Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (201910835)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910835

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited

10 March 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 level of compensation awarded by the landlord in respect of delays in repairs and damaged personal effects.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident lives at the property with her two sons, one of whom is autistic. On 23 May 2019 she reported that there was water leaking through her living room walls. A contractor attended on 29 May 2019, traced the origin of the leak to another property, and carried out a repair. The following day, the resident reported that the leak was ongoing. The landlord then attended on 3 June 2019 and confirmed that there was still an ongoing leak.
  2. The resident wrote a letter of complaint on 7 June 2019 (it is unclear who the letter was sent to), saying that the leak had remained unresolved and that, on 6 June 2019, it had started to come through her kitchen light which had to be isolated. She said that the landlord had not provided any updates on what was being done to resolve the situation and this was now affecting her son as the situation was disrupting his routines and structures which were necessary due to his autism. She asked to be moved from the property as she could not handle the situation for another week.
  3. The landlord determined that the leak was coming from a property which was managed by a different landlord. It was unable to gain access to the property until 10 June 2019 and, during that visit, it determined that another property needed to be accessed and this was arranged with the leaseholder for 12 June 2019.
  4. The local authority wrote to the resident on 11 June 2019, saying that her letter had been received by it, but it had passed the matter to her landlord to address. In the resident’s email to the landlord of the same date, she provided an update on the situation. She said that it had been three weeks since the leak started, the issue had still not been resolved, and the landlord had not shown any urgency in resolving the situation.
  5. The landlord attended a number of other properties between 12 and 19 June 2019 to identify the source of the leak. It said that it advised the resident on 19 June 2019 that the leak had been located and fixed and that it should stop coming through her ceiling over the next couple days. It then ordered a survey of the resident’s property to assess the damage caused by the leak and, on 21 June 2019, it arranged for the resident to be moved to temporary accommodation while work to repair the water damage was carried out.
  6. The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 July 2019 asking it to compensate for damage caused to her personal effects (by the leak and the delivery people that moved her to the temporary accommodation). She specifically identified damage to her sofa, wooden flooring, rug, plates, table, washing machine and shoe box. In the absence of a response, the resident’s MP sent a follow up email on 16 August 2019.
  7. The landlord responded to the MP on 2 September 2019 and said that it would be awarding compensation, it was in the process of determining the amount, and it would contact the resident once this was completed. In the landlord’s letter to the resident of 6 September 2019, it referred to a meeting it had had with her (no records provided to the Ombudsman) and apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint. It acknowledged that the leak was ongoing for an unacceptable amount of time and that its communication should have been better during this. It noted that it had since taken a number of steps outside of its policy to address her needs which included:
    1. an offer of hotel accommodation;
    2. a temporary move to another property;
    3. interim payments for broadband in the temporary property;
    4. a permanent move to a larger property to be completed by mid-October 2019;
    5. new flooring throughout the new property, including upgrade options which the resident could pay the difference for;
    6. full decoration of the new property;
    7. raising the height of the garden fence at the new property;
    8. fitting a new combi boiler, kitchen and bathroom at the new property;
    9. moving the resident from the temporary accommodation to the new property.
  8. In respect of the damaged personal effects, the landlord noted that the resident had said she did not have contents insurance or proof of purchase for the items. The leather sofas were still at the resident’s original address and the landlord had not seen any apparent damage when it looked at them. It was prepared to arrange for their return at not cost to her. Regarding the damaged washing machine, rug and curtains, and blinds, there was no clear evidence or responsibility for the damage and it therefore offered £25 towards each item totalling £75. It was the resident’s responsibility to pack the plates damaged during the move and the contractor was only responsible for moving the boxes. It decided that this was a shared responsibility and would arrange for the contractor to pay £125 which was half the cost of the plates estimated by the resident.
