Great Yarmouth Borough Council (202412872)

Background

1. The resident was experiencing problems with water leaks in his property and complained when the landlord failed to find a permanent solution to them. The landlord accepted its service had fallen below a reasonable standard and agreed to move the resident to a new property. It also offered compensation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of water leaks.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress which satisfactorily resolved the resident’s complaint about its handling of his reports of water leaks.
4. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of water leaks.

5. There were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the leaks. It acknowledged these, offered the resident a new property, and provided reasonable compensation and reimbursement of some of his expenses.

The resident’s associated complaint.

6. The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s earlier expressions of dissatisfaction as a complaint, and it delayed in providing its stage 2 response.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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

7. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate issues which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident has stated he was aware of water leaks from 2015 onwards. However, there is no evidence he raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when he became aware of the issue. For that reason, we will not investigate this issue going back to 2015 as raised by the resident. This report will concentrate on events from February 2023 onwards when the landlord noted outstanding repair issues on a visit to the property. This was 12 months before the complaint was made.
8. The resident complained to us that his health has been affected by the landlord’s actions (or lack of action). If he believes the landlord’s actions or inaction have affected his health it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. It is best for the courts to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice. We have not, therefore, investigated this further.
9. The resident complained to us about the insurance payout he was offered. However, we can only investigate what the landlord did or did not do in respect of its housing activities. We have no power to investigate how the local authority handled the resident’s insurance claim as that is not such an activity. Accordingly, we have no power to investigate this element of the resident’s complaint.

What we did investigate

10. The evidence shows a history of leak reports by the resident and actions by the landlord to investigate and try to resolve them since at least February 2023. On several occasions there were visits to the property, but no follow up actions for weeks or months, and nothing explains these gaps. The scale and nature of the leaks and their impact appear to have grown over the year, and the resident explained to the landlord how distressing and frustrating the ongoing issues were becoming. Ultimately the resident wanted to be rehoused as he no longer felt able to cope with the disruption and had lost confidence in the landlord’s ability to find a permanent solution.
11. At the end of November 2023, the landlord agreed to permanently move the resident and started looking for another property for him. In the meantime, on 13 December 2023, it offered the resident a temporary move whilst works were carried out, but he declined. However, by 18 December 2023 the situation had deteriorated to the point where the landlord decided the property was uninhabitable without major works being carried out. The resident was moved to a hotel that day and then to a new property on 21 December 2023.
12. In its complaint responses, the landlord accepted that its service fell substantially below the standard it aimed to offer. There is no evidence that the repairs were outside of the landlord’s control and the length of time being taken to try to resolve the issues significantly exceeded all the landlord’s repair timescales. The landlord’s acknowledgement was, therefore, both important and fair.
13. By way of resolution the landlord agreed to the resident’s rehousing request. It offered him a new property very quickly and arranged and paid for the removal of his belongings. It was not bound to do this. It was entitled to carry out the major works needed, return the property to a habitable condition, and require the resident to move back in.
14. The resident said his utility bills had increased because of the leak, and he asked for a contribution of £200 in his complaint, which the landlord agreed to. He also asked for some expenses to be paid whilst he was at the hotel, which the landlord agreed at £112. Finally, the landlord offered compensation of £500 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
15. The resident’s experiences over the year were clearly frustrating and inconvenient. Nonetheless, the reimbursements, compensation and the house move offered were in line with both the landlord’s and our compensation and remedies guidance. They were appropriate to the circumstances of this complaint and the impact of the landlord’s failings. Accordingly, the landlord provided suitable redress to resolve the complaint.

16. The landlord’s complaints policy of March 2023 applied to this complaint. It set out a 3-stage process. The first stage involved an initial investigation with the 2nd stage operating as a review. If the resident remained unhappy, they could ask for a director review as stage 3.
17. Complaints were to be acknowledged within 5 working days with replies being given in 10 working days for stage 1 and 20 working days for stages 2 and 3. There was no provision for an escalation request to be acknowledged. This process did not comply with our Complaints Handling Code (the Code) and neither did the policy’s definition of a complaint. The landlord has now adopted a revised policy, dated 1 April 2024 which does comply with the Code on these points.
18. The landlord failed to comply with its policy in this case. Its stage 2 response was 15 working days late.
19. Further, the resident had had contact with the landlord on 19 and 20 June 2023 and 16 and 24 October 2023 when he had expressed clear dissatisfaction with the service he was receiving. The landlord should have taken these contacts to be complaints. It failed to do so, and consideration of the inevitable complaint which followed was significantly delayed overall. The resident was left without a resolution and was put to the time and trouble of having to repeat his concerns.
20. An order for compensation has been made which is based on our compensation guidance and which reflects failings of the scale and nature determined in this case.

Learning

21. The Code sets out how to recognise a complaint by underlining that it does not need to be made in writing or use the word “complaint” to be valid. The landlord should refresh its knowledge of the Code on this point.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s records were incomplete and therefore difficult to follow. It should ensure that clear and accurate documentation is maintained, particularly regarding monitoring outstanding repairs and their completion. Our spotlight reports on complaints about repairs and knowledge and information management can assist with this.

Communication

23. Delays, poor communication and lack of ownership featured in this case. The Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on complaint handling and on Attitudes, Respect and Rights offer guidance on how to effectively communicate with residents. The landlord should consider these reports.