Home Group Limited (202009145)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009145

Home Group Limited

20 September 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of a leak and the associated remedial repairs.
   2. Response to the resident’s request for compensation for the carpet, which was damaged by the leak.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy agreement for the property, owned by the landlord.
3. On 19 March 2017, prior to signing the tenancy agreement the resident signed a property disclaimer, accepting responsibility for the repair and maintenance to the non-standard fitments in the property, which included all carpets. The terms of the disclaimer confirm that the landlord does not have responsibility for the repair or replacement of the non-standard fitments. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is to keep in good repair the drains, gutters, and external pipes.
4. The landlord’s repairs guidance describes an emergency repair as an issue that poses an immediate risk to a resident’s health, safety, or security. It aims to send a contractor within six hours, and complete repairs within 24 hours. 
5. The guidance provided on the landlord’s website explains that it considers replacing carpets and flooring to be the resident’s responsibility. It also states that residents should arrange to have contents insurance.
6. The landlord’s complaints policy states that claims for injury or damage to personal belongings, property or homes are dealt with as insurance claims.
7. The resident submitted a claim to the landlord’s insurer for the damage to the carpet. In accordance with paragraph 35 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service will only consider complaints about the actions or omissions of a landlord who is a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. As the insurer is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we cannot review a complaint concerning its decision on a particular claim. 

Summary of events

8. On 19 June 2020 the resident reported a leak of sewage water into their kitchen.  The landlord’s plumber attended the same date however was unable to resolve the issue. An emergency follow on repair order was raised and the contractor attended on 20 June 2020 and cleared the blockage to the sewer pipes that caused the leak.
9. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 June 2020 to report concern that the property was contaminated. They also informed it that they had submitted a claim to the landlord’s insurer. They contacted the landlord again on 7 July 2020 and said that they had attempted to clean the carpet, which was affected by the sewage water, however they could not resolve the issue with the smell. They explained that they wanted the carpets removed and wanted the landlord to inspect the cupboards which had been affected by the water.
10. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 September 2020 to raise a complaint about the way the landlord had responded to their reports about the damage caused by the leak. They said that, despite having carpet cleaners attend, they could not remove the smell from the carpets, and believed the smell from the carpet was a risk to their health. The resident also informed the landlord that their claim to the insurer was not successful. The information provided by the landlord, confirms that a formal complaint was not raised at the time.
11. The resident submitted a further complaint to the landlord on 24 September 2020. They explained that the carpet had been affected by the sewage water leak, which was not caused by any fault of their own. They said that they had made efforts to get the landlord to resolve the matter and expected the landlord to resolve the issue in a reasonable time. They confirmed that their insurance claim had been rejected and set out that they wanted the landlord to:
    1. Undertake cleaning to address the smell of the sewage.
    2. Restore the kitchen to the condition it was in before the leak.
    3. Replace the carpet in the living room, as it was soiled and could not be restored to the condition it was in prior to the leak.
12. The landlord recorded a stage one complaint and sent the resident an acknowledgment. It attempted to call the resident on 30 September 2020, to discuss the complaint but was unsuccessful. It followed this up with an email to the resident and confirmed that its surveyor wanted to attend and inspect the damage, on 2 October 2020. It asked the resident to confirm if the appointment date was suitable. The resident confirmed their availability for the survey and questioned why it had taken the landlord four months to take action to address the damage caused by the leak. They also queried whether the landlord considered that the sewage leak, and remaining smell, had an impact on their health.
13. The inspection took place on 5 October 2020, as the landlord could not gain access on the original date agreed. Following the inspection, the landlord raised an order for the kitchen floor to be renewed and, a repair to plaster board damaged by the leak. The works were completed on 21 October 2020 and 9 November 2020 respectively. 
14. On 12 November 2020, the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint. It confirmed:
    1. That it met its timescales when responding to the leak. It explained that it attended when the leak was reported on 19 June 2020 and cleared the blockage which caused the leak, the following day.
    2. Following the surveyor’s visit on 5 October, the works for the kitchen flooring and plasterboards had been completed and the resident informed they were happy with the works completed.
    3. That it considered the resident’s case and had offered £150 towards the cost of replacing the carpet, which they declined. It said that it could not offer further compensation as it responded appropriately after the leak was reported. It advised the resident that they could submit a claim to its insurance team, if they felt the landlord were responsible for the damage and provided information about how they could do so.
15. On 23 November 2020, the resident responded with a stage two complaint. They confirmed that they had already been in touch with the landlord’s insurers. They wished to escalate the complaint as the landlord did not offer to cover the full cost of the carpet replacement.
16. The landlord provided its response to the stage two complaint on 15 January 2021. It:
    1. Apologised for the delay in providing the response and explained this was related to staff resource issues as a result of the pandemic.
    2. It acknowledged that the follow-on works took longer to complete than it expected and offered an additional £50 compensation for this. It explained that it could not cover the full cost of the carpet replacement, as this is expected to be covered by a resident’s Home Contents Insurance.
    3. Said that the carpet was gifted by the previous resident and therefore considered as the resident’s responsibility to insure, maintain, or replace.
    4. It said that it repaired the leak promptly, completed plasterworks to the kitchen and replaced the kitchen flooring as a gesture of goodwill.
    5. It acknowledged that the resident’s insurance claim had been rejected and confirmed that it was not able to overrule the decision.
17. The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 8 March 2021, as they remained unhappy with the outcome of the complaint. They said that to resolve the complaint they wanted the landlord to replace the carpet.

