Notting Hill Genesis (202002474)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002474

Notting Hill Genesis

20 July 2021


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:
    1. response to the resident’s reports of a leak at his property and the subsequent damage that occurred;
    2. advice regarding the resident’s application for consideration of medical grounds for his transfer application;
    3. response following missed appointments by its repair operatives;
    4. complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 12 June 2006. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The property is a one-bedroom flat, in which the resident, his partner, and his two children reside.
  3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes a stage one response will be provided within 10 working days, and a stage two within 20 working days.
  4. The landlord operates a compensation policy. The policy notes the landlord may offer discretionary compensation for distress and inconvenience of up to £250. It may also offer to cover additional expenses on a case-by-case basis. For missed appointments, the landlord may offer £30. The policy notes it will not offer compensation where there is damage that would ordinarily be covered by the resident’s household insurance. It may offer compensation, however, where there has been damage following an “unreasonable delay in rectifying a leak which meant the damage to items happened over a longer period.”
  5. The landlord operates an allocations and lettings policy. The policy notes that applicants requesting a transfer are given a priority banding. Band D is awarded to applicants who “have a desire to move, but do not have an identified need to move.” Band C is awarded to applicants whose properties are “overcrowded according to our bedroom standard,” or have a “medical condition that is moderately affected by their current housing.” The landlord’s ‘bedroom standard’ notes that a property should have a bedroom for each single adult/couple, and additional bedrooms for various combinations of children. The policy also notes that applicants can appeal rejected applications to the landlord’s ‘lettings panel’.
  6. The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 20 working days. The policy notes that residents are responsible for their own contents insurance.

