London Borough of Redbridge (202111800)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111800

London Borough of Redbridge

26 May 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 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of flooding at the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and lives in a one-bedroom ground floor flat. The tenancy began on 21 June 2021. The landlord has stated the resident has anxiety, depression and panic attacks. During the period covered by this investigation, the resident reported to the landlord he was diabetic and the effects the situation had on his health issues.
Section 3.4 of the tenancy agreement states “You are responsible for decorating the inside of the property. If the property is damaged by a third party the council will not be responsible for putting this right. We strongly advise all residents to take out their own contents insurance”.
Section 3.5 of the tenancy agreement states that the tenant is responsible for repairing and maintaining their own equipment such as cookers and washing machines.
Section 3.7 of the tenancy agreement states that the landlord will repair the structure and exterior of the building, electrical wiring, gas and water pipes.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy. It states that, at stage one the complaint will be acknowledged within two working days and a response issued within 10 working days. At stage two, a request must be made by the resident within one calendar month of the stage one response. The stage two response will be issued within 20 working days.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to concrete floors and the resident is responsible for loose floor coverings and carpets.
The landlord’s repair policy states that out of hours and emergency repairs will be attended to within two hours and completed within 24 hours, urgent repairs will normally be done within five working days and routine repairs will normally be done within 28 calendar days.
A contractor works on behalf of the landlord to complete the repairs that fall under the landlord’s responsibility.
The landlord’s repair policy states that it will take into account the specific needs of vulnerable residents, recognising that some residents may require higher levels of support than others. It will provide a flexible service to address the needs of individuals who may be vulnerable at any time, for any period, and for any reason. Where necessary it will work with other agencies to ensure that its repair service meets the needs of all its residents.

