Islington Council (202204676)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204676

Islington Council

26 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation following a power cut in the property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant and has lived at the property since 2012. The property is a ground floor flat in a block. The resident has a number of health conditions which affect her mobility, which have been disclosed to the landlord and the Ombudsman.
  2. On 2 March 2022 there was a power cut to the property, which affected the entire block. The power was restored on 3 March 2022. The landlord sent the resident an insurance claim form on 3 March 2022 which she was told to complete so that she could claim back costs for lost food in her fridge and freezer. She completed this, and the total amount claimed was £90.84. In addition to the fridge and freezer loss, she requested a refund for food on the day. This comprised of £5.50 from a fast-food restaurant and £28.40 from the Co-Op. The resident noted on the form that she is lactose intolerant, vegan, and must eat gluten free food. This meant that the cost of food was more expensive for her than for the average person.
  3. She chased the landlord for this reimbursement on 11 March 2022, 6 April 2022 and 27 April 2022, before making a complaint on 9 May 2022. In her complaint she stated:
    1. She was told to keep receipts from the day and take an inventory of any food which was damaged or wasted because of the power cut. She completed this and sent it off straight away.
    2. She had been chasing this continuously and had no update on when she would receive this money.
    3. It took approximately 18 hours to restore the power, and the electricity provider said that this was due to delays with the Council’s wider works team completing repairs.
    4. Due to her specialist diet, she struggled to replace the food due to the increased cost.
    5. She was tired of having to constantly contact the landlord and receiving no updates.
  4. Internal communications from 17 and 20 May 2022 show that the landlord determined that insurance would not cover the cost of any reimbursements in the block and it would be covered by the repairs team.
  5. The stage 1 response was issued on 24 May 2022 and the complaint was upheld. The landlord stated that:
    1. It was agreed with the ‘homes and communities’ team that the repairs team would cover the cost of the reimbursement.
    2. Its insurer had confirmed that this incident would not be covered as it does not cover unforeseen events.
    3. Having reviewed the documents the resident submitted, it determined that they should have been sent to the finance team and not the insurance team. This was done following the complaint.
    4. Once a decision was made, she would be contacted by the ‘targeted tenancy team’.
    5. The complaint was upheld because of the “lack of communication afforded to her in her endeavours to pursue the claim for reimbursement of her losses as result of the loss of electricity”.
  6. The resident responded to express that:
    1. She was unhappy with this response as she felt misled by the landlord and was given the impression that the reimbursement was guaranteed.
    2. She was unhappy with how often she had to chase it for a response.
    3. She felt that the landlord was unable to provide an explanation as to why she was told the payment was guaranteed and she did not know why she was sent the insurance form in the first place if it was not an insurance matter.
  7. On 14 June 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to ask her for her bank details to enable it to provide payment. However, it was also stated that a decision had not yet been made on whether she would receive the refund. Following a payment of £33.90 made to her the following day, she contacted the landlord on 28 June 2022 to ask why this amount had been paid when the form she completed showed a loss of over £100. She requested an explanation and expressed that she was unhappy with the handling of the case. She emailed again on 6 July 2022 advising that no payment had been made, and that she had sought advice from the Housing Ombudsman. She requested the complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the complaints process.
  8. The landlord responded the same day, asking if the complaint had completed stage 1, as it needed to determine whether stage 2 was appropriate. Following an additional chase from the resident on 11 July 2022, the landlord contacted her on 12 July 2022 asking her to inform the ‘housing feedback’ team why she remained dissatisfied and to advise what would remedy her complaint. She confirmed she was unhappy with the level of compensation given and the lack of communication.
  9. The resident chased further on 27 July 2022 and 17 August 2022, and a stage 2 response was provided on 10 October 2022 following contact from the Ombudsman. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 26 October 2022 explaining that the claim form was sent to the insurance team in error, and the reimbursement had been agreed by another department. Its policy is to reimburse for food that it has receipts for, and this payment was made to her on 14 June 2022. However, as a goodwill gesture it agreed to reimburse the costs of items on her insurance form. A payment of £80.04 was arranged, to be paid to the bank details provided to it previously. It awarded £50 compensation for the delays and asked that the resident send her bank details to it within a month.
  10. On 27 October 2022, the resident responded and said that although she was grateful for the compensation offer, the original figures from her insurance form added up to more than the reimbursement the landlord was proposing. She asked that the calculation be checked again, as she believed that she was owed more money.
  11. On 1 November 2022 the landlord apologised for its miscalculation and informed her that the extra £10.80 would be paid, bringing the total to £90.84 for the listed items and £33.80 for receipted items. It noted that the Co-op receipt also showed non-perishable items, namely toilet roll, however as the payment had already been made, it did not plan to deduct this cost. It felt that the £50 offered for the delay in response was appropriate, and that it had explained previous delays with processing the insurance form.
  12. The landlord informed the Ombudsman on 8 January 2024 that it had no record of the £50 compensation being accepted by the resident, so that has not been paid, nor has the additional £10.80. The resident remains unhappy with the level of compensation offered, the communication throughout the process and the handling of her complaint.

