Peabody Trust (202014607)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014607

Peabody Trust

15 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports of leaks at her property from July 2021;
2. response to the resident’s reports of leaks at her property from October 2019;
3. response to the resident’s request to implement a maintenance programme;
4. offer of compensation in relation to the leaks;
5. complaints handling.

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.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

In or around July 2021, the resident experienced further leaks at her property, which she reported to the landlord. The landlord’s contractor attended the property and identified repair works, however, as of September 2021, the resident has advised that the landlord is yet to provide an update on these works.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint regarding the resident’s reports of leaks at her property from July 2021 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. While the resident has experienced past issues with similar leaks, this incident has occurred following the landlord’s formal complaint responses and repair works for the previous leaks. The landlord must be given the opportunity to respond to the resident’s concerns about the new leaks and as such, the resident should raise a formal complaint in the first instance.
Following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, should the resident remain dissatisfied with the outcome, she may then be able to bring the complaint to this service.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a secured tenant at the property of the landlord since 4 November 2002. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
The property, referred to as ‘Flat A’, is a multilevel flat, with another flat, ‘Flat B’, above. The property was previously managed by a former landlord until that landlord merged with the current landlord in or around 2017.
The resident’s complaint was brought to the Housing Ombudsman by a representative. The representative also lives at the property but is not a tenant of the landlord. For the purposes of this investigation, both the resident and the representative will both be referred to as ‘the resident’, unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes that the landlord will provide its stage one response within 10 working days, or that it will explain why it requires longer if necessary. The resident can then request an escalation to stage two, following which a response will be provided within 15 working days. The policy also notes that as part of the stage two process “some complaints, especially those that are less straightforward, may be referred to our complaints panel.”
The landlord also operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes that it will treat internal leaking where there is a danger to the property and belongings as an “emergency repair,” which it will attend to within four hours. It also notes that it treats “minor leaks” as a routine repair, which it will attend to within 30 working days.
The landlord operates a compensation policy. The policy notes it will not offer compensation where a claim can be made through its insurers. The policy also notes it can offer up to £400 compensation for “time, trouble, and inconvenience” where there has been “extensive disruption.” The policy notes it will offer £2 per day for electricity used by a dehumidifier and that it will offer a 20% rent reduction for the loss of a bedroom for longer than 48 hours. The policy further notes it will offer £300 for an “urgent defect, e.g. a slow leak” if not made safe within 5 days and made good within 30 working days.
In 2012, the resident raised a complaint regarding a leak at the property. This was escalated to stage three of the previous landlord’s complaints policy in place at that time, which was a panel investigation. The panel concluded that the landlord intended to provide annual preventive maintenance to the guttering at the property.