Summary Of Events

On Sunday 25 July 2021, there was flooding to the resident’s property due to adverse weather conditions. The landlord’s records show there were eight properties affected by the flooding. The resident emailed the landlord to say he had contacted the out of hours service and had received no help and was advised to contact the fire brigade. The resident noted an ambulance attended to check on the wellbeing of residents.
On 26 July 2021, the landlord emailed its contractor to inform it of the flooding and provided the address and contact numbers for the affected properties to arrange for a surveyor to visit. The landlord’s contractor made requests for aqua vacs and dehumidifiers to be sourced.
A survey was carried out at the resident’s property on 26 July 2021. The survey listed there was damage to carpets and the property required redecoration.
On 28 July 2021, the landlord stated to the resident that the damage to carpets was the responsibility of the tenants, but it would be beneficial to remove the wet carpets from the property to avoid further damage. The landlord arranged for a contractor to remove the wet carpets, and this was arranged for 30 July 2021.
On 29 July 2021, the landlord’s contractors confirmed they would be on site the next day to remove anything that was ruined and carpets that were impossible to dry out. On 30 July 2021, the wet carpets were removed from the property.
On 30 July 2021, the landlord offered the resident a dehumidifier and the resident agreed to this. The landlord says it informed the resident that the delivery time would be between 8am and 1pm but said the resident stated to the landlord that he would only be available at 8am for delivery of the dehumidifier. The resident was not happy with the response and said that the dehumidifiers should have been provided on the first day of the flooding occurring.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 31 July 2021, stating that:
1. He had recently moved into the property and had laid new carpets and wooden flooring before the flooding occurred.
2. His housing officers were aware he was diabetic and could not afford to catch an infection.
3. He was left with no cooking facilities as he was told to turn the electrics off in the property.
4. A surveyor from the landlord’s contractor had measured up his property and said they would change his flooring and lino.
5. He was told he would get a dehumidifier on Tuesday 27 July 2021 and after waiting all day no one arrived.
6. He had called the landlord on 28 July 2021 and was told there were no dehumidifiers available.
7. He was contacted by the landlord’s contractor on 30 July 2021 in the morning to arrange for delivery of a dehumidifier and he informed them that he had hospital appointments, and asked if they could deliver later that day, but this was refused.
On 1 August 2021, the landlord confirmed to the resident that the responsibility for checking electrical items fell to the residents.
On 2 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord advising he felt the landlord had not followed its duty of care to him as a tenant and that if there was no resolution in the next five working days he would take legal action.
On the same day, landlord internal emails about the dehumidifier offered to the resident on 30 July 2021 state it was told by its contractor that it had two dehumidifiers available, and one was offered to the resident however the contractor stated the offer to deliver that afternoon was declined by the resident who wanted it to be delivered at 8am only. The appointment window offered to the resident was 8am –1pm which it stated the resident declined.
The landlord replied the same day and acknowledged the email sent by the resident on 31 July 2021 and confirmed the resident would receive a stage one response to the issues he had raised. No timeline was provided to the resident for the response. The landlord also stated that a dehumidifier was offered to the resident on Friday 30 July 2021 and due to a delivery time not being agreed the dehumidifier went to another tenant. The landlord stated more dehumidifiers were on order and one would be delivered to the resident as soon as one was available.
The resident responded the same day to say he was told he would receive a dehumidifier on 28 July 2021 and had waited in all day but no one turned up. The resident stated he called the landlords contractor who informed him there were no dehumidifiers available. The resident also stated that in relation to the appointment offered for 30 July 2021 that he asked for a delivery at 5pm due to having a medical appointment and was refused this request by the contractor.
On 2 August 2021, a manager from the landlord spoke with the resident and established the resident was concerned about the water damage to his personal belongings which was not covered by the landlord or its insurance. The resident was advised the landlord would try and get a dehumidifier to the resident on 3 August 2021. The dehumidifier did not arrive on this date.
On 4 August 2021, the landlord’s contractor contacted the landlord and confirmed it had contacted the resident and a dehumidifier was to be delivered on Saturday 7 August 2021.
The resident emailed a complaint to his councillor on 8 August 2021 and said the dehumidifier had been delivered two weeks after the flood had occurred and there was flooring damaged that was not insured. In his letter he restated the complaint points made in his complaint to the landlord on 31 July 2021.
The landlord received a copy of the email on 10 August 2021 and logged the email as a complaint.
The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident on 17 August 2021. In its response the landlord stated it was responding to the complaint made on 10 August 2021. The landlord confirmed it had spoken with the resident on 5 August 2021 and in that conversation stated:
1. A dehumidifier was scheduled to be delivered on 7 August 2021.
2. It was not the responsibility of the landlord to replace the carpets and wooden flooring in the property and advised the resident he would need to make a claim against the resident’s home contents insurance.
3. After being made aware the resident did not have home contents insurance it had advised the resident he might be able to get a hardship loan. The resident advised he had explored this but did not like the repayment terms and did not proceed.
4. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The resident responded the same day to advise the landlord he would be escalating the complaint to stage two for the following reasons:
1. The dehumidifier came very late and he was unable to save the carpet in time due to the delays. Because of the smell he had to get rid of the carpets even after using the heating (it was a brand new carpet which was laid less than 3 weeks earlier).
2. The bathroom floor had so many issues due to the flood it was hard to clean and had a dirty water smell.
3. Wooden floor in the living room had major issues because of the water damage.
4. Hallway wooden flooring couldnot be saved due to the flood.
5. He was told by the landlord’s contractor that they would change like for like in all the rooms.
6. It was illegal for the landlord to advise him to get or apply for a loan to put him into debt, he spoke to his bank about this and the landlord should not have said this.
7. Due to having health issues the landlord had failed under the Care Act 2014 legislation.
On 30 September 2021, this Service was notified by the resident that the stage two response had not been issued and this Service wrote to the landlord to request the stage two response be issued to the resident.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 5 October 2021. In the response the landlord stated:
1. It accepted that the flooding caused damage to the resident’s property and left the resident needing to replace flooring and carpets, but the landlord was not responsible for the replacement, and this would be needed to be claimed on contents insurance. It acknowledged the resident did not have any contents insurance.
2. It agreed with the resident that he should not have been advised to make an application for a hardship loan. The landlord stated it felt its officer was trying to be helpful but should not have provided the advice as he was not a financial advisor. It apologised to the resident and offered £50 in compensation for distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

