‘Johnnie’ Johnson Housing Trust Limited (202222109)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222109

‘Johnnie’ Johnson Housing Trust Limited

28 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a sewage leak.

Background

2. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord since 14 September 2022. The resident suffers from anxiety. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The property was a new build, and the developer was responsible for defects in the property at the time of the incident.
3. On 20 October 2022, the resident reported that her shower basin was filling with dirty water. Due to a record keeping and communication issue, the landlord delayed in instructing a repair until that evening. On the morning of 21 October 2022, the resident reported that sewage was overflowing from her shower onto the floor. She raised a complaint and asked for the landlord to repair the issue and clean her property as it was a health and safety concern.
4. The landlord instructed a contractor to clear the drain and when complete, it would instruct a professional cleaner. The landlord assured the resident that it would clean her property when it completed the repair. The contractor agreed to carry out the clean when it resolved the issue. The contractor advised the landlord, late in the afternoon, that it could not complete the clean due to the severity.
5. The landlord called the resident and apologised, advising that it could not get her property cleaned that day, but it could attend to it the next morning and offered the resident a stay in a local B&B. The resident declined the offer and opted to carry out the clean herself.
6. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord upheld the complaint. It confirmed that it delayed in instructing the repair because her new build property was not on its repair contractor’s system. It also confirmed that there was a miscommunication with the developer which caused delay. It advised that it would review its process to ensure that new build properties are added to its contractor’s database, and it was looking into improving its communications with the developer. It apologised for the significant distress and inconvenience caused and offered £100 compensation.
7. The resident remained unhappy and escalated her complaint. She felt £100 was not a reasonable or fair offer. She advised it was distressing trying to communicate with the landlord to get a repair order raised. She had no access to food or water or toilet facilities and was dehydrated because of the failure. The resident acknowledged the landlord’s offer of a temporary decant until the clean was complete, however she felt too ill and exhausted to leave her home.
8. She was unhappy that the landlord did not consider her expenses for cleaning products and to replace damaged personal items. She advised that the flooring company was replacing her flooring soon, and she would have to borrow money from a friend to pay for it. The resident requested overall compensation of £850 for resolution of the complaint.
9. The landlord requested receipts for the damaged items and a quote from the flooring company. The resident did not have receipts but provided a bank statement showing £188.48 had been debited from her account on the same day. The resident provided a quote from the flooring company of £624. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord upheld the complaint. As a resolution, it agreed to re-imburse the resident for her expenses of £188.84, offered £100 for distress and inconvenience, and agreed to pay the flooring company directly to replace her floor.
10. The resident advised the landlord that it was satisfied with the offer and asked for £912.48 to be paid directly to her. The landlord advised that it would only pay the flooring company when it completed the work. When the resident brought her complaint to this Service, she remained unhappy with the compensation offer and she felt that the landlord should pay the money for the flooring direct to her.

Assessment and findings

11. The landlord’s compensation procedure refers to its repairs category. Major leaks due to defective plumbing is an emergency repair and has a target timescale of 24 hours. The landlord’s compensation procedure states that “compensation does not have to be of a financial nature. It can also take the form of other practical action to amend for loss of service of a failure in it.”
12. Its guidance for offering compensation sets out award levels in relation to the severity of the impact on its resident.
    1. Low severity – £0-50
    2. Medium severity – £50-100.
    3. High Severity – £100+ 
13. The landlord does not dispute that its failure adversely affected the resident. In its stage 1 complaint response it refers to the significant distress and inconvenience caused. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of this Service to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. This Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
14. When the resident escalated her complaint, she advised that her flooring company was replacing the flooring soon and she would have to get a loan to pay for it. The landlord’s offer to replace the flooring would have put the resident in the same position had the incident not occurred. The landlord’s offer to replace the flooring was reasonable in the circumstances.
15. It is evident that the landlord’s failure had a significant adverse impact on the resident and heightened her existing anxiety. In her complaint escalation she advised that she was overwhelmed with distress and had no access to water or toilet facilities while the repair was taking place. The landlord assured her throughout that day that it would clean the sewage but then advised it could not complete the clean until the next day which caused further distress. The landlord accepted that the incident caused significant distress and inconvenience in its complaint response.
16. The landlord’s guidance for an impact of medium severity is “Where the event leading to the claim is clearly an injustice to the resident and the service has markedly failed to meet the required standards” and allows for compensation offers of £50 to £100. While the landlord’s compensation offer of £100 does align with its compensation policy, it does not reflect the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance which recommends a figure of £100 to £600 where a failure has adversely affected the resident.
17. This Service finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a sewage leak. This is because its compensation offer for distress and inconvenience was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation. An order has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
18. It is recognised that the landlord appropriately acknowledged its failure and took steps to put things right. When it became aware that its contractor could not complete the clean it offered the resident alternative accommodation until the clean was complete. While it is unfortunate that the resident felt unable to take up this offer, it was a reasonable offer in the circumstances.
19. The landlord also appropriately reimbursed the resident for replacement of personal belongings and made a reasonable offer to replace her flooring. It also reviewed its processes to reduce the likelihood of the same failures reoccurring. But for these actions this Service would likely have made a finding of maladministration.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a sewage leak. 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

21. It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord pay the resident compensation of £300 for the distress and inconvenience identified in its complaint investigation. If its previous offer of £100 has already been paid to the resident, it can be deducted from this amount.

Recommendations

22. It is recommended that the landlord reiterate its offer to replace the resident’s flooring.
23. It is recommended that the landlord review its compensation policy in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (attached).

https://thehousingombudsman.sharepoint.com/disputeres/DS%20and%20DR%20Policy%20Manual/08.%20Dispute%20Resolution/04.%20Guidance%20-%20Remedies.pdf