Summary of events

  1. It is not disputed that on or around 9 January 2020, the resident requested to be transferred to an alternative property. The landlord subsequently declined the request for an immediate transfer on the basis that the property met the resident’s needs and that any repairs the resident had noted should be reported to the landlord’s repair team. It also noted the resident had advised he had medical conditions and so noted any application for a transfer must be accompanied by a medical report for assessment. The landlord has provided this service with its internal communications from this period and on 23 January 2020, the landlord noted that the resident wished to complain following its rejection of his application and requested that its lettings team review its decision on the resident’s banding. The landlord noted it had awarded the resident “band D,” but it is not evident that the landlord followed this up with any communication to the resident or explained the appeals process.
  2. The landlord has also provided this service with its repair logs from this period, which note that on 31 January 2020, the resident reported a leak which he believed to be coming from his neighbour’s balcony into his ceiling. The repair notes indicate that the landlord attended the property on 4 February 2020 to assess the damage but were unable to gain access to the neighbour’s flat. On 4 March 2020, the notes stated that “rope access works are complete no follow-on works reported,” and on 24 March 2020, the notes stated that the window mechanism was also replaced. It is also not disputed that on 18 June 2020, the resident reported that a further leak had caused issues with the electricity supply at the property, following which the landlord arranged for an electrician to attend on the same date and disconnect the electricity in the affected area prior to a further inspection to be carried out into the leak on 22 June 2020.
  3. On 22 June 2020, the resident made a formal complaint. The resident noted he had reported a number of leaks at his property since moving in, including the most recent report in January 2020. He noted that workers had subsequently attended but that the “proper action” was not taken. He further reported that “part of the ceiling was collapsed on my head last night.” He advised the leak had caused his lights to not work and that he and his family no longer felt safe at the property. He also advised the collapse had adversely affected his health and caused damage to his belongings. He noted he was yet to receive a response about his request to be transferred. In addition to making a formal complaint to the landlord, the resident also forwarded his complaint to his local MP.
  4. The landlord replied on the same date and advised it had arranged for its repair contractor to urgently attend the property. The landlord has also provided this service with its guttering contractor’s report dated 22 June 2020 which noted they attended the property to “remedy blocked gully trapped on the balcony drainage.” They cleared the “debris and vegetation” from the gully and secured the area with “polyurethane liquid plastic.” The landlord also noted it had booked repairs to the damage to walls and ceiling. Regarding the resident’s request for a transfer, the landlord noted it had previously provided the resident with self-assessment medical forms for him to return for the landlord to consider.
  5. On 23 June 2020, the landlord advised that its electrician would inspect and reinstate the electrical supply at the property on 25 June 2020 and that it would supply a dehumidifier on 26 June 2020 to dry out the property. It would also on this date assess what works were required and provide a timeline once it had done so by 29 June 2020. It noted that the resident had relocated to temporary accommodation on his own accord and so offered £50 per day towards the accommodation and £40 per day towards his food expenses until his living room was ‘made good’, which it advised may be once a temporary fix was put in place. Further works could then be completed after the resident had returned to the property. It advised this would likely be by 3 July 2020. Regarding the damage to the resident’s possessions, the landlord advised he would need to make a claim through his insurance. The landlord concluded that in its opinion, it had acted as urgently as possible given the COVID-19 restrictions.
  6. On the same date, the resident advised he was not satisfied with further works being completed after his return to the property as he was concerned for his health and his family’s safety. He also disagreed that the landlord had acted as quickly as possible as he considered the leak reported in January 2020 to have been the cause, which the landlord had not adequately fixed. He also advised that £50 per day was not sufficient to pay for his accommodation and that as the landlord had not offered him temporary accommodation, he requested it reconsider its offer. The landlord replied on 24 June 2020 and advised that it had completed repair works following the resident’s report in January 2020 “within an acceptable timeframe.” It noted, however, that the “initial repair did not solve the issue entirely.” Regarding the cost of temporary accommodation, it advised it could not increase its offer but could reallocate the food allowance towards accommodation as well if the resident desired. It further advised it considered there to be “no health concerns once the property is habitable (electricity, leaks resolved & ceiling reinstated).”
  7. On 26 June 2020, the resident advised that no one had shown up to complete repairs on either 25 or 26 June 2020. On 29 June 2020, the landlord apologised for the delay and advised its repair contractors would attend on 30 June 2020. The resident replied that following the emergency repair contractor’s works, that while reduced, there was still a leak into the property. He advised that the repair contractor had advised him that this was from a “drainage pipe joint” and that a plumber would be required to fix it. The resident expressed concern that unless this was addressed, the structural issue would worsen and so requested the landlord to send someone to address this issue.