Summary of events

The resident has advised this service that leaks through the electrical ceiling light fittings were initially reported to the landlord by Flat B on 27 September 2019. It is not disputed that initially an emergency electrician attended the property and carried out safety works to the light fitting, following which the landlord’s contractor attended and carried out further works. A further leak in Flat B was reported on 30 September 2019, which the resident attributed to the overflowing gutters. The resident has advised this service that on the same date she expressed her concern to the landlord that this leak would eventually affect her property. This service has not been provided with a copy of this communication, however.
On 6 October 2019, the resident reported to the landlord that the leak had caused a flood in the basement bedroom at her property and that she was “up to her ankles in water.” The resident has advised this service that the landlord initially advised an emergency contractor would attend the same day, but that she was subsequently advised that the leak was not considered an emergency and that the contractor would attend on 7 October 2019. The resident has advised that no contractor attended on this date. The landlord has not provided this service with detailed records from this period but has not disputed this in its correspondence with the resident.
The resident has advised that she reported further flooding between 6 and 14 October 2019, and that she made a formal complaint regarding the landlord’s response on 15 October 2019 by telephone, which was acknowledged on 17 October 2019. The resident has also advised this service that she had a telephone conversation with the landlord on 23 October 2019 during which she reported that she had been continuously running her own dehumidifier as the landlord had not offered one and that she considered the damp caused by the leak to be having an effect on her health.
The resident has advised that on or around 23 October 2019, the landlord’s contractor attended the property and advised the resident they considered that the basement floor required replacing. The resident has noted she informed the contractor this should be done after the works to prevent further leaks were completed. The landlord has not provided records of the above-mentioned telephone calls, or the notes from the contractor’s visit, however, it has not disputed this occurred in its correspondence with the resident.
Throughout November 2019, the landlord’s contractors carried out further assessment of the property and determined scaffolding was required to properly assess the guttering. It is not disputed that the resident and the landlord communicated by telephone a number of times throughout this period and that the resident attended the landlord’s drop in ‘surgery’ on 2 December 2019 to reiterate her complaint. The resident has advised she also telephoned the landlord on 16 December 2019 to report that the leaks were ongoing and to outline what inspections she considered were required, i.e. the guttering, the pigeon proofing, the hoppers, etc. She also requested that the complaint be escalated to stage three of the complaints procedure, which she understood to involve a complaint panel investigation.
The scaffolding was erected on 19 December 2019, however the resident has advised she considered this to be in the wrong place. She further advised that she attempted to communicate this to the landlord but was unable to reach a member of staff. On 23 December 2019, the landlord carried out works to the rainwater equipment, which the resident noted stopped the leaks.
On 21 January 2020, the resident met with her ‘Neighbourhood Manager’ and advised she would consider the complaint resolved once the landlord had addressed all the necessary works and had put in place a maintenance programme. She also requested the landlord further explain how its complaints procedure operated.
On 23 January 2020, the landlord’s roofing contractor attended the property to assess the gutters, during which, the resident expressed her concerns that the pigeon proofing needed to be reinstated and that the rain hoppers were inadequate. On 27 January 2020, the landlord advised the complaint was still at stage one and that it would issue a response following the contractor’s report. On 29 January 2020, the landlord advised it would carry out a dye test on 30 January 2020 to determine if the works had been successful. On the same date, the residents reported that the pigeon proofing remained dislodged and that birds had begun to nest. The landlord subsequently advised it would inform its contractors of this.
On 11 February 2020, the landlord advised the repair works for the leak had been completed and it would now make arrangements for internal redecoration works. It also advised it would keep the resident updated regarding the repairs to the pigeon proofing. The resident replied on 14 February 2020 and reiterated she wished for her complaint to be escalated to stage three, which she understood to involve a panel hearing. She noted that the landlord had advised it would not provide a stage one response until after the works were completed and disputed that this was in line with its complaints policy. She advised that the damp following the leaks had left her unable to use the basement bedroom, and that she was concerned about the health implications of living in such conditions. She also reported that the laminate flooring which she had laid in that room was ruined as a result of water ingress beneath and that the landlord had never offered dehumidifiers to address the problem. She noted the landlord’s intention to repaint the interior, but advised she considered the internal issues to include water ingress beneath all the floors, which should be investigated. She again reiterated she considered a maintenance programme should be put in place to prevent the issues reoccurring and that it would also be helpful to have a surveyor carry out a full assessment. She also expressed her concern at the amount of time that had passed since initially reporting the issue and that the pigeon proofing still needed to be addressed.
