability prior to conversations following the leak on 17 May 2021. The landlord updated its records to reflect the resident’s disability following this and asked whether there was any further support it could offer in its final response.
There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had acted unreasonably in its handling of the initial repairs for the leak. The landlord’s records confirm that the out-of-hours contractors attended within four hours to resolve the leak. The landlord then arranged the appropriate follow up surveys and repairs within its policy timescales.
It is understandable that the resident had expectations that he would be decanted if he had been told by a contractor that he would need to be away from the property until it was safe. However, an undocumented statement by a member of staff does not immediately create an obligation for the landlord. It was appropriate for the landlord to then complete a survey of the property as part of an evidence-based approach. Landlords are entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, and accordingly the decision to not decant the resident was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had stayed at a friend’s house prior to the inspection being carried out on 22 May 2021 and offered £100 for the inconvenience caused. This amount was reasonable as a gesture of goodwill due to that inconvenience, given the landlord was not itself responsible for the leak.
It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to contact his insurer in the first instance following his request for compensation as it is the resident’s responsibility to ensure that he had insurance to cover his personal items in case of damage. The landlord would not be expected to pay for the cost of the damaged items as there is no evidence to suggest that the damage was caused as a result of a fault by the landlord. The presence of a leak is not in itself evidence of a failure by the landlord. The landlord’s obligations relate to its actions once it is notified of any repair issue.
Furthermore, it is important to note the landlord was not obliged to replace the laminate flooring, as the resident is responsible for floor coverings and decorations in line with the tenancy agreement. Therefore, the landlord has offered both the goodwill payment, and also redress in kind in the form of any costs associated with the laminate flooring and installation, given these could have been left to the resident to manage.
There was however a failure in the landlord’s repair service after these initial repairs and surveys. The resident escalated their complaint at the end of June 2021. The landlord has acknowledged it then delayed unreasonably in responding to this complaint. This complaint handling is discussed below.
However, the resident raised a repair issue as part of the escalated complaint in June 2021. He reported damp and mould in the property. The landlord’s last inspection was in May, with a comment about the (dry) skirting boards from the flooring contractor at the start of June. Therefore, as there had been a recent leak and a reasonable period of time since the last inspection, any report of damp or mould should have been responded to according to the repair procedure.
The landlord only offered a response to this report in October, as part of the September 2021 final complaint response. This 4-month delay in offering the survey of the reported damp and mould was a failure of the repair service and it has not been acknowledged in any of the landlord’s responses (unlike the complaint process delays, as below).
The landlord has since attempted to attend this survey (after it was re-arranged) at the start of November 2021. The landlord has reported it was refused access by the resident. At that point the landlord has fulfilled the offer of action in its final complaint response. Any future repair reports (and the associated action of lack thereof by the landlord) would need to be first investigated by the landlord through its complaint procedure before it could be assessed by the Housing Ombudsman.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it has learnt from the complaint, for example by ensuring any repair requests that are raised within formal complaints are passed through to the repair procedure. As such it is appropriate that the landlord make a further offer of redress for the delayed survey between June and October. However, any offer also has to take into account that the landlord has gone above and beyond its obligations by paying for the new laminate flooring and the associated installation costs.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a two-stage procedure for handling complaints. At stage one, a response should be issued within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, a response should be issued within 15 working days. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord should contact the resident and inform them of the reasons for the delay and provide a new timescale.
In this case, the landlord has admitted its service failure in failing to respond to the resident at stage two within its published timescales. It offered £50 compensation in view of the inconvenience caused. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and apologising to the resident. The compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. Therefore, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the issue around the delayed complained handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in his property and his request for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in relation to its handling of the associated complaint, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

As a result of the determination above, the landlord has been ordered to, within 4 weeks:
1. Pay the resident (in addition to any offer of compensation already offered) £50 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience of its 4-month delay in investigating the reports of damp and mould.
The Ombudsman would also like to formally recommend that:
1. The landlord pays the resident £150 as previously agreed, if it has not already done so.
2. The landlord continues to try and arrange the inspection of the resident’s property, if it has not already done so.
3. The landlord ensures it has procedures in place so that service requests made in formal complaints are passed to the relevant department in reasonable time.