Sheffield City Council (202119437)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119437

Sheffield City Council

11 April 2023


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. response to the resident’s reports about a hot water tank leak and damage to his carpet;
    2. complaints handling and record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a secured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a third floor flat.
  2. On 19 October 2021, the resident’s hot water tank suffered a leak and flooded both his property and the flats below his. He tried to contact the landlord but has advised that his calls were not answered. He turned off his electricity supply and then contacted the emergency services who attended within 20 minutes and turned off the water. The landlord attended his property later that day. Following its inspection, it repaired his water tank the next day and also dried out his carpets. It offered him the use of a dehumidifier which he declined.
  3. While the landlord did offer the resident a temporary decant, he rejected this because he believed that the property offered was not suitable. He advised it that his carpet had been damaged by the landlord’s contractors and wanted to know its compensation procedure because he did not have any home contents insurance. The landlord informed him that an assessment of his carpet would have to be carried out and that would determine if there was potential for compensation. The resident advised the landlord that he did not want it to carry out an assessment of his carpet and that he would replace it himself.
  4. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in November 2021 as he wanted a formal response to the issues that he had raised and also wanted compensation.
  5. After intervention by this service, the landlord provided its stage one response in April 2022. It advised that although the resident had stated that he wished to make a compensation claim, he had subsequently changed his mind and no longer wanted to make a claim. Due to this it was now unable to consider a compensation claim.
  6. The resident then escalated his complaint because he disputed the landlord’s versions of events, and because he wanted to know why it had taken so long for it to provide its stage one response.
  7. After further intervention by this service, the landlord provided its stage two response in October 2022. It apologised for the delay to its responses. It noted the resident’s difference of opinion regarding what had occurred, but advised it had based its position on the reports of its staff. It offered him £150 compensation for both the damage to his carpets and the length of time that it had taken to process his complaint.
  8. The resident then contacted this service because he was not happy with the amount of compensation offered by the landlord. He believed that it had not paid sufficient attention to the substance of his complaint, and had not accepted evidence from him that may have affected its decision. He advised this service that the reason why he had declined the landlord’s offer of a temporary decant was because the landlord’s staff had indicated there were issues with anti-social behaviour in the area of the temporary accommodation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has advised he wants to be compensated for the effect of the landlord’s response on his health and wellbeing. Such an assessment is outside of the expertise of this service. Paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. The resident is able to seek legal advice if he remains concerned about this issue, and a recommendation has also been made for the landlord to provide him with details of its liability insurers should he wish to pursue a claim.
  2. The overall impact the landlord’s response would have had on the resident has nevertheless been considered to provide context to the complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a hot water tank leak and damage to his carpet

