Guinness Housing Association Limited (202004732)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004732

Guinness Housing Association Limited

24 June 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 resident complained about the landlord’s response to:

(a) his report of a blocked kitchen drain.

(b) his associated complaint and his request for compensation.

Background and summary of events

Since 2013 the resident has lived in a one bedroom flat which is owned and managed by the landlord. He has a number of medical conditions and has limited mobility.
Although precise dates are unclear, it appears that on 17 April 2020 the resident reported he had come home to find his kitchen floor and living room flooded. He said it appeared the water was coming from the sink backing up. This appears to have been logged as a routine repair by the landlord “as there is no leak or blockage at the moment.” [The landlord’s repairs policy says it will aim to resolve routine (non-emergency) repairs within 28 calendar days.]
When the resident reported the problem again on 20 April 2020 the landlord prioritised it as an emergency and arranged for a plumber to attend. [Under the landlord’s repairs policy it undertakes to respond to emergency repairs – which can include “a flood or leak that cannot be contained” – within 24 hours.] The resident contacted the landlord the following day to report the repair had not been resolved. [The landlord’s repairs policy states if it is unable to complete a repair on first visit it will tell the resident why and what it will do and when to ensure it is resolved.] On 22 April 2020 it logged a further request for emergency call out from the resident reporting “further problem with sink, blockage can’t be located”. At this point the matter was still considered a minor repair issue. A drainage company attended and got the drains running clear so assumed the blockage was resolved. However, on 24 April 2020 the resident reported the problem was ongoing. He said if he needed to leave the property due to the repair he could stay at his mother’s property.
The landlord logged a further report on 25 April 2020 of: “Blockage in sink every time upstairs does washing it comes up into the sink and floods the place. Needs to go and stay with his disabled father. Requires something to stop anything from coming up into his sink while he is gone.” It raised an emergency call out and contractors attended. The same day the resident told the landlord that he had moved in with his parents.
The resident then phoned the landlord on 27 April 2020 for an update as the contractors had said they had been unable to complete the job. On 28 and 30 April 2020 a plumber attended, made inspection holes in the kitchen but was unable to locate the blockage and said a drainage company was needed. On 1 and 4 May 2020 the resident phoned for an update. The landlord told him that the job required access to both his and the flat above, that the drainage company and a plumber were required and this was booked for 6 May 2020. This visit failed to resolve the blockage, however, and another visit was required for which it was understood the contractors would contact the resident.
On 12, 13 and 14 May 2020 the resident phoned to report that every time the upstairs flat did the washing it came up into his sink and flooded his flat. A plumber attended the following day but said it needed further work. On 22 May 2020 the drainage company attended but said he had not been in, to which the resident said he had not been told they were coming.
Stage 1 complaint: Having received no further update, on 26 May 2020 the resident submitted a formal (Stage 1) complaint and in summary said:
1. After five weeks and visits from contractors the blocked drain was unresolved.
2. He had been unable to live at the flat since moving out on 17 April 2020 but had still been paying rent.
3. He was disabled and “this is not helping me at all”.
4. Contractors had made three holes in his kitchen walls and left his cupboards in bits in the course of their work.
5. He wondered when this and his kitchen would be put right so he could move back in.
6. He wanted compensation for the trouble and stress he had been caused and attached details of his contact with the landlord and photos of his kitchen.
7. He was also unhappy the landlord would not install a shower, explaining he was unable to use his bath.
Despite calls from the resident on 27 and 29 May 2020 and 2 June 2020 it seems the landlord was struggling to get an appointment date from the contractors and had escalated the issue with their management. The landlord also heard from its service manager that a reason for the delay was that it had not been able to gain access to other properties in order to locate the blockage but it would address this. It spoke with the resident and explained the position. The landlord’s repairs manager then messaged internally to ask that the resident be contacted as soon as it had a date from contractors and that arrangements be made for access to the other properties “because this is turning into a massive nightmare for all involved” and that he would relay to contractors “how important it is we get this one nipped in the bud…”
The landlord has told the Ombudsman that it did not provide the resident with a written response to his Stage 1 complaint because, at the time of its investigation, it provided its responses by telephone where possible. The landlord’s complaint record states that its Stage 1 investigation had upheld the complaint and resolved it by agreeing to investigate the delay and complete it as soon as possible.
