North West Leicestershire District Council (202119883)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119883

North West Leicestershire District Council

03 January 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 concerns:
1. The landlord’s response to concerns from the resident about the cause of fire in the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs following the fire.
3. The level of support and financial assistance from the landlord.
4. The landlord’s complaints handling.
5. The landlord’s decision that it was not liable for the fire at the property.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, complaint 1e is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
During the course of the complaint, the resident expressed concern that as the landlord had not carried out the electrical checks at the property when it was due that this had caused the fire to the property, and so it was liable for the matter.
The matter was considered by the landlord who concluded that this issue needed to be raised with its finance section and its insurer, Zurich, and would not be considered as part of the stage one complaint it was considering.
The resident subsequently contacted this Service as she was unhappy with the response she had received from the landlord. She said that had the landlord checked the electrics or wired the property correctly the fire would not have happened. She therefore felt it was liable for the loss and damage to her personal possessions.
While the serious nature of this complaint is acknowledged, this is not a matter which the Ombudsman can consider. Paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
The Ombudsman is not able to determine liability or causation in a legal sense and we do not award damages in the way a court might. The resident’s claims for damage to the property’s contents may be better dealt with as a legal claim or the resident may wish to appeal the decision made by the landlord’s insurer, if she has not done so already. The resident should seek independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this matter further. Although we cannot determine liability for the fire, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s response to concerns from the resident about the cause of the fire as well as the repairs, level of support and assistance and complaints handling and whether this was reasonable in line with the landlord’s policies and industry best practice.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident resides in a three-bedroom house under a tenancy which began on 31 March 2014.
The landlord has no reported vulnerabilities noted for the resident. The resident has however reported that the fire caused her and her children ongoing anxiety and mental stress and that one of her children has been noted as having autism since 2021.
The section of tenancy agreement provided by the landlord from 1992 sets out the landlord is responsible for amongst other things keeping in good repair and proper working order installations which would include the electrics in the property.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy as follows:
1. At stage one all complaints are acknowledged within two working days and the landlord will provide a complaint reference and advise when the resident can expect a response. It will aim to provide a response within ten working days. However, should the process take longer, the landlord will update the resident on the progress every ten working days until a full response can be provided.
2. If the resident remains unhappy then the complaint will be reviewed by a senior manager at stage two. Again, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within two working days and provide a written response within ten working days. Should the process take longer than this timeframe the landlord will keep the resident informed every ten working days until the response is provided.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it could consider compensation as a remedy for inconvenience or distress caused by service failure and that claims would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Examples of where compensation payments would be considered include:
1. Where there had been a failure in the standards of service delivery.
2. Where it had failed in its obligations as a landlord, or to meet a repairs deadline.
3. Where there had been loss or damage to persons, or personal property, where liability was not in dispute.
The landlord’s compensation policy advises that claims for damage to persons or personal possession in excess of £2,500 would be referred to its insurer.
The compensation policy also sets out that the landlord would consider the extent of inconvenience that a resident experiences in attempting to resolve the matter. The upper limit its policy offered for this was set at £250.
The landlord’s decant policy set out that it would consider disturbance payments under a number of differing circumstances. These included when:
1. The resident made their own arrangements. A payment of £100 per week was payable for this in addition to the crediting of the rent account on the permanent home during the decant.
2. The resident had moved into a decant property provided by the landlord. A lump sum payment of £1,000 would be payable, split into two parts. Half of this would be at the beginning of the decant and the other half would be at the end of the decant. The policy set out that the cost of removals and utility costs would be met from this amount and that rent would continue to be charged on the permanent home during the time of the decant.
3. The resident moved into a caravan. This would be only considered as a last resort and that a disturbance payment of £50 per week plus the rent account on the permanent home would be credited for the duration of the decant.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy set out that under cyclical and planned maintenance and health and safety that this included the electrical safety testing.

