Peabody Trust (201913961)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 201913961
Peabody Trust
29 January 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 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 response to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged possessions following a roof leak.
Background
2. Since 2007 the resident has lived at the property, a first-floor maisonette, which is owned and managed by the landlord. The tenancy agreement signed by the resident did not include an expectation that she have contents insurance and she says the landlord did not direct her at the time to any other information regarding this. The landlord has told this Service that, while a resident is not obliged to take out insurance as part of their tenancy agreement, it would have provided her with a document with details about home insurance.
3. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof and internal ceilings. The resident is responsible for the prompt reporting of disrepair to the landlord.
4. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that it will not pay compensation “where a claim can be made on home contents or buildings insurance”. It says it expects residents to take out adequate home contents insurance and that its compensation policy is not intended to replace or compensate for a resident’s lack of home contents insurance.
5. The landlord’s Complaints Procedure comprises two stages: a Stage 1 investigation followed by a Stage 2 review if the resident remains dissatisfied. Its Complaints Policy states that insurance claims and appeals, including damage to personal possessions, are not dealt with under its Complaints Procedure and should instead be referred to relevant insurers.
Summary of events
6. The events which led up to the current complaint appear to be largely undisputed. In July 2017, December 2017 and June 2018 the property suffered leaks from its roof. Action to address the first leak appears to have become delayed when the landlord concluded it to be a problem of condensation rather than a leak but when, in December 2017, the flat suffered a second leak the landlord undertook to investigate further.
7. Stage 1 complaint: On 15 December 2017, the landlord received the resident’s complaint about the ongoing leaks. It appears it was around this time that the resident had reason to call out pest control for a mouse problem in her loft. At that point she discovered that bags in the loft containing her possessions had been torn by mice and her belongings had been damaged by water from the leaks.
8. Stage 1 response: On 3 January 2018, the landlord’s repairs complaint manager responded to the complaint, apologising that: “…providing a plan to resolve the water penetration in your home took longer than we would normally expect…” Resolution of the leaks had taken longer to resolve than it would normally expect and for the inconvenience this had caused her. It explained that once the roof repair was completed it would address the internal repairs to the damage of the interior of her flat. The landlord carried out the roof repair in May 2018.
9. On 24 May 2018, the resident told the repairs complaint manager that she wanted to claim for her damaged personal items. The manager advised her that she would need to claim via her home contents insurance. When the resident said she did not have insurance, the landlord advised her to make a claim through the landlord’s insurance.
10. It also appears that in May 2018 the resident complained again to the landlord about the delayed roof repair and the resulting damage to her possessions both inside the flat and the loft. [This was effectively a request for escalation of her earlier Stage 1 complaint.]
11. In June 2018, the flat suffered a further leak and it was at this point that the landlord concluded the issue to be the result of a more general roof defect necessitating the overhaul and installation of a new roof. This was completed in September 2018.
12. Meanwhile, on 16 July 2018 in what appears to have been a follow up to its Stage 1 response, the repairs complaint manager emailed the resident. She apologised for “…the poor handling of the repairs in terms of the overall judgement in the scope of works required to the roof…” She said that as the scope of the works were now beyond a responsive repair it would escalate the case to its building and maintenance team for onwards management of the complaint. It offered her £200 for the time trouble and inconvenience caused by the delays.
13. Although exact dates are unclear, it appears that on 22 October 2018 the resident emailed a letter (dated 17 October 2018) to the landlord’s insurance team entitled: “Compensation due to water damage from leak in roof.” It detailed the chronology of the leaks, and contained the list of possessions, with values, that she said had been in her flat and loft and damaged by the leaks. She attached a folder of receipts and photographs.
14. It appears that on 19 November 2018 the resident emailed the insurance team again to chase a response, saying she had not even had an acknowledgement of her earlier email. And the resident also asked the neighbourhood manager to chase the team on her behalf. On 9 December 2018, the resident emailed the manager to ask if she had had a reply from the insurance team, as she had not. The manager had also had no reply but said she would chase it up.
15. The landlord has told this Service that in January 2019 the repairs complaints team advised that all works were complete, and the case was closed.
16. On 19 February 2019, the resident once again emailed the insurance team to complain about its lack of response to her previous emails. She said she had raised it with two other officers who said they had contacted the team on her behalf and were themselves still awaiting a reply.
17. On 28 February 2019 she raised again with the neighbour manager the lack of response. On 1 March 2019 the neighbourhood manager chased the insurance team on the resident’s behalf, saying both herself and another manager had previously chased the matter, explaining the resident was “at her wits end”, and asking that it contact her about the claim.
18. On 4 March 2019, the landlord’s insurance team replied to the resident about her claim for compensation for damaged possessions. It told her that it had referred her letter to its building maintenance team to reply to her “…as this is something that unfortunately is not covered under [our] insurance policy.”
19. On 7 March 2019, the resident emailed the insurance team. She told them she was not satisfied with its decision; said she was not clear why it had referred her case to the building maintenance team and that she would be seeking advice.