  9. In respect of the flooring, the landlord said that, as it was fitting new flooring at the new property, this was a fair resolution. It also said that it was arranging for the resident’s table to be repaired as it was only missing a screw. Finally, the landlord offered £250 compensation for the disturbance and inconvenience caused as a result of the leak bringing the total to £450. It also said that it would be happy to review the situation if the resident could provide further evidence of the losses or proof of purchase.
  10. In the resident’s response of 10 September 2019, she did not agree with the £450 compensation offer. She disputed the landlord’s statement that her sofa had not been damaged as it was mentioned on the surveyor’s report. She also said that she had wiped it down, but water had been absorbed into it. She was unhappy with the offer of £25 towards her rug and curtains and blinds as this was not even half the value. She felt she should not have to pay for the replacements when the damage was not her fault.
  11. With regard to the offer of £125 towards her broken plates, she said that she had packed them carefully and labelled the box clearly with ‘glass plates’ and ‘fragile’. Therefore, she believed that the contractors should pay the full value and provided photographs of the wrapped and broken plates. She also disagreed with the £25 offered for the washing machine and said that the machine could not be used as the door was cracked and leaked when in operation. She said that this was caused by the contractors when being moved and needed to be replaced but the £25 offered was of no help.
  12. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s response on 25 September 2019 and said that it believed its offer to be fair based on the evidence provided. It was prepared to reconsider this if it was provided any other evidence of the resident’s losses and she could also escalate the complaint.
  13. The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 October 2019 requesting that her complaint be escalated as she did not believe it had been looked at properly despite her providing photographic evidence. She also advised that the door on her washing machine had now come off and provided photographs of this.
  14. In the landlord’s stage two response of 7 November 2019, it referenced a meeting that the resident had attended as part of the review (no records provided to the Ombudsman) and confirmed its position as follows:
    1. It had accepted that the resolution of the leak and communication throughout was poor and apologised for this, and that there had been damage to the resident’s personal effects due to the leak and removal;
    2. The resident had advised that she had replaced her son’s mattress after the leak as he was unhappy with it and had an allergic reaction. However, it declined to offer any contribution towards this as there was no evidence to show that the mattress was damaged by the leak;
    3. Since the first complaint response was issued, the resident’s table had been repaired as agreed;
    4. It declined to make any contribution towards a replacement sofa as it had not seen any evidence to show that the old sofa had been damaged. It reconfirmed its offer to return the sofa to her at no cost;
    5. Regarding the £25 contribution for the rug and curtain and blinds and £125 for the plates, it believed this was appropriate and would not be increasing the offer;
    6. It would not be offering anything towards the damaged shoebox as this occurred after the temporary move and not as a result of the leak or removal service;
    7. It had agreed to provide half the cost of the replacement washing machine as it was not clear whether it had been damaged in the move. As the resident had told the panel she paid £350-£400 for the replacement, it would offer £175 in addition to the £25 previously offered;
    8. It declined to increase the offer of £250 compensation in respect of the distress caused as this was in line with its customer care policy.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has acknowledged that there was service failure on its part and that there was damage to the resident’s personal effects. When bringing the complaint to this Service the resident was clear that the outstanding issue related to the amount of compensation offered by the landlord with respect to those identified service failings. Therefore, the investigation does not focus on the landlord’s handling of the leak or the subsequent move, but on the reasonableness of the associated compensation for its failings during those processes.
  2. With that in mind, it should be noted that it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine the value of an item or how much should be paid. Further, this Service is unable to determine matters of causation and liability in terms of how a landlord’s actions might have caused damage to a resident’s belongings. Such issues would be better dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts, where appropriate professional evidence can be properly reviewed. In this case, the Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord has acted reasonably, and in accordance with relevant policies and procedures, when deciding whether to offer any contribution and the amounts offered.
  3. The landlord has declined to offer any contribution towards the resident’s sofa or the replacement she purchased as it has said there is no evidence of damage. The resident has provided a number of photographs as evidence of damage to her personal effects, but the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence in respect of the sofa. The notes of the survey completed on 19 June 2019 do make reference to damage to a sofa, but do not provide any details of what the damage entailed or make any recommendations in respect of what to do with it.