The landlords handling of the flooding at the property

The landlord is not responsible for unforeseeable events such as floods due to adverse weather conditions and there is no evidence of fault on the part of the landlord for the flood occurring. The landlord has said that for this reason, it advises residents to take out their own home contents insurance. This is supported by its ‘tenancy agreement’ which states at Section 3.4 “We strongly advise all residents to take out their own contents insurance”.
In this case the tenancy agreement and repairs policy are clear that carpet replacement will be the responsibility of the resident.
It is very unfortunate that the resident’s new carpets and flooring was ruined by the flood, which was confirmed by the surveyor’s report. It is understandable that the resident would feel upset about this and would like compensating for the loss. However, the landlord is not obliged to compensate for the damage, as it was not caused by the landlord’s actions or omissions.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service it was aware that the resident hasanxiety, depression and panic attacks. The resident also stated in his emails to the landlord he was diabetic and had no cooking facilities due to having to turn off the electrics following the flooding. The landlords repairs policy states that for vulnerable residents it would take into account the specific needs of vulnerable residents including providing a flexible service to address the needs of individuals who may be vulnerable at any time, for any period and for any reason. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that it took any steps to investigate if the flooding had caused the resident adverse effects due to his stated vulnerabilities or if any safeguarding responsibilities were considered by the landlord either internally or with the resident.
During the discussions to have the dehumidifiers delivered the resident stated he needed to attend hospital appointments and requested for a specific timeslot for the dehumidifiers to be delivered. While it is not expected for the landlord to be in a position to fulfil every request of it by a resident, it would be expected the landlord would discuss other delivery options for the following day/s. The landlord did offer a dehumidifier to the resident on 30 July 2022 but the delivery time could not be agreed between the resident and the landlord. The dehumidifier went to another resident. There is no evidence that considering the residents stated vulnerabilities other attempts were made to negotiate another mutually agreed time. The landlord did not show any attempt to fulfil this request or offer any other options to the resident causing him to not receive the first two dehumidifiers offered and an overall delay of two weeks.
The landlord has confirmed it was aware the resident has vulnerabilities.In the resident’s email to the landlord on 31 July 2021 the resident has stated he is a vulnerable person, he was struggling to sleep, he was diabetic and cannot afford to catch an infection. The resident stated he was asked to turn all electrics off by the landlord for safety purposes and was left without a fridge or cooking facilities for over 5 days. The resident in his email is clearly stating he is concerned with the situation and is asking for assistance from the landlord. There is no evidence the landlord considered these statements at the time it was received in its response to the flooding at the property or in its attempts to provide support to the resident.
There is also no records provided by the landlord to confirm its actions in inspecting the property for safety assessments. This would be an expected response from a landlord to do this after a flood. It is concerning that the landlord advised the resident that it was his responsibility to check electrical items after a flood but has not provided evidence or records to show it conducted checks about the electrical wiring in the property. It was the landlord’s responsibility to complete any structural repairs caused by the flood and to provide alternative accommodation if the property was not habitable. It is noted a surveyor visited the residents property on 26 July 2021 and stated that carpets were to be removed and redecoration would be required. The surveyors report stated it recommended an electrical test is carried out at the property as a matter of urgency and this was also stated internally by the landlord in an email on 26 July 2021. The landlord has not provided evidence these checks took place or if they did when they took place.
It is accepted that in a situation of flooding, any damaged personal items would be replaced by the resident or to be claimed under a valid home insurance policy. In this case the resident did not have a home contents insurance policy in place. As such the responsibility to replace the items remained with the resident and not the landlord. The landlord did discuss with the resident the option of the hardship loan and could have explained more clearly what this option would mean for the resident rather than advising him to take it. Given the resident’s vulnerability and distress the landlord could have provided more advice and support to assist the resident to approach local organisations or charities who may have been able to provide support. There is no evidence provided to show this support was considered or offered to the resident.
The landlord’s repair policy states that the landlord will not be responsible for the replacement of carpet or flooring at the property. The resident has stated that the landlord’s contractor told him that the carpets would be replaced and the landlord told the resident that it would not be replacing the carpets. There is no evidence of what was said by the contractors to the resident so this Service cannot confirm exactly what advice the resident was given. In this case the policy is clear that carpet replacement would be the responsibility of the resident.

