Harrison Housing (202202677)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202677

Harrison Housing

12 February 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The condition of the property when it was let to the resident.
    2. The landlord’s handling of various subsequent repairs.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint (or aspects of it) will not be investigated.
  2. The Scheme provides in paragraph 42(a) that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”
  3. A landlord is entitled to defend its handling of situations, through its internal  complaints procedure, where appropriate. Alternatively, a landlord is reasonably expected to take the opportunity to acknowledge service failings and offer a resolution where things have faltered. To achieve this, residents are expected to raise issues with their landlord first for it to investigate, and before referring matters to this Service. Essentially, the landlord must be given a chance to ‘get things right’ before consideration is given to whether it has ‘got things wrong’.
  4. In this case, the resident has reported to this Service that at the outset of his licence to occupy his property, there were a significant number of repairs needed relating to refurbishment works carried out whilst it was void. That issue has been considered below. However, the resident has also referred an issue about how the landlord then handled those repairs – how they were approached, scheduled, carried out and whether they were effective and/or of an acceptable quality.
  5. The first issue above, regarding the condition of the property when it was let to the resident, was examined by the landlord through its internal complaints procedure – it acknowledged what had happened and investigated the impact on the resident and his partner. However, how it then handling of the subsequent repairs (complaint point (b)) was not part of the complaint that was considered and the issue has not been through its internal complaints procedure. Accordingly, as set out above, it cannot be considered further in this report.
  6. Any further mentions of this issue in the paragraphs below are for contextual purposes only as they have not been assessed in this report.

Background

  1. The resident is the licensee of a ground floor, 1 bedroom flat situated in an almshouse run by a charitable organisation. The licence start date was 26 July 2021 but the resident moved in on 23 July 2021. The agreement states that the resident will make a weekly maintenance contribution (“WMC”) to the upkeep of the property together with service charges and ‘personal charges’ but does not stipulate that rent is payable. The WMC is approximately 80% of the weekly charge.
  2. The property had undergone significant refurbishment by the landlord’s contractor during its void period. When the move took place, both resident and landlord were unhappy with the quality of the work that had been carried out. The landlord acknowledged to the resident that some items were still outstanding and others needed to be redone/rectified.
  3. There then followed a period during which the outstanding matters were attended to with some repeat attendances when repairs were not sorted out properly first time around. This caused a significant amount of inconvenience to the resident who had to accommodate the various tradespersons who needed access to the property. The landlord reports all outstanding matters were resolved by 4 October 2021 – 10 weeks after the resident moved in.
  4. However, in late August 2021 the occupier of an office situated in the basement below the flat reported to the landlord that there was a water leak apparently emanating from its upstairs neighbour. Ultimately, this was diagnosed as coming from the kitchen at the property and it needed to be stripped out to get at the fault. The resident was decanted from the property for 9 days, from 6 to 14 December 2021, whilst this work took place.
  5. On 19 January 2022 the landlord emailed the resident, thanking him for his patience whilst the various issues were resolved. It offered compensation of £766.53. It had calculated this as 50% of his WMC for the 10 weeks in question, plus 9 days of full WMC and service charges for the nine days of the decant. It noted, however, that there were arrears on the resident’s account to £299.55 and stated it would pay those off with part of the monies leaving a balancing payment due to him of £536.98.
  6. The resident responded on or around 24 January 2022 that he wanted the arrears to be cancelled in addition to the £766.53 offered. The landlord then opened a complaint about the level of compensation and advised the resident the decision could be referred to a panel of Trustees for review – which he agreed to. The Panel increased the compensation to a total of £1,116.53 – that is an extra £350 – to reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience and the time and trouble he had been put to in resolving issues. The outstanding account balance was still to be repaid from that sum and that would leave the resident with £816.98. Effectively this gave the resident the amount he had been seeking over and above the arrears payment.
  7. However, the resident remained dissatisfied with this response and referred the matter to this Service for investigation. He advised that, in his view, the level of compensation that he (and his partner) deserved was £5,000.