Assessment and findings

  1. While the landlord’s compensation policy does not provide any guidance for reimbursement of food in the cases of power cuts, but it does suggest that compensation should be awarded for ‘time and trouble’. The level of compensation ranges between £100-£300. This type of compensation is deemed appropriate when:
    1. The landlord has not taken reasonable steps to address issues.
    2. The resident has had to pursue their complaint to a higher level of the complaints procedure than should be needed because their complaint has not been investigated properly.
    3. Appropriate remedies have not been offered at earlier stages.
  2. It also awards compensation when there have been delays to services at a rate of £25 for each month after the set timescale for that service. In cases where the resident is found to have suffered distress because of the landlord’s action or inaction, the guideline is £100-300 on average, up to £1,000 in severe cases.
  3. The resident submitted an itemised list of damaged goods, with receipts for the day of the power cut, on 3 March 2022. The itemised list totalled £90.84, with a Co-op receipt of £28.40 and a hot food receipt of £5.50. In full, this comes to £124.74. At the date of this report, the resident has been paid £113.84 in total, though the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it had miscalculated by £10.80. Although it had confirmed that it had the resident’s correct bank details from a previous repayment, it asked her to submit them again to claim the £50 compensation and the £10.80 shortfall. There is no evidence of any reason why the payment for the shortfall could not be made to the same bank account once the error was discovered.
  4. Communication from the landlord was poor with almost no unprompted contact to the resident. This meant that she felt that she had to continuously chase for updates on her reimbursement, in addition to her complaint. Internal emails show that there was confusion between departments in what was being reimbursed, and who was responsible for doing so. It was also acknowledged that the claim had been ongoing for some time. At the time of the power cut, the resident said she was informed that she would be reimbursed for the goods in her fridge and freezer, and the fact that the landlord sent her the form would support that belief. As this was outside of the normal procedure, when the form was sent back it was sent to the wrong department, and then only a partial refund was provided. This led to delays with information being passed to the resident.
  5. The resident has informed this Service that there have been additional power cuts to the building since the events in this investigation. A recommendation will be made at the end of this report for the process to be reviewed, to minimise any future confusion and delays for affected residents.
  6. The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation following a power cut in the property and the associated complaint. The resident has still not received full repayment for the goods damaged during the power cut, and the compensation offered fell short of what we would expect given the length of time taken for the landlord to calculate the correct reimbursement. An order for compensation will be added to the end of this report.

The handling of the associated complaint

  1. The corporate complaints policy has two stages, with responses due in 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. At both stages, acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint must be sent within 3 working days. There was no stage 1 acknowledgement issued to the resident, and the stage 2 acknowledgement was 67 working days.
  2. The landlord offered £50 for delays in the complaint handling. This was in line with its compensation policy, and fair given the delay was 2 calendar months from the end of the expected stage 2 response period of 20 calendar days.
  3. The Ombudsman finds that although there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling, its offer of compensation was suitable redress for its failings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation following a power cut in the property and the associated complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it handled the complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
    1. Within the next 4 weeks the landlord must pay the resident £160.80 comprising of:
      1. £10.80 to fully reimburse her for the damaged goods during the power cut as previously offered.
      2. £150 for her time and trouble during the process of claiming reimbursement for the damaged goods, including the £50 previously offered.
  2. The landlord should confirm compliance, with evidence, with the above order to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following recommendation:
    1. Within the next 8 weeks the landlord should assess its process for reimbursement of damaged perishable goods, to ensure it is clear:
      1. What it will reimburse for and any upper limits.
      2. If receipts are required, and for which items, taking into account it is unlikely that residents will keep historical receipts.
      3. How the resident claims this payment.
      4. Which department handles the reimbursement.
      5. When the payment will be made, by what method, and timescales for processing and payment.