On 12 March 2020, the landlord reiterated that the complaint was still at stage one and its approach was to issue a formal response following the completion of the works. At this point, the resident would have the option to escalate it to stage two. It advised that its contractor had visited on 25 February 2020 and had identified further works, which it would keep her updated about. Regarding the resident’s concerns about damage to her floors, it advised this would need to be considered by its insurance team and provided her with the contact information. The resident replied on the same date and expressed her dissatisfaction that she had only just been informed the floor required going through the insurer. She also requested that the landlord provide her with copies of its contractor’s reports.
On 18 March 2020, the resident advised she had arranged for her floor to be taken up as she considered that the landlord was “not prepared to help to repair the damage caused by [its] neglect of the building we have taken steps to remedy the situation ourselves.” She also provided photos from the area beneath the floor which she considered to be consistent with water damage. She again reiterated her request that the complaint be escalated. On 1 April 2020, she chased an update from the landlord and advised she was having difficulty arranging for the new floor to be fitted following the introduction of COVID-19 restrictions.
On the same date, the landlord provided its stage one response. It advised it had raised a work order to address the damp in the property, but that this had been postponed due to the COVID-19 restrictions. It also advised that its understanding was that the resident had refused internal works following the completion of the external works. It further advised that following its contractor’s inspection on 25 February 2020, they had reported there was only minor damage to the floor, the cause of which could not be determined. It reiterated it would be for its insurer to assess liability and for the resident to refer any claim to them. It accepted that the resident had gone to some time and trouble in chasing up the repairs and so offered £300 compensation, as well as £25 towards redecorating costs.
The resident subsequently requested an escalation of the complaint. On 21 May 2020, the resident advised she wanted the landlord to provide assurances that the leak issues had been fixed and that the pigeon proofing had been restored. Regarding the floor, she requested reimbursement of £745 and advised that the contractor had been unable to inspect the floor correctly on their visit. She also disputed that she had refused the internal redecoration works, but rather had requested these be carried out only after completion of all external works. She also wanted the landlord to acknowledge the leaks had left her unable to use the basement bedroom and to offer greater compensation accordingly. She also reiterated her request for the contractor’s reports.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 27 May 2020. It noted it was “reasonable for you to connect the recent leak from the gutter to your complaint in 2012” and that at that hearing, the landlord had agreed it “should consider clearing the gutter on a regular basis.” It advised, however, that “due to the time that has passed we can’t be held responsible for what was discussed in 2012.” It advised, however, that it did not intend to implement a regular cleaning programme for the gutter and that it was reliant on residents informing it when there was an issue. Regarding compensation, it clarified it did not offer compensation because there had been a leak, but only if it failed to respond to the leaks in accordance with its policy. It noted it had attended urgently following the initial report by the resident in October 2019 and had cleared the gutters by hand before determining that scaffolding was required. It explained that this was a lengthy process as it had to obtain quotes and subsequently inform residents of the disruption. It confirmed the works it had carried out, and that the works were completed by the end of February 2020, which it accepted had taken longer than it would have desired, and this would have caused inconvenience for the resident.
Regarding the resident’s request for its contractor’s reports, the landlord advised it currently did not have access to these as the contractors had been furloughed. Regarding the resident’s earlier requests to escalate the complaint to stage three, it recognised this had been the policy in the past, including during the resident’s 2012 complaint, but explained that it no longer operated a three-stage procedure, and now operated a two-stage procedure instead. It noted its policy was aimed at resolving issues at stage one, and then reviewing its actions at stage two, and so an escalation of the complaint would not have resolved the issue any faster. It also noted it had kept the resident informed of its actions throughout the stage one period prior to having provided its response.