Assessment and findings

The condition of the property when it was let

  1. There is no dispute that the landlord is responsible for repairs at this property. Prior to the resident moving in it had instructed its contractor to undertake a significant refurbishment. On Monday, 19 July 2021 the landlord made a site visit and met with the contractor. It was reassured that all works would be completed by Friday of that week (23 July 2021) in time for the resident’s moving in date.
  2. The landlord then visited again on that Friday and its notes indicate that it was “shocked to say the least to see 3 operatives painting and trying to finish off in a hurry, the standard of these works are not acceptable and quite a few things have not been done at all.”
  3. The landlord prepared a list of work that had not been done, together with remedial works to items that had been done but were not to an acceptable standard. The resident moved in, apparently whilst the paint was still wet.
  4. It can be seen from the landlord’s records that it was as disappointed as the resident with the contractor’s performance. It reports that it has since removed that company from its tenders list for future contracts.
  5. As set out above, the resident was left having to accommodate a significant number of attendances by tradespersons whilst the situation was resolved. Further, the leak into the basement below was attributed to a failure in the plumbing work undertaken during the refurbishment.
  6. The landlord is responsible for the condition of the property and the outstanding works/repairs demonstrate that it was not in the state it should have been in at the outset of the tenancy. This represents a failing in the service it offered to the resident. To its credit, the landlord wrote to the resident on 19 January 2022, once all was resolved, acknowledging he had had a difficult start to his residency. Of its own motion it offered compensation, no formal complaint having been made by that point. As set out above, when this was rejected a formal complaint was registered.
  7. Whilst that complaint was about the level of compensation, the figure related back to the impact of the service failing identified, which in turn was examined as part of the internal complaints procedure.
  8. In relation to the failure identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  9. The landlord’s Complaints Policy sets out that it will offer a financial remedy for service failings but does not set out how it is to be calculated. This Service’s Remedies Guidance offers some recommendations on this point. It states that, as a general rule, offers of compensation over £1,000 are only appropriate for the most serious cases where there is a long term impact upon the resident. Where there is maladministration from which the resident is adversely affected but the outcome is limited in time, an award of between £100 to £600 is more likely.
  10. In this case, the landlord took the period(s) of time over which the resident was affected and considered the charges being made to him during that period. For the 10 weeks of interruptions from tradespersons, it offered 50% of the weekly maintenance charges. This offer reflected the position that whilst the resident’s use of his facilities was being disrupted, he was housed – albeit the situation was not ideal. Service charges were still being made, but those services were still available to the resident. This was a fair and reasonable approach to take.
  11. The almshouse where this property is located offers shared facilities including a guest room that residents can have use of for friends and relatives to visit. When the temporary decant took place, the resident was moved into this room. For the 9 days of the decant the landlord offered to forego both the weekly maintenance charge and the service charges. Furthermore, in recognition of the fact the resident had no cooking facilities, he and his partner were given food vouchers of £60 per day. These offers reflected the far more limited facilities being offered to the resident during this period and the approach taken was fair and reasonable.
  12. However, the landlord’s Trustees’ Panel identified that these offers failed to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as well as his time and trouble and offered a further £350 compensation. Taking the situation as a whole, by adding this amount to those already offered produces an overall figure that likely exceeds the Remedies Guidance set out by this Service.
  13. It is our approach that offers of compensation should not be set off against arrears of rent or service charge although it is acknowledged that many landlords maintain this requirement as a matter of policy. However, the arrears in this case were not of rent because the licence does not charge it. The offer of 50% of maintenance charges assumes the resident has paid the other half. The existence of arrears contradicts this. The offer made, net of arrears, amounts to £816.98 which in itself may be deemed a reasonable one.
  14. In conclusion the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this case for the reasons set out above.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord operates a Complaints Policy which sets out a 2 stage process for its complaint handling. It offers a written management response within 20 working days of a complaint being made (stage 1). If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can opt for a senior management review or for the situation to be considered by a panel of three trustees (stage 2 of the process). If the latter is chosen, then the landlord aims to arrange a meeting within 20 working days, depending upon the availability of the trustees. In respect of stage 2 responses, the landlord offers this within 20 working days, but it is not clear whether that time period applies after a panel meeting, or whether a decision is to be expected on the day.
  2. In this case, the resident did not make a complaint. One was opened by the landlord when he expressed dissatisfaction at the compensation offered. The policy sets that term out as the definition of what a complaint is, and the landlord acted appropriately in opening the complaint that it did.
  3. It is noted, however, that no stage 1 response was given. The landlord offered the resident a trustee panel review and sent a copy of its policy to him. Once he had agreed to that the landlord acknowledged his request and confirmed that this represented stage 2 of the procedure.
  4. The request for a panel was made on 26 January 2022 and acknowledged on 31 January 2022. The meeting was anticipated to take place on 1 March 2021 but had to be postponed on the resident’s part. This is marginally outside the timetable envisaged by the policy but that does contain a proviso about availability – the trustees being volunteers.  The meeting ultimately took place on 15 March 2022 with the outcome advised to the resident on 12 April 2022 – that is 20 working days later.
  5. The landlord’s policy is unclear in places – as set out above, and it was not followed (no stage 1) which was inappropriate. From the resident’s point of view, he might reasonably report being confused by what to expect. From the landlord’s point of view, it acted pro-actively. It offered compensation of its own motion (thus pre-empting stage 1), opened the complaint without being asked, and by taking the issue straight to the Trustees’ panel (stage 2), it offered a final decision more quickly for the resident.
  6. Whilst the landlord ought reasonably to follow its policies, no detriment can be identified to the resident from the way this situation was handled by the landlord. The resident has not actually put forward to this Service that he was concerned about the process. Under these circumstances the landlord can still be found to have acted fairly and reasonably. Accordingly, no finding of maladministration will be made.
  7. The landlord is, however, expected to consider the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code and to self-assess its policy and practice in accordance with the code. Its handling of its complaints process and the noted lack of clarity indicates that, at the time the issues occurred, it had not fully considered its Code compliance obligations as a member of the Scheme. The current Code applies to this case. For future matters, it is strongly recommended that it self-assesses against the revised Code which is now available on the Ombudsman’s website and ensures that its policies and practice adequately comply with this statutory document.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of the condition of the property when it was let to the resident.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of various subsequent repairs is outside of the jurisdiction of this investigation.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reoffer the compensation of £1,116.53 (subject to deduction of £299.55 arrears) to the resident (if it has not been paid already), as this reflected failings in its service and the finding of reasonable redress has been made on the basis this offer remains open for acceptance.
  2. The landlord should self-assess its complaint policy and practice in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s revised Complaint Handling Code which applies as from 1 April 2024. The revised Code is a statutory requirement for members of the Scheme and is now available on the Ombudsman’s website.