Summary

The landlord was notified by the fire service of a fire at the property which occurred during the morning of 30 July 2020. The landlord contacted the resident to check whether she had friends or family to stay with whilst it addressed the next steps. The resident confirmed that she was able to stay with her mother who lived across the road from her.
The resident was contacted by a senior housing officer, on behalf of the landlord on 30 July 2020 and given contact details of who to contact should she have any queries in addition to her usual housing officer. This included details of a tenancy sustainment officer.
The fire and rescue service emailed the housing department on 3 August 2020. It stated that the cause of the fire was an electrical fault in the wiring above the consumer unit (fuse box). A copy of the full fire service report on the incident was sent to the landlord on 6 August 2020. This listed the cause of the fire as being “faulty fuel supply – electricity”.
Following receipt of the fire services’ email the landlord asked its electrical surveyor on the internal repairs team on 3 August 2020 to investigate the fire service’s indication about the wiring. Following visiting the property and taking photos of the consumer board the supervisor determined he was not in a position to determine the exact cause of the fire due to the number of cables which had been damaged by the fire. However, he stated that had it been a consumer unit fault then he would not have expected to see any of the fuse elements still partly intact. The surveyor recommended a full rewire of the property.
Further conversations took place between the landlord’s representatives and the resident over the next few days following the initial contact on the day of the fire. The resident requested a copy of the fire services’ report during the conversations. She also requested clarity on the financial situation to help her decide on whether she remained at her mother’s home, which she said was overcrowded or moved to a decant property.
The landlord offered the resident a decant property in early August 2020 which was rejected as it did not meet the resident’s requirement for her support network. She explained that she wished to remain in the same area as that where she had been living, especially for her children’s schooling.
The resident requested permission to move into a caravan outside her mother’s property. She explained that this would allow her privacy and she confirmed that she would not be cooking in it. After discussing the matter and confirming that the issue would not be long term the landlord agreed to this.
The landlord also confirmed on 5 August 2020 that it would make a disturbance payment of £100 per week. This would cover the period while the resident resided with her mother. The landlord also proposed a payment of £1,000 payable in two instalments should the resident move to a temporary property it planned to offer. It explained that it had competed the payment request for the first week’s disturbance allowance. However, it did not need the resident to decide on the decant at the present time, as it had not fully inspected the proposed decant property at that time. The landlord explained to the resident that whilst it could not give definitive timescales for the work required on the property, it could be ongoing for several months.
The resident confirmed to the landlord that she would be happy to reuse the white goods that she had in the property, subject to them being tested to ensure these were safe. The resident confirmed these goods included a cooker, fridge freezer, chest freezer, tumble drier, washing machine and a number of televisions. The resident also stated she would try to salvage any of her furniture which was not smoke or water damaged. The resident requested a representative of the landlord met her at the property and that storage facilities be provided. This was for storage of items until she returned to the property or moved to temporary accommodation.
A skip was provided by the landlord on 19 August 2020, so that the resident could dispose of some items. The resident then moved to the decant property, which was a two-bedroom flat. Assistance was provided to the resident to move some of the bulkier items for storage.
Following testing, the cooker was deemed to be safe. However, the fridge freezer was damaged. The landlord, who had initially made an application under a hardship fund for the cost of both appliances, proceeded with supplying a replacement fridge freezer under the fund.
The resident subsequently moved back to their property and contacted the landlord on 4 January 2021. She explained in this communication that she was disappointed with the overall service she had received from the landlord following the fire. She considered:
1. The consumer unit had been faulty and noted that it had not been checked since 2013, based on the original electrical certificate she had received from the landlord.
2. The landlord had taken longer than expected to undertake the repairs, and this had caused an impact on both her physical and mental health as well as her children, some of whom had been at the property at the time of the fire.
3. The resident had sought support from her GP and wanted the landlord to accept liability for the damage caused to the property as well as the long-term damage to her family’s mental health. The resident provided a list of the items which had been lost/damaged due to the fire.
The landlord treated the resident’s letter as a complaint, and it acknowledged this on 5 January 2021. A stage one response was provided on 21 January 2021, however this did not address either liability or the reported impact the resident’s long term mental health. In its response the landlord explained:
1. The time taken for the repairs were due to outside factors including the need for a new electrical supply to the property as well as fitting a meter. This delayed some of the work being undertaken. The landlord also explained that some delay was due to restriction in place on number of operatives as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. However, it acknowledged that the sequence of its actions could have been amended. As a result, it offered an amount of £250 under its compensation policy.
2. In terms of communication and support the resident had contact on a regular basis from several of its representatives from both housing management and tenancy support services. These individuals had assisted the resident in sourcing donations for lost belongings, providing assistance for white goods and setting out clearly the payments which would be due to her for the period prior to the decant and for the move to the temporary accommodation.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage one response and requested an escalation to stage two on 26 January 2021. In her request the resident indicated that for the first nine to ten weeks after the fire no works took place on their property. She added that the landlord had not repainted throughout the property as committed to in the stage one response, but instead had merely repainted the kitchen and front room as well as white washing three of the bedroom walls. She had also been left with dusty doors and black skirting boards. The resident considered the offered £100 decoration grant to be insufficient. She added that the £1,000 decant payment paid just about covered the transport costs and the flooring for the temporary accommodation, and nothing further.
The landlord’s finance section emailed the resident on 1 February 2021 to explain that a claim had been raised with its insurer. It added that it would be in touch with the resident with further details.
The landlord issued the stage two response on 18 February 2021. It explained:
1. That the electricity supply needed to be connected and this required permits to dig up the pavements at the front of the property. The landlord confirmed that it made an additional payment to the contractor to advance the installation date. Following this, a new meter to the property needed to be installed before work could commence and the electricity supplier had delayed the matter by a couple of weeks which was outside the control of the landlord. The landlord acknowledged it could have obtained the asbestos survey prior to the rewire starting but viewed that this had been addressed within the £250 payment offered in its stage one response.
2. In terms of the decoration allowance of £100 the landlord explained this was part of the allowance provided to residents following a rewire. It explained that it had painted up the upstairs rooms as a goodwill gesture due to the delays in the work and that ultimately the internal decorations were the resident’s responsibility. It suggested that the resident make a claim under her own contents’ insurance and that if her insurers believed the landlord was liable it would contact the landlord’s insurers. If she did not have her own contents insurance the landlord suggested that the resident could make a claim to its insurer.
3. In terms of the decant payment and disturbance allowance the landlord explained it had made payments in accordance with its policy and that the payments were not intended to cover direct losses or compensation following a fire, but the costs associated with a temporary move whilst work took place. As a result, it considered it had acted appropriately.
4. The landlord noted that it had also arranged a payment for the fridge freezer from the hardship fund. In addition, it had also helped to replace the carpets which had been removed to assist the rewire of the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 February 2021. She asked if the £250 offered at stage one was still available. The landlord confirmed that this was the case and following the resident’s acceptance of this amount it was paid to her. The resident also submitted a claim under the landlord’s insurer. She confirmed she did not have any individual contents insurance in place for the property.
The landlord’s insurer confirmed on 23 March 2021 that in terms of the injury claim, the case would need medical causation to be provided. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 April 2021 and requested that the complaint was re-opened. She explained that whilst she had accepted the £250 offered by it, she had not been aware that this amount covered the emotional and mental issues which she and her children had been through as the insurer would only look at the claim for lost contents.
The landlord’s insurer declined the liability claim in July 2021. It stated there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the landlord. The resident was advised by the landlord it would not be re-opening the complaint and that she should consider appealing the insurer’s decision should she wish.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaints we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to concerns from the resident about the cause of fire in the property.