  8. On 30 June 2020, the resident made a further formal complaint. The complaint included the ongoing leak and subsequent damp at the property which was affecting his health and he noted he had provided a letter from his GP. This service has viewed the GP letter, dated 8 June 2020, which noted that the resident suffered from a number of health conditions and that “from a physical and mental health viewpoint the current housing arrangement is extremely unsatisfactory.” The resident advised his children had also “started to develop other diseases such as Asthma and skin conditions” which he attributed to the conditions at the property. He also complained that the amount offered for his temporary accommodation was not sufficient. He advised he wanted compensation for the distress caused and the damage to his possessions and also that he wanted to be relocated to a more suitable property.
  9. On 1 July 2020, the landlord advised that its ‘repair supervisor’ had advised “there are no leaks present in the living room from the balcony above and that it is dry, that there is no damp and that therefore there is no need for a dehumidifier.” It also advised it had arranged for a plumber to inspect if any leak was coming from the neighbour’s property. It advised its contractors would board up the lounge on 2 July 2020 and that it would subsequently redecorate. Regarding the payment of the resident’s temporary accommodation costs, it requested a copy of his bank statement to indicate the amount to be transferred. It concluded that “once the lounge ceiling is boarded up, we believe that the property is habitable and so, as stated previously, we will only pay for accommodation until this has been completed.”
  10. On the same date, the resident provided his bank information to the landlord and also requested that it still provide a dehumidifier to address the smell at the property. He also advised he would shortly be providing the relevant medical documents for his transfer application. He further advised he would not be able to return to the property on 2 July 2020 as he was not feeling well. He suggested instead he return on 5 July 2020. The landlord replied that the repairs were booked for 2 July 2020 which would be difficult to reschedule to due to COVID-19 restrictions and that it would not pay for the temporary accommodation beyond this period. It also advised it required a bank statement not just the account details. The resident reiterated he could not return on 2 July 2020 to arrange access due to medical reasons. The landlord subsequently cancelled the works on 2 July 2020 and also reiterated its request for the medical assessment forms so it could reassess his transfer application and for his bank statement.
  11. On the same date, the resident advised he could not provide a statement as he was unable to attend the bank branch. He also requested the landlord consider compensation for his distress and inconvenience, as well as the damage to his belongings. The landlord subsequently advised that the resident would need to claim for any damage to his belongings through his insurer and that it was unable to arrange for its contractors to attend on 5 July 2020. On 3 July 2020 it confirmed it had arranged for an alternative contractor to attend on 7 July 2020.
  12. On 7 July 2020, the resident confirmed that the repair contractors had attended but that he was not satisfied with the work done and did not consider it safe to return. He advised that the electrician had not carried out any repairs but had only switched the electricity supply back on and advised “that it is safe to use the electricity.” The resident noted, however, that the smoke alarm had not been switched on due to an ongoing leak, which he did not consider to be safe. He also noted that no plumber had yet attended to assess the ongoing leak, and also that he considered the “isolating paint” that was applied to the balcony leak would not be sufficient to prevent a recurrence of the leak. He further advised that the repair contractors had only boarded over the ceiling but had left the semi-detached ceiling hanging against the wall, which was “about to come off with lots of mould and germs.” The resident also provided photographic evidence depicting the same.
  13. On 8 July 2020 the landlord advised it would transfer the resident £1,440, being 16 days of the £90 it had offered. It confirmed that “we believe the property is habitable now” and that it would not pay for any further temporary accommodation costs. It further advised it would arrange for the remaining repairs as soon as possible.
  14. On 12 July 2020, the resident advised that he had returned to the property but that the ceiling was still leaking. He again provided photographic evidence depicting the same. He reiterated that he did not consider the works to the balcony leak to have been sufficient and he wanted the landlord to address compensation for the ongoing delays and the distress and inconvenience he had experienced. He also noted he was yet to receive any money towards his temporary accommodation from the landlord. On 13 July 2020, the landlord advised the further repair works had been booked in for 16/17 July 2020. It is not evident that the landlord addressed the issue of money for the resident’s temporary accommodation or any compensation at this time.
  15. On 14 July 2020, the resident advised that he disputed that the property was fit for human habitation due to the ongoing leaks and lack of a fire alarm and he requested an “independent authorised organisation to visit a flat to confirm this if you are not willing to accept this fact.” He further reiterated his request for a dehumidifier in order to address the smell in the flat. On the same date, the landlord advised it would take one week to source a dehumidifier, but that it believed the repair works would address the smell in the meantime. The resident also noted he had now sent the relevant medical assessment forms to the landlord and queried if these had been passed to the landlord’s transfer application team. The landlord confirmed it would pass them on by the end of the week. On 17 July 2020, the resident advised that the repair contractor had attended on that date but had refused to carry out any works as “the water is still leaking from the ceiling.” He expressed his dissatisfaction that he had previously reported this to the landlord and that the landlord still had not addressed his request for compensation or paid money towards his temporary accommodation.