On 5 June 2020 the complaints officer emailed its repairs team for an update saying it was the seventh week the customer had had to spend away from home. On 8 June 2020 the resident called again for an update, and the drainage company attended on 10 June 2020 together with the landlord. They visited the upstairs flat but the drainage company found more work was needed. It had by this point accessed all manhole covers other than one in a neighbouring property which had a shed located over it and so required time to access it. They considered the blockage was under that manhole cover.
On 15 and 22 June 2020 the complaints officer chased the repairs team for an update and it appears access issues persisted. The complaints officer told the repairs team that the matter needed to be resolved urgently, any access issues dealt with and that although the resident had “been very patient and understanding” he was “understandably upset” and “his patience has run out”. He told the resident he would get back to him when he had more information.
On 22 June 2020 the resident emailed the landlord his “Second formal letter of complaint” in which, in summary, he:
1. Complained about the delay in resolving the blockage.
2. Said he was unable to live at the flat and referred to the stress this was causing him.
3. Attached details of his contact with the landlord and photos of the condition of his kitchen.
4. Requested compensation for trouble and stress and said he could not afford to pay to live in two places.
5. Explained his rug had been ruined by the dirty water.
6. Complained about its refusal to install a shower, explaining he was unable to use the bath.
The landlord replied to say the complaint was ongoing and on 26 June 2020 it updated the resident with the action it was taking to gain access to the neighbouring property.
Through July 2020 the resident called and emailed for updates. It seems that in July 2020 the landlord was still having access problems but by 9 July 2020 it had gained access and determined the blockage did not lie under the shed. The drainage company suggested it might lie beneath concealed manhole covers and requested the plans for the drains, which the landlord provided on 10 July 2020. It updated the resident and chased the drainage company on 14 and 20 July 2020 to which the company said it would get its engineers to advise. During this time the landlord contacted the resident about rent arrears, in response to which he said he had not lived at the property since 17 April 2020 and was finding it hard to pay for two places.
Meanwhile on 18 July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord his “Third formal letter of complaint” in which in summary he complained:
1. About the delay and that he was getting into debt having to pay rent on his flat while also paying to live elsewhere.
2. That he had to continue to pay for services at the flat that he could not use, ie satellite TV, broadband and ‘Lifeline’ [a device provided by the local authority that he wore at the flat and could press in an emergency if he fell].
3. That he was also having to pay someone to do his washing, and to get taxis to his flat to wait for contractors.
4. That he would need to replace a carpet and kitchen items and get a cleaner in once the repairs were done. He attached a file of photos and notes of his contact with the landlord.
5. About the discomfort of having to sleep on an inflatable bed.
On 20 July 2020 the complaints officer replied, apologising that the landlord had yet to resolve the drainage problem “to allow you to move back into your home.” He explained it was due to speak with the drainage company that day following their consideration of the drainage plans and would update him later that day. He said compensation could only be considered once the complaint was fully resolved. On 29 July 2020 the drainage company requested access to a number of other properties for its investigation.
The same day the resident called for an update. The complaints officer told him that further drainage investigation was required for which plans were in place. The resident was unhappy with the delay and that he had had to leave his property. The officer apologised and said it had turned out to be a more complex problem that was affecting other properties as well but would get back to him with an update.
On 31 July 2020 the landlord’s plumber attended the drainage issue in the flat above after which he considered work there would also have resolved the issue for the resident, although noted further investigation was needed generally as “there is a long run on the drains”. It had left the neighbour above with instructions that she could use her sink with a plug in it, wash up in a bowl and dispose of the water down the toilet. The services manager reported that the resident’s kitchen was functional apart from a few access holes and “there is nothing to say the kitchen can’t be used as per the instructions we’ve given to [the upstairs flat].”