Upon notification of the fire the landlord took timely action in sending out a representative from its repairs team to investigate the matter. The representative attended the property on the same day that the fire had occurred and had noted the cause of the fire as being an electrical fire in the consumer unit based on what it was reported at the time. Given the circumstances and the lack of information available at the time this approach from the landlord was reasonable.
Following the email from the fire service, which was received on 3 August 2020, the landlord sent out a surveyor from the repairs team to attend the property in relation to the wiring. Given the information which the landlord had received from the fire service which stated “the cause of the fire was an electrical fault in wiring above the consumer unit” it was appropriate for the landlord to investigate the matter itself. The fire service also “recommended NWLDC check similar properties to ensure the standard of wiring meets current wiring legislation”. The surveyor took pictures of the affected rooms and the consumer unit. Following a meeting which took place on 4 August 2020 the landlord stated its surveyor was unable to determine the exact cause of the fire as many cables had been damaged. However, in saying this its surveyor did not feel that it was a consumer unit fault as some of the fuse elements were still partly intact. The landlord states that based on the comments of its surveyor the matter was passed to its insurer and an estimate of the cost of repairs was provided.
Whilst its surveyor has questioned whether the fault was at the consumer unit as indicated by the fire service, the landlord has not provided any other explanation for the possible cause of the fire. Whilst it is noted that the landlord may have referred the matter to its insurer in respect of matters of liability it did not satisfy itself as to the cause of the fire and whether other properties may be similarly affected.
In correspondence sent to both the landlord and this Service, the resident has expressed concern that the landlord failed to carry out an electrical inspection at the property in 2019. The resident says that if this had been done, the fire could reasonably have been avoided. The resident has referred to the report provided by the fire service as well as the Domestic Electrical Installation Condition report (the report) provided to her by the landlord. This service has been provided with two reports. The first is dated 27 November 2013 following the rewire of all circuits in the property as well as the installation of a new distribution board. The second certificate is dated 25 February 2014 and was undertaken by the landlord prior to the resident moving to the property. In terms of the next inspection the 2014 report states “I/We recommend that this installation is further inspected and tested after an interval of not more than: 5 Years or change of tenant/owner”. Whilst there is no legal requirement for landlords of social housing properties to undertake an inspection of electrical installations except in the case of voids or in the case of mutual exchange. Notwithstanding this, recommended best practice is a five-year inspection cycle.
It is not for the Ombudsman to speculate as to why an inspection did not go ahead in 2019. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed this particular issue when it responded to the resident’s complaint, given the specific concerns she had raised. It is noted that the landlord’s insurer referred to the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020, when it declined the resident’s claim in July 2021. This states that landlords of privately rented accommodation must ensure the electrical installations in their rented properties are inspected and tested by a qualified and competent person at an interval of at least every 5 years. However, this was not in force at the time of the incident. Neither was the resident’s property privately rented. The landlord should reasonably have explained its position regarding the inspection when responding to the resident’s complaint. That the landlord did not provide such an explanation was a failing in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s handling of repairs in the property following the fire.