20. After chasing by the resident and her MP about the lack of response the landlord opened a new Stage 1 complaint in relation to the compensation issue. At which point it emailed the resident to tell her that it would revisit the issue of compensation for the delayed repair but that: “As per [landlord’s] policy, [we] are unable to compensate you for the damaged items you have listed, as this would be a matter for home contents insurance.”
21. On 26 March 2019 in response to the resident submitting photographs of damage to her flat the landlord emailed her and raised its earlier offer of £200 compensation to £500 for the delayed repair. With regard to any damage to the resident’s personal possessions the landlord said that would be a matter for her home contents insurance. The £500 does not appear to have been accepted by the resident, but no further action was taken by the landlord at that stage. [The landlord has said this was because the case handler left.]
22. In May 2019, the resident’s MP chased the landlord for a response and this prompted the landlord to escalate the complaint for a Stage 2 review.
23. Between March and October 2019, the landlord was focused on completing the repairs to the interior of the resident’s flat and when the resident chased progress in September/August 2019 the landlord told her it would provide its Stage 2 response once it had completed the repairs and would consider any compensation due at that stage. By October 2019 work on the interior repairs had commenced, and by December 2019 these were completed. During this time the resident’s MP had continued to chase the resident’s insurance claim with the landlord.
24. On 24 October 2019, the landlord’s customer services team emailed the resident and informed her that once it had completed its post-inspection of the works it would respond to her complaint and make an offer of compensation.
25. Stage 2 response: On 2 January 2020 the landlord responded to the resident under Stage 2 of its complaints procedure, concluding it had failed to provide an effective service in her case. In summary it found as follows:
a. The roof repairs took longer than anticipated.
b. The internal repairs were delayed as a result of poor handling by its contractors; the delay was unreasonable; she had been left for a long time without the full use of her home; it had failed to update her, and she had had to contact her MP for the outstanding repairs to be identified and reinstated.
c. It had learnt from the complaint the need to effectively monitor contractors to ensure the timely completion of repairs.
d. It had learnt the need to keep residents informed and updated of any changes and delays.
e. It apologised for the upset and frustration she had suffered.
f. It offered the resident compensation of £1767.30 in place of its previous offer. The amount comprised £100 for poor complaint handling and communication; £650 for time and trouble; £10 for a missed appointment; and £1007.30 for loss of the full use of the property during the delay.
g. With regard to compensation for her damaged personal possessions, the landlord explained its compensation policy did not allow for reimbursement of any loss of a personal nature. It said it advised residents to take out home contents insurance to cover any eventuality where damage occurs and advised that she contact her insurers for recompense of her loss.
26. The resident accepted the compensation as reasonable for “…all that [I] have endured.”
27. On 17 January 2020, the MP chased the landlord about compensation for the damage to the resident’s possessions. In response, the landlord referred the MP to its Stage 2 response and the fact that the resident had accepted its offer of compensation.
28. The landlord has since told this Service that a further letter from the resident in February 2020 about her claim went effectively unanswered. It also says it now has a ‘signing up pack’ which tells tenants they need to arrange their own insurance on the grounds that it cannot be held responsible for damage to possessions.
Assessment and findings
29. The landlord has acknowledged and compensated the resident for its service failures in relation to both the roof and internal repairs of the property. This does not form the subject matter of the complaint to the Ombudsman.
30. It is the landlord’s handling of the resident’s compensation claim, as a result of damage to belongings which she says were caused by the roof leak and its delayed resolution, that forms the subject matter of the complaint under consideration here.
31. Firstly, whether or not the resident was advised to take out contents insurance at the outset of her tenancy is largely irrelevant for the purposes of the Ombudsman’s consideration in this case. While clearly it would be desirable for a resident to have contents insurance, it was not a requirement of her tenancy. There is no evidence of the advice from the landlord on the subject and so no evidence that the resident chose to ignore its advice and, in some way, contributed to the situation in which she found herself. [The Ombudsman notes the landlord’s new ‘signing up pack’ but does not see this removes the need for the landlord to take a fair and reasonable approach to cases involving damage for which it is potentially liable.]
32. In considering what actions the landlord ought reasonably to have taken in response to the resident’s insurance claim, the Ombudsman is guided by its key Dispute Resolution Principles and in particular the principle that a landlord “be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process.”
33. The bare facts of the case in so far as the claim is concerned are that: the tenancy agreement makes clear the landlord was responsible for maintenance and repair of the resident’s roof; the landlord acknowledges it poorly handled the roof repair and that it took longer than anticipated to resolve it; there were mice in the resident’s loft which had caused damage to the bags containing belongings; and that the resident has provided details of items in her loft and flat that she says were damaged as a result of water penetration from the leaks.
