London Borough of Brent (202121420)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121420

London Borough of Brent

5 April 2023

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 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 request to be compensated for damages from a water leak that flooded her property.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat, and she has mental health vulnerabilities, of which it has been made aware.
3. In February 2021, there was a water leak into the resident’s property from the flat above hers. In March 2021,she arranged a private damp survey of the property, which found no damp there but did find water damage to the walls and ceilings from the leak. On 12 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord’s legal department about making a claim on its buildings insurance for water damage to the walls and ceiling of the property.
4. The resident was advised that, as the landlord was responsible for the property’s walls and ceiling, this was not something that compensation would be paid to her for, as it would just repair any damage. However, it provided her with the email address for such insurance claims at her request. On 28 May 2021, the resident made a claim on the landlord’s buildings insurance for £15,000 for the water leak damage to the property’s walls and ceiling, also saying that there had been a previous leak in October 2020 and condensation and damp there since 2016.
5. During July and August 2021, landlord’s loss adjuster discussed the resident’s claim with its buildings insurer, and provided the insurer with its repairs number to give to her, as any damage that the leak had caused to the building or decorations would be dealt with by the landlord as a repair. In October and November 2021, she contacted it again and was provided with contact details for the insurer.
6. On 29 November 2021, the resident gave the landlord the name of an employee who had emailed her asking for her bank details in relation to her claim. As it could not locate anybody working for it by that name, it assumed that they were an employee of the buildings insurer, and told her that this was evidence that the insurer was processing her claim.
7. On 8 December 2021, the resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord about the delay in processing her buildings insurance claim, and the lack of communication about this. She said that she had provided the bank details that had been requested for this in November 2021, but that she had still heard nothing about her claim.
8. The landlord’s internal emails during the subsequent complaint investigation in January 2022 showed that the person that it had assumed was an employee of the insurer, was actually a former employee of its. The emails also showed that the insurance claim had been closed and no insurance payment was due. There was, however, an outstanding compensation payment from a previous complaint.
9. In its stage one complaint response of 31 January 2022, the landlord apologised for its lack of communication about the resident’s buildings insurance claim and its delay in issuing its response. It said that, as the former employee had since left it, there was no record of their correspondence with her, but that another current employee had been provided with her claim forms sent in November 2021.
10. The landlord said that the resident’s claim had previously been rejected, as the leak was not due to its negligence, and any leak damage in her property would need to be claimed via her home contents insurance. It also reminded her that £40 compensation for a previous complaint was still outstanding, and would be added to her rent account if she accepted this.
11. In the resident’s final stage complaint escalation of 21 February 2022, she disagreed with the landlord’s comments about her buildings insurance claim. She also mentioned a number of historic issues going back around four years, including damp and mould and antisocial behaviour, and the negative effect that these had on her mental ill-health. The resident said that the £40 compensation offered for a previous complaint was therefore not enough to cover these issues.
12. On 8 April 2022, an advice agency escalated the final stage complaint on her behalf again, as she had not yet received a response to this after chasing the landlord for one on 28 March 2022, and they referred to the same historic issues as before.
13. In its subsequent final stage complaint response on 11 May 2022, the landlord said that it had found no fault in the way that it had managed the resident’s buildings insurance claim. It said that, as the flooding of her property was not caused by its negligence but by her upstairs neighbour, and it had repaired the leak damage, there were no grounds to award an insurance payment to her. The landlord also explained that impacts to health would be classed as a personal injury claim, and provided the resident with contact details if she wished to make one, apologising for the length of time that the situation had been outstanding, her unnecessary resulting time and trouble, and the impact of this on her.
14. The resident complaint was then referred to this Service via her local MP, acting in the capacity of her designated person, as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and sought receive compensation for the leak damage and historic issues, for which she had previously requested £15,000. She subsequently contacted us about a further leak at her property in 2023, for which she instructed another private damp survey of the property, and complained and made an insurance claim to it for again.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