Regarding the resident’s floor, the landlord reiterated that the resident would need to make a claim through its insurer and noted how to do so. Regarding the internal redecorations, it apologised if there had been a misunderstanding as to whether the resident had wanted this or not and that it should have confirmed its understanding in writing. It noted the resident’s position that she considered the basement room to have been unusable, but advised that based on its contractor’s assessment, the damage to the floor did not render the room unusable, and it had not been presented with any other evidence to indicate this. It concluded that it could have been more proactive in its responses and reiterated its offer of £325 compensation.
On 7 June 2020, the resident advised the new floor had now been fitted, but that there had been further leaks. She requested the landlord inspect the gutters. The landlord replied on 9 June 2020 and advised it had raised a repair job and had been informed it was due to dead birds in the guttering.
On 9 June 2020, the resident provided a detailed reply to the landlord’s stage two response. She disputed that the landlord had addressed the initial leaks within a reasonable timeframe as she considered them to be urgent works. She also disputed the landlord’s contractor’s assessment of her floor, noting that they had been unable to take a damp reading during the assessment, and that she had subsequently provided photographs depicting the water ingress underneath. She advised she considered compensation for possessions to therefore be payable. She reiterated noted that the most recent leaks were a result of dead pigeons accessing the area where the pigeon proofing was not installed. She also expressed her concern that the landlord had advised this would take 28 days to address.
The resident further expressed her dissatisfaction at the landlord’s position that it would not implement a regular maintenance programme and noted residents were not always able to determine if a gutter had been blocked. She also reiterated her request for the contractor’s reports and requested an apology for the landlord delaying the formal response and subsequent escalation of her complaint. She noted that the complaints policy referenced a further formal stage, being a panel hearing, which she requested. She concluded that the works carried out by the landlord were not sufficient as the leaks had returned and that the amount of compensation offered was not sufficient.
Throughout June 2020, the landlord arranged for its contractors, and subsequently a pest control contractor to assess the property. On or around 26 June 2020, the landlord advised the resident that it had arranged for further works and would provide an update in due course. On 3 July 2020, the resident reported there had been further leaks, following which the landlord advised it had approved the further works which required scaffolding. The resident also expressed concerns that the windows and balcony door at the property required waterproofing, to which the landlord advised it would assess during its inspection.
On 3 September 2020, the resident noted that the contractors had finished working, but reported that the rain hoppers had not been replaced, the gutters were not relined, and the pigeon proofing still had gaps. She subsequently expressed her concerns that the leaks would return. The landlord advised that it was carrying out a final inspection on 11 September 2020 and would then provide an update. Throughout October 2020, the resident reiterated on a number of occasions her request for a panel hearing of her complaint.
On 2 November 2020, the landlord noted its final inspection had been delayed and would be delayed further due to COVID-19 restrictions. On 20 November 2020, the landlord provided a further detailed response. It reiterated its position that it would not be able to carry out regular inspections of the guttering as this would not be cost effective given that it would require scaffolding. It also reiterated that it no longer operated a three stage complaints procedure and that a panel hearing would not have been appropriate as it would not have resulted in the works being done any faster, nor would it result in a regular maintenance programme being approved. It reiterated that the resident should make a claim for damage to personal property through its insurers, but recognised the time and trouble caused to the resident throughout the complaint period. It subsequently offered £500 compensation.
Shortly after, the resident provided her comments on the landlord’s response, disputed that regular assessment of the gutters would require scaffolding and said that she wanted the panel hearing to interrogate the landlord over its delays. On 23 February 2021, the resident advised she wanted further compensation of £50 towards the cost of her running her dehumidifiers. She also reiterated that she wanted a regular maintenance programme and also for an update on the current works. On 25 February 2021, the landlord agreed to the additional compensation. It advised that its position regarding the regular maintenance programme remained the same and clarified that its repairs policy was responsive and not pre-emptive.
The works from this period were completed on 14 April 2021, but as noted above further leaks have occurred which have been reported to the landlord. The resident also reported that the trees at the property needed to be attended to in order to prevent them causing blockages in the guttering. The landlord has advised that as of 29 July 2021, it had attended to some of the trees, and was awaiting planning permission to attend to the remaining trees. The resident has also advised that she began the process of making an insurance claim in or around February 2021, but noted she had some issues with this process. It is not evident if this has been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Leaks