The landlord’s handling of repairs was in part appropriate as:
1. Following receipt of the email from the fire service it made arrangements to undertake the repairs and obtained an estimate for the work required. It identified at the outset that some of the work would need the property to be connected to the electricity supply. This was something outside of its control as some of this work was not being undertaken by one of its appointed contractors.
2. The landlord informed the resident at the outset that the work would not take a matter of weeks and that it could take several months to be completed. The landlord had therefore appropriately managed the resident’s expectations.
3. The landlord made additional payments to enable the electricity supply to be connected earlier than had been scheduled by the contractor in order to allow the repairs which needed a power supply to be undertaken.
4. The landlord provided a decoration allowance of £100. Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident considered the amount to be small and insufficient to redecorate the property, it is also noted that the landlord undertook further decoration work at the property. This included replacing carpets which it had previously removed due to miscommunication.
5. The landlord acknowledged at stage one of the complaints process that it could have acted more promptly with some elements of the process and that the sequence of events may have been rearranged in a more effective sequential order. It acknowledged it had reviewed its working practices when third party contractors were involved as a consequence as well as making an award of compensation of £250 for the time and trouble. This amount was the maximum that the landlord says it could award for this issue under its compensation policy and the amount was accepted by the resident on 18 February 2021. However, the landlord had discretion to offer a higher amount outside of its framework.
Whilst the landlord did send out a surveyor from its repairs team to look at the cause of the fire, this was in response to the report from the fire services which provided the cause of the fire. The surveyor whilst disputing the findings of the fire service did not offer an alternative explanation for the cause of the fire. Given these contradictory indications, it might be reasonably expected that the landlord would have instructed an independent, suitably qualified individual for example to investigate and report back. This was a failed opportunity for it to do so before passing the matter on to its insurer.
Following receipt of the fire services’ email of 3 August 2020, which suggested that the landlord checked other similar properties, there is no indication that the landlord did this. This was not reasonable, especially given the concerns put in writing by the fire services.
In response to the information request from this Service, the landlord has provided an explanation about its approach to electrical inspections. It advised that historically it had been carrying out a significant number of electrical inspections on its stock of properties. However, it acknowledged that the approach it was taking had not been following industry best practice. It had also identified a weakness in terms of both the data it held on properties and a means of accessing and analysing it. It had therefore taken a decision in 2017 to purchase a shared database system. It indicated this had not been implemented at the time of the fire due to the procurement process timescales followed by the restrictions in place due to the Covid-19 crisis. It confirmed that the new system went live in December 2021.
Irrespective of the Covid-19 pandemic, which did not start impacting the UK until March 2020, the period between identifying the issue and finally having the new system in place was excessive.
The landlord has confirmed that following on from the fire it has taken lessons learnt from the matter as well as setting out a process going forward. This included identifying a single point of contact to ensure that all activities across the housing work streams were co-ordinated, recording a central storage of documentation for each incident, creating a fire management process flow chart for all fires and ensuring that fixed wire testing for housing to be completed on a rolling five-year program; undertaken by an external contractor. This organisational learning approach from the landlord appears to be reasonable as it ensures that mixed messages or conflicting information from different representatives would not be received by an individual contacting the landlord following a fire. Also, it would mean that someone familiar with the specific individual’s circumstances was able to liaise with them.