  16. On 22 July 2020, the resident queried when he would have a response to the medical assessment regarding his transfer application. Given the ongoing leaks at the property, he further queried how long the landlord would continue to pay for his temporary accommodation costs, what repair works would be now undertaken and what timescale they would be completed in, and what compensation would it be offering.
  17. On the same date, the landlord advised that following its assessment of the resident’s medical documents, it had not approved an increase to his transfer priority banding. It advised that the overcrowding in the flat and the repairs issues were not medical issues, and that “no medical priority applies.” It further advised that “there is no appeal process and further medical assessments will not usually be carried out unless your health deteriorates significantly.”
  18. On 23 July 2020, the landlord advised its repair supervisor would attend on 24 July 2020 to assess what works were required. On the same date, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the outcome of his medical assessment and requested that the landlord reconsider its decision.
  19. On 3 August 2020, the landlord requested the resident attend the property on 4 August 2020 in order for its repairs supervisor to explain to him the remaining works. On the same date, the resident advised he would be unable to visit the property but requested that the landlord proceed with the works. He also enquired as to when the accommodation money would be sent. On 4 August 2020, the landlord confirmed that the works to solve the leak had been completed successfully and that it would carry out redecoration works on 6/7 August 2020.
  20. On 11 August 2020, the resident requested the landlord advise its position on compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused to him, and also for the damage caused to his possessions. The landlord replied on 13 August 2020 and noted it had agreed to £4,300 compensation for the resident’s temporary accommodation. It also made an offer of £100 compensation for “the delay in getting the repair completed.” Regarding compensation for damage to the resident’s possessions, it noted it advised all residents to take out contents insurance and reiterated its position that any claim should go through the resident’s insurer. On the same date, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction at the landlord’s offer of £100 and advised he had rejected it. He also advised the money for his temporary accommodation was yet to be paid and that he considered the landlord to be responsible for the damage to his possessions.
  21. On 1, 10, 16, 24 September and 3 October 2020 the resident advised that the landlord still had not paid the money for the temporary accommodation. The landlord responded on multiple occasions to advise it was chasing its finance department, but on 19 October 2020, the resident again noted it was still not paid. The resident further noted he was yet to receive any formal response to his complaint.
  22. The landlord provided its stage one response on 20 October 2020. The landlord outlined the steps it had taken following the resident’s reports in June 2020 and noted that it had arranged for emergency roof repair contractors to attend on 22 June 2020 to carry out works to the balcony leak and that they had completed works to fix the cause of this leak. It also noted that it had arranged for rectification works to the living room but that its operatives had missed an appointment. It further noted its supervisor had attended on 30 June 2020 and had not observed any ongoing leaks, and that rectification works for the roof were subsequently arranged for 10 July 2020, however, at this time, a further leak was observed. This leak was rectified on 3 August 2020 and rectification works completed on 7 August 2020. It advised that the delays experienced throughout the repair works had been caused by COVID-19 restrictions and that it had not detected a further leak on 30 June 2020 due to the leak being related to rain. It subsequently reiterated its offer of £100 compensation for the distress experienced by the resident and made a further offer of £30 for the missed appointment. It also acknowledged it was still to provide the money for the resident’s temporary accommodation and apologised for its delay. It also noted it would not usually agree to decant a resident in such circumstances but had agreed to pay £4,320 towards the temporary accommodation costs in recognition of the resident’s safety concerns.
  23. On 20 October 2020, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and requested an escalation to stage two. He further advised he considered the landlord to have been at fault for not fixing the leak permanently following his earlier reports and that also the landlord had ignored his reports of ongoing leaks after the initial attempt to repair the roof in June 2020.
  24. The landlord provided its stage two response on 16 November 2020. It reiterated its apology for the delays during the repair works and increased its offer of compensation to £250. It also increased its offer of compensation for the missed appointments to £60 in recognition that two appointments had been missed. Regarding damage to the resident’s possessions, it reiterated its position that it would not offer compensation in relation to this, and any claim would have to be brought through the resident’s insurer. It also noted its stage one response had been delayed and offered a further £50 compensation. It additionally noted it had previously advised the resident that he was unable to appeal the decision to refuse his application for a transfer on medical grounds and advised that this was incorrect. It advised that the resident was able to appeal this decision to the lettings panel. It apologised for giving the incorrect information and advised it would provide further training to its staff.
  25. On 17 November 2020, the resident requested that his transfer application be reviewed by the lettings panel. The landlord has provided this service with its internal communications which indicate it referred the resident’s application to the lettings panel on the same date, with a hearing due on 8 December 2020.