The Ombudsman recognises that experiencing a leak at her home would have caused great distress to the resident. The purpose of this investigation is to determine if the landlord’s actions, once alerted to this leak, were reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s repairs policy notes it will treat internal leaking where there is a danger to property as an emergency, which it will attend to within four hours. Additionally, the policy notes that ‘minor leaks’ are considered routine repairs, which it will attend to within 30 working days. In this case it is also evident that the resident is likely to be affected by any leaks experienced by her upstairs neighbour.
Following the initial leaks experienced by her upstairs neighbour on 27 September 2019, it is not disputed that the landlord attended the same day to carry out emergency works to the neighbour’s light fitting. This response was in line with its repair policy. Following the resident’s expressions of concern that the further leaks experienced by her neighbour on 30 September 2019 may affect her property, it is not evident that the leaks had yet caused danger to the property requiring an emergency response, and so it was reasonable that it did not attend the same day. It would, however, have been helpful at this point to have advised the resident of its proposed timeline to investigate the reports, which it did not do.
Following the resident’s further report on 6 October 2019, in which she reported significant water ingress, the resident has advised that the landlord did not consider this to be an emergency. This position was put to the landlord by the resident in her later correspondence, which the landlord has not disputed. The landlord has not provided this service with any records of this position. The Ombudsman considers it best practice for a landlord to keep detailed records in such circumstances, including telephone notes, in order to justify its actions at a later date, which the landlord did not do in this instance. It is therefore not clear why the landlord did not consider this to be an emergency repair situation, especially considering it had previously informed the resident that it was, which would have caused confusion for the resident. Additionally, while the landlord set out a timeframe for when it would attend, being the following day, the resident has advised no attendance occurred. This would have caused further distress for the resident about how the issue would be resolved. Again, the landlord did not dispute this version of events when put to it by the resident and it has also not provided this service with any repair logs to explain why it did not attend.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not specifically mention it will provide dehumidifiers. Given that the landlord attended the property to carry out an assessment of the damage on 23 October 2019, by which point the resident had already advised she was running her own dehumidifier, it was reasonable for the landlord not to address its position on whether it would offer one or not. As discussed further below, the landlord also appropriately offered compensation in relation to the cost of running the dehumidifiers when requested by the resident.
Following the resident’s formal complaint, it is not disputed that the landlord kept in contact with the resident throughout this period and that it attended the property on a number of occasions and subsequently installed scaffolding to further assess and carry out works. While the landlord’s repairs policy notes it will attend to repairs such as this within 30 working days, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable for landlords to go beyond its stated timeframes where additional assessments, works, and equipment are necessary and so long as it does not unreasonably delay in arranging these. The resident has expressed her concerns at these delays, however, the landlord’s explanation as to why this was the case in its stage two formal response, namely that it had to obtain quotes and inform all residents, was reasonable and provided sufficient detail.
Following the resident’s expression of concern in January 2020 that the pigeon proofing was not sufficient, the landlord advised in February 2020 it would assess this issue and keep her updated. While it advised it had identified further works following its visit on 25 February 2020, it is not evident that it provided her with any updates in relation to her concerns about the pigeon proofing which would have left her distressed and caused her inconvenience in having to chase the issue up again, which she did in March and April 2020 without a reply. Given her concerns about the pigeon proofing, it would have been helpful had the landlord provided an update in its stage one response, which it did not do, leading the resident to again chase an update in May 2020. This was again the case in its stage two response, leading her to reiterate her concerns in June 2020, specifically that dead pigeons had been the cause of further leaks. While the landlord subsequently arranged for its pest control contractor to assess the property in June 2020, this was a significant period after the resident had initially raised her concerns regarding pigeons causing blockages to the guttering, and the landlord’s failure to provide an update would have caused her ongoing distress.
Following the landlord’s initial inspection, it offered to make good the internal decoration of the property that had been affected by the leak. The resident has advised that she requested this be delayed until after the external works are completed in case further leaks damage the redecorated areas. It is evident that there was some confusion on behalf of the landlord regarding this request, who has advised it understood the resident to have declined these works entirely. Following the resident’s advice that this was not the case, the landlord appropriately apologised for its mistake and acknowledged it should have confirmed its understanding in writing, which the Ombudsman considers an appropriate resolution to this part of the complaint. It is not evident however, if the landlord subsequently raised any further work orders for internal redecorations. In light of the most recent leaks, a recommendation will be made that the landlord enquire as to any outstanding redecoration works.
The Ombudsman accepts that during the periods of COVID-19 restrictions, it was reasonable for landlords to only attend to emergency works. The landlord’s delays to the works during the periods of COVIS-19 restrictions were therefore reasonable and it was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident accordingly. Despite these unavoidable delays, there were also delays to the works overall, with the landlord accepting the works took longer than it would have desired. Additionally, while the landlord kept in communication with the resident at various intervals, on occasions, it did not respond to her requests for specific updates within reasonable timeframes, if at all. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for the distress and inconvenience and offered the resident compensation in both its initial and stage two responses. Following the ongoing works, the landlord appropriately provided a further response in November 2020 in which it increased the amount of compensation offered. The landlord has noted that its compensation is not offered because there was a leak, but in recognition of its failure to keep the resident updated and for its delays. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this approach is correct, and the amount offered in its communication dated 20 November 2020 exceeded the amount stipulated in its compensation policy and constituted reasonable redress in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman also notes the landlord continued to carry out further inspections and works to the trees at the property, which the resident has expressed her concerns about the length of time taken to address, following which, the landlord has appropriately advised that it was seeking the necessary planning permission. It is not evident, however, that it had provided any recent updates and so a recommendation will also be made to keep the resident informed about the current progress.