15. The resident has complained about the outcome of her buildings insurance claim, injuries to her mental ill-health, historic condensation, damp and mould since 2016, and a further leak at her property in 2023. However, these issues are outside of the scope of this investigation to consider. This is because this Service is unable to determine liability or award damages for buildings insurance claims or ill-health, as we do not have the authority or expertise to do so. Therefore, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider these aspects of the resident’s complaint because they concern matters where she is seeking an outcome which is not within our authority to provide.
16. This Service is also unable to consider the resident’s reports of historic condensation, damp and mould since 2016, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This states that we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period of normally within six months of the matters arising, and she complained about these issues to it in 2022. Therefore, these matters are outside the scope of this investigation to consider, as a result of their age making it unreasonable to investigate them, due to the difficulty in obtaining evidence to do so after that length of time.
17. The resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the further leak at her property in 2023 is additionally outside the scope of this investigation to consider under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This states that this Service may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. As there is no evidence that a complaint from the resident about its handling of the further leak at her property in 2023 has exhausted its complaints procedure yet, this is not something that we can currently investigate.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be compensated for damages from a water leak that flooded her property

18. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint, which has since been revised in accordance with this Service’s complaint handling code, stated that stage one complaints will normally be answered within 20 working days, and final stage complaints will normally be answered within 30 working days. Liability issues that are subject to an insurance claim fall outside of its complaints policy.
19. As the resident contacted the landlord on 12 April 2021 about making a buildings insurance claim to it for the water leak damage to her property’s walls and ceiling from February 2021, it was appropriate that it stated that it would repair the damage but gave her details to make such a claim. This is because she asked it for the email address to enable her to do so, as well as due to its complaints policy confirming that such liability issues subject to an insurance claim fell outside of the policy, and so a making a claim was the only option open to her to progress this with it internally.
20. This also meant that it was suitable that the landlord’s loss adjuster discussed the resident’s subsequent buildings insurance claim to it of 28 May 2021with its buildings insurer, as it was unable to deal with this under its complaints policy. Although consideration of the outcome of the resident’s buildings insurance claim is outside of the scope of this investigation, as mentioned above. However, the resident went on to make a stage one complaint to the landlord about its lack of communication about the claim, including after she had provided it with her bank details.
21. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord’s stage one complaint response apologised for its lack of insurance claim communication, which it explained as being from the lack of records of a former employee’s correspondence, and gave the resident the outcome of the claim. It also appropriately referred her to her contents insurance, and re-offered her £40 awarded for a previous complaint. Nevertheless, when the resident raised her stage one complaint on 8 December 2021, the landlord should have responded to this within 20 working days, in accordance with its complaints policy at the time. However, it failed to do so, and instead its stage once complaint response was not issued until 15 working days later than this timescale on 31 January 2022, which was unsuitable.
22. However, as the resident’s subsequent final stage complaints mentioned that her mental ill-health had been affected, it was suitable that the landlord’s final stage complaint response gave her details to enable her to make a personal injury claim. This is again because its complaints policy stated that such liability issues subject to an insurance claim fell outside of the policy. The landlord also apologised to the resident for the length of time that the situation had been outstanding, her unnecessary resulting time and trouble, and the impact of this on her, which was reasonable.
23. Although when the resident escalated her final stage complaint on 21 February 2022, its complaints policy at the time required it to have issued a final stage complaint response within 30 working days. However, it failed to respond to that escalation request at all, despite her chasing it for a response on 28 March 2022. On 8 April 2022, the resident then raised a second escalation request via an advice agency, which the landlord responded to on 11 May 2022, but that was 24 working days later than the 30-working-day response timeframe from her original escalation request, and was therefore unreasonable.
24. As the landlord failed to issue either the resident’s stage one complaint response, or her final stage complaint response that had to be chased and then escalated again, within the timeframes in its complaints policy, there were failings by it in its handling of her complaint. It is also of concern that it did not follow its complaints policy’s requirement for it to follow this Service’s remedies guidance, which recommends compensation of up to £100 for delays in getting matters resolved, and from £100 for failures that adversely affected the resident.
25. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered below to pay the resident £140 compensation for its poor complaint handling, which includes the £40 that it previously awarded her, if she has not received this already. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, and it has also been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs in respect of their application of its complaints policy, and of this Service’s remedies guidance. This is to seek to ensure that the landlord’s failings in the resident’s case do not occur again in the future.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request to be compensated for damages from a water leak that flooded her property.

Orders

27. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £140 compensation within four weeks for its poor complaint handling, which includes the £40 that it previously awarded her, if she has not received this already.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs in respect of their application of its complaints policy, and of this Service’s remedies guidance at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, to seek to ensure that its failings in the resident’s case do not occur again in the future.
28. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.