Assessment and findings

Leak

  1. The landlord’s repair policy notes it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 20 working days. Following the resident’s initial reports in January 2020 of a leak, it is evident from the landlord’s repair logs that it attended to the leaks in early February 2020, and again in March 2020 following its inspections, which was a reasonable timeframe in the circumstances. Additionally, following the resident’s further report in June 2020, the landlord arranged for its electrician to attend the same day, and a further inspection within 4 days, which was within its stated response times. While the resident considers the landlord to have failed to solve the leak during its initial repair works, this service has not been provided with conclusive evidence, such as a surveyor’s report, that these leaks were one and the same, nor that the landlord’s initial repairs were inadequate at the time.
  2. As part of the resident’s complaint on 22 June 2020 that his roof had collapsed, the resident noted it had “collapsed on my head” and that it had adversely affected his health. The Ombudsman considers it best practice for a landlord to make enquires as to the wellbeing of its residents when it receives such reports, and it is not evident it did so in this instance.
  3. It is evident that the landlord’s roofing contractors did attend the same day and that rectification works were carried out to prevent the leak from reoccurring. It was also appropriate that the landlord kept the resident updated that repair works had been booked for the ceiling. Given that the resident had already left the property and found alternative temporary accommodation at this time, it was reasonable that the landlord did not address its position on whether a decant was necessary, and it was appropriate that it subsequently used its discretion to offer £90 per day towards the resident’s temporary accommodation costs. It was also appropriate that the landlord set out the timeframe for its payment of these costs, being up until the property was made good, and that it measured the resident’s expectations that this would be when the roof was boarded up, not when all decoration works would be completed. Again, it was appropriate that it set out its expected timeline for completion of these works and it was reasonable that it concluded it had acted as urgently as possible at this point.
  4. It is evident that on 30 June 2020 the resident notified the landlord that its repair contractor had expressed concerns that the leaks were ongoing and that the source of the leaks had not been addressed and would require a plumber. While the landlord’s repair supervisor advised there were no leaks present on 1 July 2020, it is evident that the resident reported further concerns following works on 7 July 2020, in particular that no plumber had addressed the leak and that the smoke alarm remained deactivated. Additionally, he advised on 12 July 2020 that the leaks were ongoing. While the landlord’s repair supervisor may not have noted any leaks on 1 July 2020, given that the resident expressed concerns of ongoing leaks following this date, and that the concerns raised by the initial repair contractor had not been addressed, it is not evident why the landlord did not reinvestigate these concerns before insisting it considered the property safe to return to. It is not evident it explained the basis of its consideration that the property was safe, despite the resident requesting an independent surveyor assess this, nor is it evident it addressed the issue of the deactivated fire alarm which, considering the electrical issues experienced at the property, was a reasonable concern for the resident. Additionally, the resident reported that the broken ceiling plaster was still hanging across the wall and was in an unsanitary condition, which it is not evident the landlord responded to. This caused the resident distress and concern about the prospect of moving back into his property.
  5. Following the resident’s advice that he was unable to attend the property on 2 July 2020 to allow access for the repair works, it was appropriate that the landlord cancelled these works and rearranged them for 7 July 2020. While it initially insisted the resident returned to the property despite his ongoing concerns of leaks (as discussed above), following the discovery by its repair contractor of ongoing leaks on 17 July 2020 it was also appropriate that the landlord continued to agree to pay for the resident’s temporary accommodation while it arranged for further repairs and that it kept him updated of the timeline of the actions taken. It was also appropriate that having initially raised the requirement for a dehumidifier, the landlord set out its position on why this was no longer required, and also how long it would take to arrange for one following the resident’s request that one be supplied.
  6. Regarding the resident’s requests for compensation for damage to his possessions, it is not evident that the landlord unreasonably delayed in any of its repair works which would have caused avoidable damage to the resident’s possessions. It is evident it has attempted to carry out repairs in accordance with its repair responsibilities and that it has repeated its position that any claim for damage to possessions should go through the resident’s contents insurance, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was reasonable in the circumstances.
  7. As noted above, while it was appropriate that the landlord used its discretion to pay towards the resident’s temporary accommodation, it is evident that it significantly delayed in providing any payment. It is evident that there was initially a delay caused by confusion around what bank statements it required, however, following its advice it was in a position to transfer money on 8 July 2020, it is not evident it had transferred any money even by the stage two response, despite the resident chasing this up on 10 further occasions. This would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident as it is evident that the landlord of the temporary accommodation put pressure on him for the money and he had to chase up the landlord for the funds on multiple occasions despite continued promises from the landlord the funds would be transferred. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this contributed to the service failure regarding its response to the resident’s reports of a leak at his property and it is appropriate that an amount of compensation be offered for this element of the complaint, as discussed further below.
  8. Given the landlord’s failure to investigate the ongoing leaks reported by the resident following its repair supervisor’s inspection, it was appropriate that the landlord offered an amount of compensation to reflect its delay in carrying out the appropriate repairs. It was also appropriate that it increased its offer given the resident’s ongoing concerns. The Ombudsman considers the amount of £250 offered in its stage two response to have been an appropriate amount to compensate for the stress and inconvenience caused by its failure to investigate the ongoing leaks reported by the resident which resulted in the delay to the rectification of the problem and his return to the property. However, as noted above, based also on the significant delay in providing the promised contribution towards his temporary accommodation, the Ombudsman considers a total amount of £500 to be appropriate in the circumstances for this element of the complaint.