Between 3 – 10 August 2020 the landlord, drainage company and plumber attended the resident’s flat and fully cleared the blockage. Meanwhile on 8 August 2020 the resident contacted the complaints officer to say he would like his kitchen made good so he could get a cleaner in. He said he could not stay away much longer sleeping on an inflatable bed.
The same day the complaints officer said the drainage company would visit the site later that week “to understand why this blockage occurred and to identify how to stop it happening again.” He said the source of the blockage would be investigated and repaired to prevent a recurrence. He also said he would arrange for the kitchen repairs to be done once the drainage company had reported back and confirmed compensation would now be considered. He said as the drains were now running clear the resident could move back but that he would understand if he would rather wait until after the drainage company’s visit that week. The resident confirmed he would be there for the visit and that although his kitchen drain was unblocked the contractors had implied there remained a blockage somewhere in the system. He said he would need to get cleaners in afterwards to clean the kitchen and cupboards.
On 1 September 2020 the complaints officer emailed the resident to confirm completion of the kitchen repairs on 25 August 2020, leaving just the repainting. He said he had not investigated the issue of a shower adaptation as the resident had not included this in his complaint. He said its aids and adaptations team could assist him if he obtained an occupational therapist (OT) report. Regarding compensation, the officer asked the resident if he had a figure in mind. He also asked the resident for any particular items he thought should be included (eg evidence of how much it cost to have his kitchen cleaned) and that he would make an offer which they could then discuss if he was not happy.
On 8 September 2020 the resident phoned for updates on compensation and the shower adaptation. He referenced a previous OT report about his use of the bath and asked if the landlord needed an updated one as his condition had got worse. On 10 September 2020 the complaints officer emailed him to say it would get back to him about his complaint but advised he get the OT report for the shower adaptation.
On 18 September 2020 and 1 October 2020 the resident chased an update on his complaint and compensation. On 26 October 2020 he obtained a letter from his parents detailing what they had charged him for rent and laundry during his stay. [It is not clear when this was provided to the landlord.]
By 30 October 2020 the resident had been chasing for further updates and it appears he was in rent arrears, with the landlord noting: “Customer has arrears and won’t address as he believes is getting compensation.” On 11 November 2020 the resident called again saying he had had no response from the complaints team.
On 12 November 2020 the resident rejected the landlord’s offer of £250 compensation to which its complaints manager replied to say it would escalate his complaint to its Stage 2 for a full and final review.
Stage 2 review response: On 1 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident explaining, in summary:
1. It had reviewed the delay and compensation and found its initial response appropriate because his flat had not been unhabitable and it had been his decision to leave.
2. The complexity of diagnosing the cause of the problem had contributed to the time taken to resolve it.
3. The presence of its officer on site to assist with access showed its determination to resolve the matter without delay.
4. He had provided no evidence of expense and so its £250 goodwill gesture was fair compensation for his experience.
The landlord has confirmed it issued the response on 2 December 2020, although the resident said he only received it in January 2021 after having chased it via this Service on 18 December 2020. In January 2021 the resident also obtained an updated OT assessment which recommended that rather than install a shower adaptation, as that would not resolve his access issues to the property, that he be considered for a level access property.

Assessment and findings

Repair: It is clear from the evidence that what was initially considered by all involved to be a straightforward routine drainage repair was very soon found to be a more complex issue to diagnose and resolve and that this process took longer than both the resident and the landlord would have hoped.
The resident considers the landlord’s response to the repair was unacceptably delayed and the Ombudsman has considered whether any service failure by the landlord was the cause of this. There is no suggestion the landlord was responsible for the fact of the blockage or that its maintenance in some way contributed to this. The Ombudsman recognises that blocked drains happen, but once it had and was causing the problems reported, the landlord had an obligation under the tenancy agreement to address it.
The expectation for how the landlord will do so is outlined in its repairs policy which states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours in order to make safe the problem and return within a reasonable time to complete the repair. For routine repairs it aims to fix these within 28 calendar days.