Assessment and findings

18. The Ombudsman understands that experiencing a leak of this nature and the subsequent disruption caused by the repairs following the leak would have been distressing and upsetting for the resident. The Ombudsman’s role in such cases is to consider how the landlord dealt with the leak and whether its actions in response to the leak were reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
19. The landlord’s response to the leak was in line with its repairs policy. It attended to the report the same day and completed the repair within 24 hours.
20. The resident made the landlord aware of their concerns about contamination from the sewage water in the property from 30 June 2020. They contacted the landlord again on 7 July and 8 September 2020 and reported that the carpet and cupboards had been affected by the water and requested the landlord attend. The landlord did not attend the property until 5 October 2020, nearly four months after the resident raised concerns.
21. After the inspection took place, the repairs identified were promptly raised on 6 October 2020, and the resident was informed what works were being carried out. The landlord has not provided this Service with details of its non-emergency repair timeframes so we cannot assess whether the repairs were completed in line with its standards once they were raised. However, we note that the landlord made a finding that there was a delay in completing these works, at stage two.
22. When the landlord responded to the complaint, it confirmed that it addressed the leak in accordance with its policy however, at both complaint stages, it failed to recognise the delay in it completing the inspection of the property, following the resident’s initial report of concern.
23. The landlord’s property handbook does not detail what action the landlord will take to clean and dry a property following an ingress of water. However, under the tenancy agreement, it does have a responsibility for carrying out emergency repairs, such as the sewage leak reported in this case. Given the nature of the repair, it is expected that it would have attended the property in good time following the leak, to assess whether it had a responsibility to carry out any associated remedial works.  In this case, the resident made three requests for such an inspection, which did not take place until four months after the leak itself.
24. The tenancy agreement does not mention who, between the parties, has responsibility of floor coverings, such as carpets. It also does not state any advice or obligation on the resident to arrange contents insurance. However, on the landlord’s website it explains that residents should arrange contents insurance and that residents are responsible for cleaning and replacing carpets and flooring. In addition, by signing the property disclaimer, the resident accepted responsibility for the repair and maintenance of all carpets in the property. 
25. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that the landlord has no responsibility to maintain or replace floor coverings such as carpets and, it addressed the leak promptly. Its offer of £150 towards the cost of the carpet was fair. Furthermore, despite not having an obligation to maintain and repair floor coverings, it agreed to replace the kitchen flooring as a gesture of goodwill.
26. It was also appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with information on how they could submit an insurance claim, as its complaints policy indicates that this is where claims of such nature are directed.
27. At stage two, the landlord found there was a delay in the follow-on works and offered compensation for this. However, it did not consider the delay in responding to the resident’s request for an inspection of the property. As it took almost four months and the resident had to contact the landlord on more than one occasion, this impacted on the time taken for the follow on works to be identified and completed.

Determination (decision)

28. In respect of the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the leak and associated remedial repairs, in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, I find that there was a service failure.
29. In respect of the complaint about the response to the compensation request for the carpet, in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, I find no maladministration. 

Reasons

30. The landlord attended to the leak promptly. It acknowledged that there was a delay in it completing the follow on works, however, it did not address the fact that the resident had made several requests for an inspection, and it did not act on these requests. Its failure to inspect within a reasonable time after the leak occurred, contributed to this delay in the completion of the follow works.
31. The landlord had no obligation to maintain or, replace the floor covering. Its complaints policy also confirms that claims for damage to personal belongings or property are dealt with as insurance claims and it was appropriate to refer the resident to its insurers for this. Despite this, it offered the resident a discretionary payment for the carpet.

Order

32. In recognition of the above finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the leak and associated repairs, I order that the landlord pay the resident £100, within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

33. That the landlord, within four weeks of the date of this report, pay the resident the £200 it offered the resident as a gesture of goodwill towards the replacement of the carpet and for the delay in the completion of the remedial works, if this has not already been paid.