The level of support and financial assistance from the landlord.

The landlord’s level of support and financial assistance was appropriate as:
1. The landlord made payments in accordance with its compensation policy to incorporate the time and trouble. It also made disturbance payments to the resident following both her making the temporary move to her mother’s property as well as the resident’s later move to the decant property.
2. The landlord also made a payment under a hardship fund for a fridge freezer as the resident’s existing appliance was damaged. The landlord had also considered providing support for a new cooker including installation. However, the testing had deemed the resident’s existing cooker was not damaged so this was not pursued.
3. The landlord had provided support to the resident by means of contact with a tenancy support officer and other individuals for the period of time that her existing housing officer had been off on annual leave. The contact had been made primarily by telephone calls to and from the resident. The landlord has not provided full call notes detailing each of the conversations with the resident. However, there were a number of internal emails citing the contents of the calls.
4. Whilst the resident had managed to salvage some of her furniture and appliances including the televisions, some domestic appliances and personal belongings were beyond salvage. The landlord initially directed her to claim for this under her own contents insurance policy. The resident did not have her own home insurance to cover her personal possessions. The landlord’s compensation policy set out that it could consider a claim for damaged possessions and only if it exceeded the limit (of £2,500) would it then direct the matter to its insurer. However, section 4.4 of the policy sets out that this was only the case where the liability was not in dispute. As the landlord had disputed liability, it was appropriate for it to refer the matter to its own insurer at the outset. In addition, the landlord appropriately informed the resident that she would have to make a personal injury claim for the emotional stress and anguish that she says she and her children were caused as a result of the fire.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

Overall, the landlord responded to the complaint in line with the timescales and associated provisions detailed in its complaint policy. However as detailed above the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns that it had failed to carry out an electrical inspection within five years of the previous one. The landlord’s failure to address this was a missed opportunity to put things right. While it is acknowledged that the landlord has referred the issue of liability to its insurer, it would still have been reasonable to provide an explanation around the electrical installation process and why an inspection was not carried out in 2019. This landlord should now acknowledge this and take steps to put things right with the resident. The landlord also indicated that it has learnt lessons from this complaint, and that it has made changes to its approach on dealing with such cases.
The resident had confirmed to the landlord that the issue had caused her and her children a degree of emotional stress and anguish. The landlord referred the personal injury matter to its insurer following the stage one response which was a reasonable approach to take.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the fire in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs in the property following the fire.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the level of support and financial assistance from the landlord.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord actions in referring the matter straight to its insurers were not an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns about the cause of the fire. It failed to secure an independent opinion from a suitably qualified individual given the landlord’s surveyor had been unable to determine the cause of the fire. The landlord has also not provided any evidence that it undertook steps in line with the recommendations of the fire service to investigate and inspect any other similar installations to those of the resident.
The landlord’s actions in responding to the repairs were not an appropriate response to the matter. There were some delays in carrying out works to the property, which was primarily out of its control as it relied upon re-connecting the property back to the electricity supply as a time when there were Covid-19 restrictions in place. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the delay and took steps to put things right with the resident during the course of the complaint, the redress offered by it was not appropriate to the resident’s circumstances.
The landlord’s actions in providing support and financial assistance to the resident were in keeping to its policy with regards to lost or damaged personal belongings.
Whilst there were no delays in the landlord’s complaints handling at either stage one or stage two the landlord failed to deal in either response with the resident’s complaint concerning the lack of the electrical check at the property being carried out since 2014. Although not a statutory requirement this did cause the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this Service.
2. Pay the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to carry out an electrical inspection at the property within its own timescales. It should also write to the resident, and this Service, to explain why one was not carried out in 2019.
3. Pay the resident a further £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs following the fire. This was in addition to the £250 already awarded by it.
4. Engage a suitably qualified, independent consultant to implement a review of the evidence from this case. This review must consider the ramifications of its findings on the safety on other residents.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with confirmation of its intentions regarding the orders within four weeks of the date of this report.