The evidence shows the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s initial reports in April 2020 as an emergency because under its repairs policy ‘a flood or leak that cannot be contained’ can constitute an emergency. While this failed to resolve the issue, that was not the result of the landlord failing to respond appropriately at that stage.
By the beginning of May 2020, however, it had become obvious that the blockage was not going to be a straightforward one to resolve and it was at that point there appears to have been a hiatus in the landlord’s response, at least so far as the resident was concerned. From 6 May 2020 to 15 May 2020 the resident repeatedly called for updates but heard nothing and there was then apparent confusion over whether or not he needed to be in for a visit from the drainage company, causing further delay. It was this which appeared to prompt the resident’s formal complaint. The Ombudsman considers the landlord ought to have done more during this time to keep the resident informed of the issues.
Meaningful progress to resolve the repair was then delayed throughout June/early July 2020, initially as a result of contractor availability and latterly because of access issues with a neighbour. The Ombudsman has considered whether service failure by the landlord contributed to the delay here but does not consider that it did so in any significant way which contributed to the overall time taken. The evidence is that the landlord responded appropriately in escalating the problem of contractor availability to management level and while there is some suggestion it could have been more proactive with respect to the access issue the Ombudsman does not see that it was unduly slow to warn of enforced access once its initial requests to the neighbour had failed.
Following this it was a further month before the resident’s drain was unblocked. The Ombudsman has not found the time taken here was the result of a service failure by the landlord. When the concealed manhole cover under the shed drew a blank and it became apparent other properties were likely affected the investigation was reasonably taken more widely to consider if the problem lay under concealed manhole covers. The landlord promptly provided the drainage plans requested and it was reasonable that it await the opinion of the company’s engineers, which it chased. As the Ombudsman sees it, the time then subsequently taken to resolve the repair was the work necessary to unblock the drain, not the result of service failure on the landlord’s part.
Accordingly, the Ombudsman has found that while the repair took considerably longer to resolve than was expected, this was due to a number of issues, not least the complexity of diagnosis, but that it was not the result of undue delay or other service failure on the part of the landlord.
The resident has complained that despite having been told by the landlord that it would take follow-up action to prevent a recurrence of the drainage problem this was not then done and he is worried about the problem recurring. The evidence does indicate that the landlord was concerned an underlying issue could cause a recurrence and that it told the resident as much. It was therefore understandable that the resident was worried the problem might happen again.
In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries on this point the landlord has explained that the drainage company had originally considered the dipping of external paving might indicate that a waste pipe not on the plans had possibly collapsed and that this could be investigated. It said its repairs manager, however, had subsequently taken the view that costly excavation was not necessary. This was because the drains had since been unblocked, the water had subsequently been run in both flats for at least an hour and that there had been no recurrence of the problem since. It said the repairs manager therefore concluded the problem to have been the blockage and therefore did not necessitate further investigation.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident might not be reassured by that decision but, as the Ombudsman sees it, the landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its repairs manager, which took account of the work already done to address the problem, the exercise of running the water and the fact that there had been no subsequent recurrence.
Finally, on the issue of the repair itself, the Ombudsman notes the resident has complained that he continually had to chase the landlord for updates and that it often failed to call him back. The evidence on this point indicates that the resident repeatedly contacted the landlord for updates. These were not always immediately responded to and that was understandably frustrating for the resident. The evidence shows that in the main the landlord was taking action but that information was not being continually relayed back to the complaints officer so that it could proactively keep the resident appraised of progress. This left the resident having to prompt for updates and on occasion this involved having to wait while the complaints officer in turn ascertained the position. That was inconvenient and clearly annoying for the resident and the landlord ought to have been in a position to more proactively keep him updated.
Complaint handling: The evidence of the repeated formal complaints from the resident make clear his increasing frustration with the situation. But they also suggest some confusion on his part as to what was happening with his complaint and having reviewed the evidence the Ombudsman can understand his confusion.
There was no written response from the landlord to the resident’s Stage 1 complaint because the landlord’s procedure [now under review] was to try and resolve a complaint by telephone if possible. As the Ombudsman understands from the landlord’s complaints and compensation policy it will respond by telephone within two working days unless a resident requests a written response. The policy goes on to say if the problem is more complex it will respond within 10 working days and in writing where appropriate. It says it will do so “because we understand that having the details in writing will make it easier to see the full picture.”