Transfer application

  1. The landlord’s bedroom standard notes that there should be one bedroom per couple and either one to two further bedrooms for two children. It is not disputed that the property is a one-bedroom property and that the resident lives there with his partner and two children. The landlord’s transfer policy notes that band C will be awarded where properties are overcrowded according to its bedroom standard.
  2. Following the resident’s initial request in January 2020 for an immediate transfer, based on the landlord’s internal communications, it is evident this request was denied. The landlord also noted the resident had been awarded band D. It is not evident why it noted band D was awarded given that the landlord would have been aware of the number of people in occupation at the property and the number of bedrooms at the property. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have articulated to the resident its reasoning for its decision to refuse the immediate transfer and its decision to award band D, however, it is not evident it did so. Given that the landlord later noted in its correspondence on 22 July 2020 that the resident had band C since 2015, it is not clear if the landlord’s mention of band D was in error. It is also not evident that the landlord set out the resident’s option to appeal the decision to refuse his request. This would have left the resident unsure about the outcome of the request and unreasonably delayed his ability to bid on properties with an appropriate banding.
  3. There was a significant delay in the landlord providing further information to the resident as he subsequently noted in his formal complaint on 22 June 2020 that he was yet to receive a response about his request for a transfer. Following this, the landlord appropriately replied on the same date that for his medical issues to be considered, he would need to complete the self-assessment medical forms. It is not disputed that these were provided to the resident around this time. Given that the resident raised the issue again in his further complaint on 30 June 2020 and provided a GP letter, it was appropriate that the landlord reminded him on 2 July 2020 that it required the self-assessment form.
  4. It is evident that the resident provided the self-assessment form on or around 14 July 2020 and that the landlord appropriately set out a reasonable timeframe for it to process them. The landlord replied within that timeframe and appropriately set out its reasoning for keeping the resident at band C. The landlord’s allocations policy notes that applicants can appeal rejected applications to the landlord’s ‘lettings panel’, however, the landlord informed him that he would not be able to appeal. The resident subsequently requested that it reconsider its decision, which gave it the opportunity to identify its error, however, it is not evident that it provided any response to the resident. The landlord also did not address this issue at any point in its stage one response, despite it being part of the resident’s formal complaint.
  5. While the landlord appropriately identified this error and offered an apology in its stage two response, this was a full four months after its initial error, despite having two earlier opportunities to identify the error. This significantly delayed the ability for the resident to gain access to the appeals process. While it was appropriate that the landlord advised it would implement staff training and that it subsequently arranged for the resident’s application to go to the lettings panel, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, its delays in initially providing information about the outcome of his application and its subsequent misinformation about his ability to appeal amount to service failure, and an amount of compensation is appropriate in the circumstances. Given the significant amount of time that passed and the multiple missed opportunities to correct itself, an amount of £250 is appropriate.