Maintenance programme

The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. It common practice for a landlord’s repair policy to operate in a ‘responsive’ manner, where issues, including leaks, are reported to a landlord once they develop, following which, the landlord will repair them. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that this approach satisfies a landlord’s requirement to keep a property in good repair. While it is arguably desirable to have in place a maintenance programme, and it is often the case that some level of cyclical works are in place, the level of works are often limited by the resources of a landlord. Based on the policies of this landlord, no such cyclical works for the roof or gutter system are in place.
It is not disputed that the previous landlord, prior to its merger with the current landlord, advised in its stage three response in 2012 that it intended to provide annual preventive maintenance to the guttering at the property. It is not evident, however, that any such programme was implemented. It therefore cannot be shown that the present landlord was made aware of such an intention. Additionally, the Ombudsman does not consider it reasonable for such an intention to operate in perpetuity, as the ability to carry out such a programme would be dependent on the resources of a landlord at any given period. While it would have been helpful for the previous landlord to have given further guidance on its intentions, this was not the case and a complaint relating to this would now be beyond this service’s jurisdiction due to the amount of time that has passed.
The resident has reiterated on a number of occasions throughout the complaint period that she desired for the landlord to implement a maintenance programme and has clearly articulated what she considers to be the benefits of such a programme. She initially requested the landlord consider such a programme in January 2020 and again in February 2020, however, the landlord did not address this request until its second formal response in May 2020. Given the resident’s concern about this issue, it would have been helpful had the landlord provided its position earlier, however, given that this element of the complaint was eventually addressed within its internal complaint procedure, the Ombudsman does not consider this delay constitutes service failure.
In its stage two response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that the resident had an expectation regarding such a programme following the 2012 formal response, however, it clearly articulated its position as to why it would not be following this approach and that it did not intend to implement any such programme. It also gave further guidance on its approach to repairs. Following the resident’s further requests regarding the programme, the landlord also appropriately reiterated its position in its later correspondence in order to manage the resident’s expectations.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident considers such a position to be in breach of the landlord’s statutory duty. As noted above, the Ombudsman’s position is that the landlord is not obligated to carry out a routine maintenance programme in the manner requested by the resident, however, the option remains for the resident to seek further legal advice to take alternative legal action.

Compensation

Further to the amount of compensation relating to the leaks as discussed above, the landlord’s compensation policy notes it may offer compensation in relation to the use of electricity to power a dehumidifier. Following the leaks in October 2019, the resident reported to the landlord that she had been running her own dehumidifier to address the damp. The resident had also clearly articulated to the landlord that she wanted it to consider compensation in its formal responses. While the landlord did address compensation for the resident’s time and trouble, and for its delays, it did not address the cost of the dehumidifiers. It was therefore appropriate that it agreed to additional compensation of £50 when this issue was specifically raised by the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy also notes that it will not offer compensation where a claim can be made through its insurance policy. This is common practice in relation to claims for damage to personal possessions. It is also common practice for a landlord to allow its insurer to determine liability in such circumstances and it is reasonable for a landlord not to comment on liability until such a determination has been reached. While the resident clearly expressed that she considered the damage to the floor she had installed in the basement bedroom to have been caused by the leak, and she provided photographic evidence to support this position, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord has not specifically contested this position. Instead, it noted that its contractor’s assessment could not determine the cause of the damage and it also repeatedly advised the resident its insurer would need to assess this.
The landlord initially advised the resident she would need to make a claim through its insurer in March 2020, following which the resident expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord did not advise this to her sooner. While it would have been helpful to have alerted the resident to this process following her initial reports, given that the landlord’s contractor had not determined the floor to be unusable and also that it was the landlord’s intention to carry out further inspections and works to the internal areas of the property following completion of the external works, its advice regarding the insurer in March 2020 was reasonable.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident has reported difficulty in progressing her claim and so a recommendation will be made that the landlord enquire as to her progress and offer any assistance necessary.