As the Ombudsman sees it, on the basis of that policy it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have responded in writing. Not only is there no evidence it made clear to the resident he would need to request its response in writing, but alongside its verbal undertaking to try and expedite the repair there is no evidence the landlord considered and addressed all the various points raised in his written complaint.
In his complaint not only was the resident complaining about the delayed repair, but he was complaining about the consequences of this on him, particularly with regard to having to stay at his parents and incurring inconvenience and additional costs as a result. The landlord’s records do not show what its response was to these or his other points. Its records note it upheld the complaint but again it is not clear on what basis it was upheld; or if it signposted the resident to the next stage of its complaints procedure should he remain dissatisfied. A written response would have focused the landlord on the individual aspects of the complaint, as recognised in its policy and provided clarity to both parties the position and action to be taken on all the outstanding issues going forward.
The Ombudsman recognises that while the repair was ongoing the landlord would not have been in a position to determine when certain follow-up action would be taken or what compensation was appropriate. But as the Ombudsman sees it the resident was entitled to an explanation from the landlord of its position on those matters so as to better manage his expectations going forward. The evidence of the resident’s two further formal complaints suggest that the landlord had failed to make the position clear.
In summary, the landlord’s failure to respond in writing to the complaint, to respond to the individual aspects of the complaint and to signpost to its review stage all represent a service failure in complaint handling. This resulted in confusion, inconvenience and frustration for the resident as he continued to raise further complaints which essentially reiterated his first and included additional information regarding expenses being incurred and inconvenience caused.
In the Ombudsman’s view, those further complaints in June and July 2020 ought to have been accepted by the landlord as request for a review. [Under the landlord’s complaints procedure if a resident is dissatisfied with the Stage 1 proposed solution they can request a review to which the landlord undertakes to respond within 10 working days.]
The landlord’s failure to do so, only acknowledging the need for review once the resident had rejected its compensation offer in November 2020 meant that the resident had to wait until 1 December 2020 for a review of his complaint. That was some five months after the resident had indicated his dissatisfaction with the outcome of his initial complaint and so was significantly outside the landlord’s 10 working day timescale for a review. That was a considerable service failure by the landlord and one which was then compounded by the inadequate nature of the review response itself. [On this point the Ombudsman notes the resident says he did not receive the decision until January 2021 but the Ombudsman has only seen evidence of the dated decision and no evidence either way or when it was sent or received.]
Compensation: Although the landlord’s review reasonably acknowledged the delay had been down to the complex diagnosis of the issue and access problems, its response to the issue of compensation was in the Ombudsman’s view inadequately considered.
The Ombudsman has not found the landlord was responsible for the blockage or the time taken to resolve it, nor was it slow to subsequently make good the repair work or redecoration in the kitchen. On that basis, in accordance with its compensation policy – under which the landlord notes it will not pay compensation if something goes wrong which is not its fault, but that it will carry out repairs to remedy any situation where it is the landlord’s responsibility to do so – the Ombudsman would not consider it appropriate or reasonable to expect the landlord to have compensated for the fact of the blockage itself.
Nevertheless, the Ombudsman has considered what the resident did in response to the blocked drain and whether the landlord’s response to that was reasonable. As the Ombudsman sees it, there are two issues here. Firstly, was whether the resident was reasonably able to stay in the property. This is important because if he was not able to stay he ought not to have found himself out of pocket as a result of moving out. And secondly, if the landlord considered he was able to stay it ought to have made that clear to the resident when he alerted it to the fact that he was going to move out, so as to provide the resident with the opportunity to discuss with it the practicalities of staying, provide him with appropriate support to do so, and thereby prevent the inconvenience and expense of his having moved out.