  4. The landlord has said that the sofa was still at the property and that, when it inspected it, it could see no evidence of damage. The resident has also said that she cleaned the sofa off. In view of this, insufficient evidence of significant damage to the sofa has been provided to warrant any payment by the landlord in that regard. As a result, the landlord acted appropriately in declining to offer any compensation in respect of the replacement and, instead, offering to return the original sofa to the resident free of charge.
  5. The landlord has declined to contribute towards the cost of a replacement mattress as there was no evidence that it was damaged by the leak or removal service. The resident has not referred to the replacement mattress in her submissions to this Service and no evidence has been provided in support of this claim. Therefore, there is nothing to warrant the landlord making a payment in that regard and it acted reasonably in declining to do so.
  6. The landlord offered £125 towards the cost of replacement plates, being half the value the resident claimed. It did not dispute that the plates were damaged during the move but stated that the resident and contractors were equally responsible as it was her responsibility to pack them securely. The photographs provided to both the landlord and the Ombudsman show the wrapped plates and box marked with the words ‘careful’ and ‘glass plates’. In view of this, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the resident took reasonable steps to pack the plates securely for transport and avoid any damage being caused. Therefore, the responsibility for the damage lies more squarely with the contractors.
  7. However, whilst the landlord’s rationale for offering £125 compensation may be questionable, the amount itself was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. The resident has not provided any evidence to show the cost of the plates when purchased and, if this was a claim considered by an insurer, it is likely they would take in to account a reduction in value due to the age of the items. Therefore, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlords offer of £125 was reasonable.
  8. The landlord ultimately agreed to increase its offer towards the cost of a replacement washing machine from £25 to £200, being half the cost the resident said she paid for a replacement. The resident has provided photographs showing a damaged washing machine and has said that that the damage increased following the move. However, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate how the washing machine was damaged or to show the cost of the replacement machine. As a result, the landlord has acted reasonably in offering half the cost of the replacement as a goodwill gesture.
  9. With regard to the £25 offers for the rug and the blinds/curtains, no evidence has been provided to show that these items were damaged by the leak or removal, or what the cost of the item and/or their replacement was. In the absence of any such evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord made a reasonable offer in that regard. With that in mind, it should be noted that the landlord has actively invited the resident to provide more evidence in support of her claims so that its offers could be reviewed and revised if necessary. The landlord therefore explained the basis on which its compensation offers were made and set out the steps the resident could follow if she wished to pursue the matter further.
  10. In addition to the compensation for damages, the landlord offered £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by its poor service and communication. The landlord’s Customer Care Policy states that it will offer up to £250 compensation in respect of service failure it deems to have had a high impact on residents. Therefore, by offering compensation at the highest level, the landlord has demonstrated that it took the complaint seriously, recognised the impact on the resident, and sought to ‘put things right’, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s own Dispute Resolution Principles. 
  11. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure.  The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress, as in this case.

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord considered the residents claim in respect of her personal effects and made reasonable contributions where there was clear evidence of damage, even when there was no clear evidence of the cause of the damage or the costs of the items. It also offered a nominal amount in respect of damaged items where there was no evidence of damage or the costs of the item provided. Further, the landlord has agreed to reconsider the matter upon receipt of further evidence.
  2. The landlord only declined to contribute towards items where there was no evidence of damage that it could see and where an item had not been damaged as a result of the leak or move. It is reasonable for a landlord to request that evidence be provided in support of any claim for financial loss.
  3. The landlord has shown that its award of compensation for distress and inconvenience was in accordance with the highest award set out in its Customer Care Policy, which shows that was fair and in line with what all of its residents would receive in similar circumstances.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should, if it has not already done so, reoffer to the resident the compensation offered in its final complaint response of 7 November 2019. This offer recognised genuine elements of service failure and the sufficient redress finding is made on that basis.