The landlords handling of the associated complaint

The resident’s email on 31 July 2021 was clear that he was making a complaint about the service he had received. The landlord acknowledged this complaint to the resident in an email response on 2 August 2021 and internal records show it asked for the complaint to be logged at stage one the same day. However, there is no evidence this complaint was logged or was progressed to stage one at this time. This is because when the stage one response was issued it referred only to the complaint made by the resident on 8 August 2021 and did not address the other issues set out in the first complaint.
In the stage one response the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint made on 31 Jul 2021 or sufficiently address all the complaint points made in either of the complaint emails sent on 31 July 2021 or 8 August 2021.
In the stage one response the landlord failed to show it had investigated or offered an explanation for the delay in the dehumidifiers being received by the resident or the resident’s concerns about the delivery times offered to him. It also failed to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s statements regarding his medical conditions or vulnerabilities during this time and the effect the situation was having on him. There is no evidence to show the landlord considered or answered the points made by the resident in the first complaint at the time it was received or took any steps to try to resolve his concerns or offer support or any other options to him.
The stage two response was issued 35 days after the stage two escalation request and this is 15 days outside of the landlords complaints policy timescales. This was also after intervention by this Service on 30 September 2021.
Although an apology was offered for the delay in the time taken to issue the stage two response, the landlord did not provide the resident with a full explanation for the delay as it only stated it was delayed due to work pressures. It also failed to provide any evidence that it had kept the resident informed during the complaint process of any delays in him receiving the stage two response. Given the resident had previously stated the effects of stress and anxiety the flooding situation had on him, this delay and lack of updates from the landlord was an undoubtedly frustrating experience.
As with the stage one response, the stage two response also failed to address the complaint points made by the resident in his complaint regarding the delays in the dehumidifiers and the effect on his health conditions. Following the stage one and stage two responses the resident had not been given any explanation from the landlord for the delays.
Responding to a complaint is an opportunity for a landlord to put things right, which is not only about an offer of compensation (where appropriate or reasonable) but about an apology, an explanation of what went wrong and information as to how it would learn from the situation. This demonstrates a landlord has taken matters seriously and goes towards redress and rebuilding of trust in the landlord-tenant relationship. The landlord did not do this. Although it issued an apology for the delay in the dehumidifiers being received it offered no other information to the resident or made any attempt to show how it would learn from the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of flooding at the residents property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities but failed to evidence that it appropriately took these into account at the time of the flood or when responding to the complaint. The landlord also failed to show it had considered any safeguarding measures in relation to the resident’s vulnerabilities despite the resident making it aware he was having difficulty coping with the situation.
The landlord failed to respond to the initial complaint made on 31 July 2021. In both the stage one and stage two responses the landlord failed to address all the complaint points raised by the resident and provide him with an explanation or showed how it had learned from the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks, the landlord is to apologise to the resident and pay the resident:
1. £250 for its handling of the reports of flooding at the property and stress and inconvenience caused.
2. £200 for its handling of the associated complaint.
Within six weeks the landlord carry out a review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. This review is to include a review of its procedures in relation to resident’s vulnerabilities. In doing so, demonstrate how it will actively use its vulnerability information to provide any additional support that may be required.

Recommendations

The landlord is to undertake an inspection of the property to establish any repairs that it is required to complete and provide the resident and this service with a report stating what the repairs are and a timescale for the repairs to be completed.