As to whether the resident had to move out, the landlord said in its review response that the property was not uninhabitable but the basis for the landlord taking this view was not explained and nor is it clear from the evidence. It would seem, however, that it is partly based on the fact that the resident had running water, use of his bathroom and toilet, and its services manager’s opinion at the end of July 2020 that the kitchen was functionable if he adopted the approach it had advised his neighbour to use.
Set against that is the evidence (from the OT reports and the resident’s correspondence) that he has mobility issues resulting in weak upper body strength and stability issues involving frequent falls. In the Ombudsman’s view that would have posed difficulties for the resident in adopting the workaround the landlord had suggested to his neighbour (of plugging the sink, using a bowl and emptying the bowl into the bathroom sink/toilet). In addition to this, the resident was also unable to use his washing machine and owing to his mobility issues the logistics involved in using the kitchen which, judging by the photos, was in a condition of some disruption would have to some degree been difficult for him.
In light of those potential difficulties if the landlord had considered he could stay it ought to have explained that fact to the resident at the outset and explore with him what support he might need. There is no evidence that it did so. Instead, the evidence shows that the resident made it clear from the outset that he considered he needed to move out and why, and then repeatedly discussed with the landlord the impact on him of having to stay away, and that in response the landlord gave every indication that it agreed.
On that basis, the Ombudsman considers the landlord failed take reasonable steps to ensure the resident could stay at the property or failed to explain that in moving out it considered he was doing so through his own choice. Indeed, in so far as compensation was concerned the Ombudsman finds the landlord failed at every stage to manage the resident’s expectations as to the likelihood of paying him the compensation he was seeking. Although it kept explaining it would consider compensation once the repair was resolved, at no point did it make clear what the limits to its consideration of compensation would be. The Ombudsman can therefore understand that the landlord’s offer of £250, would have been both a surprise and a considerable disappointment to the resident.
It is on that basis that the Ombudsman finds that the resident has been put to expense and inconvenience, not as a result of the blocked drain and its resolution, but as a result of the landlord’s failure to take steps to mitigate the impact on the resident of the disruption caused by the blocked drain, both in failing to make clear it did not consider he needed to move out and not exploring with him the support required for him to stay. As a result of this failure, the Ombudsman has considered what compensation ought appropriately to be due. [The Ombudsman notes that under the landlord’s compensation policy it may recompense a resident for actual evidenced loss or expenses incurred as a consequence of its actions or inactions.]
As the Ombudsman sees it, the resident has said he was charged rent by his parents up to 21 August 2020 and has produced a letter from them detailing the fortnightly rent they charged him over the four months he was with them (£160 x 8 = £1280). [Repairs to make good the kitchen damage were completed on 25 August 2020.] He says it was the result of having to make these payments and pay the rent on his flat that has resulted in him accruing rent arrears. As the Ombudsman sees it, the landlord ought to consider reimbursing the resident the rent he paid to his parents – on receipt of evidence from him that this was actually paid – or if that cannot be evidenced to alternatively consider refunding him the rent he paid during the period of the outstanding repair when he was not living at the flat.
In addition to rent payments the resident has explained that because he was unable to use his washing machine at the flat he had to pay to have his washing done at his parents for which they charged him £5 per week (total £80). As the Ombudsman sees it, there would still have been a cost associated with the resident doing his washing even if he had still been at his own flat – for electricity and water. As the landlord is not liable for laundry costs, regardless of where they are incurred, the Ombudsman does not see this was a cost incurred as a result of the resident moving out and so it would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to reimburse the expense of this.
With respect to other ancillary costs the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident was being charged more for wifi while at his parents; nor evidence he was put to additional cost or caused any detriment while not using the Lifeline device while staying with his parents. The Ombudsman does not therefore see it reasonable to expect the landlord to offer reimbursement for this. With respect to the cost of taxis to and from the property the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this cost, but if the resident has evidence it ought to be considered by the landlord which can then take a view as to whether it is evidenced and reasonable.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident raised in his second and third complaint the issue of a damaged rug and other kitchenware that he said had been ruined by the dirty water that had backed up and over his sink and in the cleaning up afterwards. The landlord failed to respond to this aspect of the resident’s complaint and it is not clear what, if any evidence the resident provided in support of it. But regardless, the fact of his having raised it ought to have provided sufficient prompt for the landlord to explain the process to be followed should he wish to pursue an insurance claim against its insurers with respect to any damaged items. Although any decision as to whether a payment was due would ultimately be for insurers to determine, the landlord’s failure to explain how he might make a claim would have further undermined the resident’s confidence that the landlord had fully considered his request for compensation.