34. It is not known what view the landlord takes of the extent to which it considers it was at fault, but it does appear to take some responsibility for the time it took to resolve the leaks. As the Ombudsman sees it, if the landlord accepts that it may have been at fault or contributed to the cause of the leak, it may not be appropriate to ask a complainant to claim on their own contents insurance policy. In the Ombudsman’s view it would be fair and reasonable for the landlord, as the responsible party, to either put right any damage caused to its property by the leak and / or facilitate a claim on its own insurance policy for any damaged belongings. It is only through an insurance claim that negligence and / or liability to pay can be established. And given that there was the complication of potential mice damage as well, the Ombudsman considers it would have been appropriate for the landlord to refer the claim to its insurers to give a decision as to liability.
35. Furthermore, even if the resident had had contents insurance, in light of the fact that the landlord appears to accept it may have been at least partly at fault, the Ombudsman does not consider it necessarily reasonable to have expected the resident to claim on her own insurance. This is because all claims made on a policy have the potential to affect a resident’s future premiums and / or require an excess.
36. In any event, despite having initially advised the resident to claim through her insurers, the Ombudsman notes that as soon as the resident made it aware she had no insurance, the landlord promptly and appropriately advised her to make a claim through its insurance instead.
37. However, having duly followed its advice and emailed the landlord’s insurance team with her claim in October 2018 matters quickly began to unravel for the resident with respect to her claim’s progression. Despite repeatedly chasing the insurance team in November and December 2018 and again in February 2019, including contacting the landlord’s own officers in her attempts to prompt a response from its insurance team, the team failed to reply to the resident until March 2019. That was an unacceptable delay and had necessitated an unreasonable amount of time and trouble by the resident in the process.
38. This delay was then exacerbated by the inadequate reply from the insurance team. The team simply told her that the matter was not covered by its insurance policy but failed to provide the resident with the considered response to the claim to which she was entitled.
39. Crucially, it failed to explain if it had referred the claim to its insurers, what view had been taken of it, what consideration had been given to liability and why it considered her claim to not be covered by its policy. Without these considerations, the insurance team’s response was an inadequate one.
40. It does not appear to the Ombudsman that the claim was referred by the landlord to its insurers, despite the fact that any dispute as to liability for the damage would be ultimately for its insurers to determine. Through this omission the landlord effectively deprived the resident of the full consideration of her claim to which she was entitled, and the Ombudsman remains unclear why this was never done.
41. Following this, the Ombudsman remains equally unclear as to the basis for the insurance team’s decision to then refer the matter to its building and maintenance team, when it specifically concerned an insurance claim, not a repair. This was understandably confusing for the resident and despite her query the insurance team never got back to her with an explanation.
42. This lack of communication quite reasonably led the resident to engage her MP to try and prompt a more considered response from the landlord. Again, while understandable, it ought not to have been necessary for the resident to have had to engage the support of her MP in securing the answers to which she was entitled.
43. While this intervention succeeded in getting her complaint escalated for a Stage 2 review, and while it was reasonable that the landlord await resolution of the internal repairs before determining the compensation due for inconvenience, it was clear that the resident’s insurance claim was a separate issue to that of more general compensation. In light of this, and the fact that the landlord’s own policies make clear claims for damages cannot be considered under its compensation or complaints policy, it ought to have addressed the insurance claim separately from both of these and thereby prevented this further delay.
44. Consequently, while the landlord’s Stage 2 response accurately informed resident that its compensation policy did not allow for reimbursement for loss of a personal nature, the Ombudsman considers that this rather missed the point in so far as the resident’s insurance claim was concerned. It would appear from the information provided that the landlord considers its compensation payment for the delayed repairs is sufficient redress for the overall impact of its service failures on the resident. But the resident’s claim for damage to her possessions was an entirely separate matter and this ought to have been recognised by the landlord at Stage 2 of its complaints process and addressed accordingly. The fact that it was not was a missed opportunity in the landlord’s complaint handling to adhere to the key dispute resolution principle to put things right, and to do so at the earliest opportunity.
45. In summary, by the time of the landlord’s Stage 2 response, matters had effectively come full circle for the resident with her insurance claim. She had engaged in a process which, after considerable delay and poor communication from the landlord, and much inconvenience on her part, had left her once again being told to claim on insurance the landlord knew she did not have. Furthermore, she had still not had her claim adequately considered by either the landlord or its insurers. These service failures, which ought to have been identified and addressed by the landlord in its Stage 2 review, have caused the resident considerable frustration, inconvenience and left her, as one of the landlord’s own officers remarked, “at her wits end.”
Determination (decision)
46. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damaged possessions following a roof leak.
Reasons
47. The landlord’s response to the resident’s compensation claim was unduly delayed, its communication with the resident was poor and it ultimately failed to provide the resident with a considered decision on her claim.
Orders
48. The landlord is ordered to consider the resident’s compensation claim of 17 October 2018 – either itself or by referral to its insurers. It is ordered to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination to confirm which route it will take and when she can expect to receive its decision with full explanation.
49. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500 compensation for its poor handling of the resident’s compensation request.