Missed appointments

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy notes that it can offer £30 for each missed appointment. It is evident that on 23 June 2020, the landlord advised the resident that its repair operatives would attend the property on 25 June 2020 to reinstate the electricity at the property, and on 26 June 2020 to supply a dehumidifier and to assess what works were required.
  2. It is not disputed that the repair operatives did not attend on either date and that the resident alerted the landlord to this on 26 June 2020. The landlord appropriately apologised and rearranged the date for 29 June 2020, the next working day, which was reasonable in the circumstances. Given that the landlord’s compensation policy notes compensation for missed appointments, it would have been helpful for the resident had it given its position on compensation at this time, which it did not do until its formal responses, despite the resident raising the issue of compensation on multiple occasions.
  3. While it was appropriate that the landlord raised the issue of compensation for missed appointments in its stage one response, it is evident that there were two missed appointments, and that the stage one compensation offered was only for one. It was appropriate, therefore, that it increased its offer to £60 in its stage two response, which was in line with its compensation policy. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this amount, combined with its earlier apology, amounted to reasonable redress for this element of the complaint.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy notes it will provide a stage one response within 10 working days of a complaint, and a stage two response within 20 working days. It is evident that on 23 January 2020, the resident informed the landlord he wished to complain about his banding award. It is not evident whether this complaint was made through the landlord’s formal online complaints portal or verbalised to the landlord. While the Ombudsman considers there to be a difference between a formal complaint and a report of an issue, the Ombudsman considers it best practice to clarify how the landlord will be dealing with any such report, which it is not evident it did in this instance.
  2. While the landlord’s policy notes that it will issue its stage one response within 10 working days of a complaint, the Ombudsman understands that where the resolution of a complaint is ongoing, it is reasonable to postpone the formal response while the resolution is completed. Following the resident’s formal complaint regarding the damage to his property on 22 June 2020, it is evident that the landlord was in continual correspondence with the resident throughout the period in which it completed the repair works, however, it would have been helpful if it had advised the resident of its proposed timeframe to provide a response, which it is not evident it did following this complaint, nor the resident’s further complaint on 30 June 2020.
  3. While the landlord provided a communication on 13 August 2020 following the completion of the repair works which outlined its initial position on compensation, it is not evident that this communication was intended to be a formal stage one response as it did not identify itself as such, nor did it provide any information about how the resident could escalate his complaint. Given that the resident subsequently rejected this offer of compensation, it would have been appropriate for it to have outlined its position on whether this was to be considered a formal response or whether he could escalate the complaint, which it did not do, despite numerous further correspondence from the resident.
  4. Following the resident’s request that the landlord provide a formal response on 19 October 2020, the landlord appropriately provided one the following day. Similarly, following the resident’s request for an escalation, the landlord appropriately provided its stage two response within a reasonable timeframe. While the landlord was appropriately in communication with the resident throughout the period of the complaint, given the significant delay to its formal responses, the Ombudsman considers there to have been a service failure with the landlord’s complaints handling. It was appropriate, therefore, that the landlord identified this and made an offer of compensation in its stage two response, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress for this element of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its:
    1. response to the resident’s reports concerning a leak at his property and the subsequent damage that occurred;
    2. advice regarding the resident’s application for consideration of medical grounds for his transfer application.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding its:
    1. response following missed appointments by its repair operatives;
    2. complaints handling.

Reasons

Leak

  1. It is not evident that the landlord delayed in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak in January 2020 and it responded to the resident’s further reports of a leak and ceiling collapse in June 2020 within the timeframes as set out in its repairs policy. The landlord also appropriately exercised its discretion in offering to contribute towards the resident’s temporary accommodation while it arranged repairs. It was also reasonable that the landlord clearly articulated its position on the resident’s request for compensation for damage to his possessions, which it reiterated on each occasion. The landlord also appropriately rescheduled some of the works at the request of the resident and agreed to continue to cover the costs for his temporary accommodation for this period.
  2. It is evident, however, that following its initial repairs, the resident reported that there were ongoing leaks, which the landlord did not address and instead insisted the property was safe to return to. Given that the landlord’s repair operative subsequently confirmed that the leaks were ongoing, this failure to reinvestigate caused an unreasonable delay to the repairs at the property which also extended the resident’s time in temporary accommodation causing him distress and inconvenience. Additionally, the landlord repeatedly failed to provide the contribution towards the resident’s temporary accommodation despite multiple requests from the resident, causing him further distress and inconvenience. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this constituted service failure.

 

Transfer application

  1. It is not evident that the landlord articulated to the resident its initial decision to refuse his application. Following his further complaint, it appropriately requested the necessary forms, and subsequently responded to his further application setting out the reasons for its decision. Its subsequent misinformation about his ability to appeal, however, caused the resident to miss out on his ability to exercise his rights under the landlord’s policy for a period of four months, despite his request that it review its decision and that the issue was part of his formal complaint which the landlord failed to address in its stage one response.

Missed appointments

  1. It is evident that the landlord missed two appointments, for which it offered an apology and rescheduled in a reasonable timeframe. It also offered reasonable compensation in its stage two response, in line with its compensation policy.

Complaints handling

  1. While it is evident that the landlord remained in communication with the resident throughout the period of repairs, it did not adequately acknowledge the resident’s complaint or provide a timeline for its formal response. Additionally, there was a significant delay following the completion of the repair works to it providing tis formal responses, which it appropriately acknowledged in its stage two response and offered reasonable compensation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £750, comprising:
    1. £500 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to reinvestigate ongoing leaks at the property and its unreasonable delay to provide its promised contribution towards the resident’s temporary accommodation;
    2. £250 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to correctly advise the resident of his option to appeal its decision not to grant him a transfer on medical grounds.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £250. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

 

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and include the following (if it has not already done so):
    1. reiterate its offer of £60 for the missed appointments by its repair operatives;
    2. reiterate its offer of £50 compensation for complaints handling.