Beyond actual expenditure or loss, the Ombudsman has considered the inconvenience and stress the episode caused the resident. The landlord offered him £250 as a goodwill gesture in recognition of his experience. [The Ombudsman notes that under its compensation policy the landlord may offer a gesture of goodwill where it agrees it should have offered a better customer experience.] In the Ombudsman’s view that offer failed to reflect the extent of the inconvenience the landlord’s mishandling caused the resident.
As the Ombudsman sees it, the resident moved out to his parents and had been given no indication from the landlord that this was not a reasonable course of action, but as a result of which he says he slept on an inflatable bed at his parents which, for four months with his medical conditions, would have undoubtedly been uncomfortable. He had the inconvenience of continually chasing for progress when the landlord failed proactively to keep him updated. He had raised a number of complaints, to which he had received an inadequate/unclear response and had waited an unduly long time for a final response. And the landlord had failed to manage his expectations as to the compensation that would ultimately be forthcoming.
In the Ombudsman’s view that represented a considerable degree of inconvenience, stress and disappointment for the resident over a seven month period (from the drain blockage through to the landlord’s final review) which the landlord’s offer of £250 fails to fully recognise. The Ombudsman considers all these aspects of the resident’s request for compensation ought to have been fully considered by the landlord in its review response. Its failure to do so left the resident with an understandable sense of grievance that his complaint and request for compensation had not been given appropriate consideration.
Finally, for completeness, the Ombudsman has considered the resident’s loosely related complaint about the landlord declining to install a shower adaptation at the property. He raised the matter in his initial complaint, this was not responded to by the landlord, and when he raised it subsequently the landlord told him, incorrectly, that as he had not raised it earlier it would not be considered as part of his complaint. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman does not see this oversight by the landlord caused any detriment to the resident as its complaints officer effectively addressed it anyway. He explained that the resident needed to obtain an updated OT assessment to get the matter progressed; which the resident then did. The Ombudsman considers that to have been a reasonable and proportionate response from the landlord to the resident’s unhappiness with its previous decision to not install the adaptation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of a blocked drain.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s associated complaint and his request for compensation.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has found that the landlord responded to the resident’s report of a blocked drain in accordance with its repairs policy and the time taken was not the result of undue delay or inaction on its part. But in responding to the resident’s report the Ombudsman has found the landlord failed to adequately consider whether the resident ought to move out or what could be done to help him stay and thereby avoid the inconvenience and expense to which he was put in moving out.
The Ombudsman has found that the landlord failed to provide an appropriate written response to the resident’s formal complaint, took too long to issue its final review, failed to manage the resident’s expectation regarding compensation in the meantime and that its eventual decision on compensation failed to have adequate regard of all relevant factors.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered:
1. To refund the resident the £1280 rent which he paid to his parents on receipt of evidence that this was paid, or alternatively refund him the rent paid for his flat between 25 April 2020 and 21 August 2020.
2. To make the resident a payment of £700 compensation for the inconvenience, disappointment and frustration caused by its delayed and insufficient response to his complaints and request for compensation. [This replaces its earlier offer of £250.]
3. To write to the resident and explain that should he wish to pursue an insurance claim the process for doing so.
4. To write to the resident to explain the evidence it requires should he wish to seek reimbursement of the cost of cleaning his kitchen and of taxi fares. The landlord should then consider any claim on the evidence and provide the resident with a written explanation for its decision.

Recommendation

It is recommendation that the landlord ensure its staff are aware of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and the need to provide a complainant with the written outcome of their complaint at each stage of the process; and to learn from this complaint with regard to the importance of clear communication in managing a resident’s expectations at the earliest opportunity.