Complaints handling

It is not disputed that at the time of the resident’s complaint in 2012, the previous landlord operated a three stage complaints procedure, which involved a complaints panel hearing at stage three. The landlord’s current complaints policy was adopted in 2018 and is a two stage complaints policy. The resident, in her communication dated 9 June 2020, referenced seeing the landlord’s complaints policy online which she noted included a panel hearing stage. This service cannot know what policy was available through online links at that time but notes that currently the landlord’s two stage policy is viewable online.
The complaint policy notes that a stage one response will be provided within 10 working days of a resident’s initial complaint. Following her initial complaint on 14 October 2019, the resident requested an escalation of the complaint on 16 December 2019 as she had not received a formal response and this time period had elapsed. The landlord advised on 27 January 2020 that the complaint remained at stage one and that it would provide its stage one response following its completion of the works. While the resident has subsequently expressed her concern that the response would therefore be outside the landlord’s published service times, the landlord explained in its formal response that the purpose of its complaints procedure was to resolve the issues complained about and then to review its actions. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable to extend the timeframe for a response where the resolution is ongoing so long as a landlord’s communication that this the case is reasonable. As the landlord kept in continued communication with the resident and explained that the complaint was still at stage one when queried by the resident, this response and its decision not to escalate the complaint until it issued its response was reasonable.
At multiple points throughout the period of the complaint, the resident requested that a complaints panel consider her complaint, which she understood to occur at stage three. While the landlord eventually clarified it only operated a two stage complaints procedure, the resident had queried whether a stage three was possible on a number of occasions. The landlord therefore missed several opportunities to have clarified its complaints policy earlier, which would have caused confusion for the resident. This did not delay her complaint’s progress, however, and so did not constitute service failure in the circumstances.
While the landlord’s complaints policy does not include a stage three panel hearing, its policy does reference the possibility of a panel hearing as part of stage two. While the policy notes that these are for “less straightforward” complaints, it is not entirely clear what constitutes a complaint for which a panel is appropriate. It would have been helpful had the landlord provided greater clarification, however, the landlord clearly articulated it would not be convening a panel as doing so would not resolve the resident’s complaint. While the resident has expressed her desire for the landlord’s decision not to implement a maintenance programme to be scrutinised by a panel, the landlord is not obliged to offer such scrutiny as part of its complaints policy and so it was reasonable that the landlord did not offer this.

Determination (decision)

As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the leaks occurring at the resident’s property from July 2021 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
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 the leaks occurring at the resident’s property from October 2019.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its:
1. response to the resident’s request to implement a maintenance programme;
2. offer of compensation in relation to the leaks;
3. complaints handling.

Reasons

Leaks

The landlord’s communication with the resident, while frequent, often did not provide the specific updates it had reassured her it would give, causing her distress and inconvenience, and leading her to make repeated further enquiries.
Additionally, while there were some unavoidable delays due to COVID-19 restrictions and in order to arrange necessary scaffolding, the works took a long time to complete, which the landlord has accepted was longer than desirable. Additionally, on a number of occasions, its communications about the works were also delayed.
This constitutes service failure, for which an amount of compensation is appropriate. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the amount offered in the landlord’s communication in November 2020 provides reasonable redress for this element of the complaint.

Maintenance programme

While the resident had previously been advised by the previous landlord it would consider a regular maintenance programme, no such programme appears to have been implemented, and there is no evidence to suggest the current landlord is required to implement one.
In response to the resident’s request, the landlord’s explanation that it was not cost effective and that its repairs policy is responsive was reasonable in the circumstances.

Compensation

The landlord appropriately offered compensation in relation to the operation of the resident’s dehumidifier, in line with its compensation policy.
While the resident had requested additional compensation in relation to her floor, among other personal items, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable for claims regarding damage to personal property to be assessed by a landlord’s insurer. The landlord’s referral to its insurer was therefore reasonable and it appropriately signposted her to its claims department.

Complaints handling

While the landlord’s initial response was given outside of the timeframe noted in its complaints policy, the landlord appropriately communicated to the resident the purpose of its complaints policy and that it would provide a response following the completion of the works. Its decision not to escalate the complaint at this time was therefore reasonable.
While the landlord could have corrected the resident about it no longer having a three stage complaints procedure sooner, it also appropriately addressed the resident’s request for a panel hearing, explaining this would not have expediated the resolution of the complaint. It is also not evident that a landlord is obliged to offer a forum for a resident to scrutinise its maintenance programme decisions and so it was also reasonable to deny the request for a panel hearing on this basis.

Recommendations

The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and include the following (if it has not done so already):
1. provide an update as to any outstanding investigations or works in relation to the most recent leaks;
2. enquire as to any outstanding internal redecoration works necessary following the leaks;
3. provide an update as to its maintenance work on the trees at the property;
4. enquire as to the resident’s progress with submitting a claim through its insurers;
5. make arrangements to pay the compensation as per its offer in its November 2020 communication.