  1. The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy on its website states that a repair to a burst pipe is classified as an ‘emergency repair’ and that the landlord will attend within four hours. The response time for an ‘urgent repair’ is listed as 24 hours.
  2. The resident’s water tank burst on 19 October 2021, and the resident advised that he attempted to contact the landlord straight away. When he was unable to reach the landlord, he contacted the emergency services who attended his property and turned off the water. It is unclear how long the resident remained on the phone trying to get through to the landlord, but the landlord has advised that on the day in question the wait time was approximately 35 minutes.
  3. The landlord has also advised this service that a job was raised to attend the resident’s property on 19 October 2021 just after 3pm, and that it attended at 4.40pm but was unable to gain access. It attended again just after 5pm; however, since the plumber that attended had not been trained in district heating, it booked another appointment as an urgent repair for 20 October 2021. It did attend on that day at which point the water tank was repaired and the resident’s carpets were dried by the landlord.
  4. Although the landlord did attend within four hours, as per the emergency repair timescale set out within its repairs and maintenance policy, it did not send out a suitably plumber with the necessary specific expertise. Since the resident’s tenancy agreement has an explicit service charge for district heating, the landlord should have been aware of this before allocating a staff member to attend.
  5. Nevertheless, the landlord did raise an urgent attendance, which was appropriately attempted twice following the initial failed access. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable for an emergency visit to ensure that the property is made safe, and for subsequent repairs to be arranged for a later date. In this case, it is not disputed that the property had been made safe, and that the landlord appropriately made further arrangements for the repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
  6. Additionally, since the landlord has stated that the plumber attended out of hours, it may have been hard for it to have arranged for a suitably trained professional at that time regardless.
  7. It is noted that the landlord did consider the resident’s request of a temporary decant, even if that was for a single night. This was appropriate by the landlord as it shows that it did empathise with his situation and sought to ease this temporarily. The resident advised the landlord that he had declined that offer because he did not believe the temporary accommodation to be suitable based on advice from its staff. This service has not been provided with evidence specific to the temporary accommodation, and given that the circumstances of the temporary accommodation were not the subject of the formal complaint, the Ombudsman cannot make a determination on its suitability. The Ombudsman nevertheless recognises that the landlord has limited stock available in an emergency situation, which may not always be an exact match of the resident’s current accommodation.
  8. When the resident discussed the possibility of being awarded compensation for the damage to his carpet, the landlord advised him that in the first instance he would be expected to make a claim via his contents insurance. The Ombudsman notes this is common practice in the industry and was reasonable in the circumstances.
  9. Following the resident’s advice that he did not have insurance, it was reasonable for the landlord to seek to investigate the extent of the damage itself before giving its position on any compensation. Based on the landlord’s stage one response, the resident then advised it that he would not be going ahead with a compensation claim and would be replacing his carpet himself. The resident did not dispute this version of events in his complaint escalation.
  10. The landlord also noted that the resident had not provided any receipts for a replacement carpet in support of a compensation claim. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to not have awarded any compensation for damage without having had the opportunity to assess the damage or without any receipts being provided.
  11. Regardless of the fact that no evidence had been provided by the resident, and that it had not had an opportunity to assess any damage, the landlord noted that its offer of compensation was in part to reflect the inconvenience caused in relation to the carpet. This was an appropriate use of the landlord’s discretion. It would, however, have been helpful for it to have provided a breakdown of the compensation.
  12. In summary, while it would have been frustrating for the resident not to have initially been able to get through to the landlord on its telephone line, it is evident the issue was ultimately reported to the landlord, and it attended within the timeframes of its policies. Having ensured the property was made safe, it arranged for further works within a reasonable timeframe. It also offered a temporary decant which while the property did not suit the resident, was an appropriate step in the circumstances. It correctly signposted the resident to his insurer regarding any damage, and given he was uninsured, sought to arrange an inspection. This was reasonable in the circumstances. Given that the resident declined this offer, it was reasonable that the landlord did not offer compensation specific to the carpet. It was appropriate that it did acknowledge the distress the damage to the carpet would have caused, and therefore its offer of compensation was reasonable and an appropriate use of its discretion.
  13. Given the above, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s reports about a hot water tank leak and damage to his carpet.

The landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord will issue its stage one response within 28 calendar days. The resident made his formal complaint on 21 November 2021, and the landlord issued its stage one response on 28 April 2022, 110 working days (159 calendar days) later, after intervention by this service. It later advised this service that due to a new complaints system being put in place, the resident’s complaint was mistakenly not allocated to any team. It advised that further training had been given to its staff in order to avoid another occurrence of this in future.
  2. However, the resident had resubmitted his formal complaint on 17 December 2021, and this complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on 24 December 2021. This means that the landlord had two opportunities to correctly acknowledge and respond to the resident’s complaint. However, the response came 91 working days (133 calendar days) later, which was still well outside its complaints policy timescale.
  3. Additionally, this service contacted the landlord regarding the complaint in both February and April 2022, and yet it still failed to respond until 28 April 2022. Therefore, the landlord failed to act in line with the timescale set out in its complaints policy and also failed to manage the resident’s expectations.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a resident will have 28 days from the landlord’s stage one complaints response to escalate their complaint. It is unclear when the resident made his escalation request; however, he had discussed his ongoing concerns with this service on 31 May 2022, indicating his escalation request would have been made in June 2022. This was outside of the landlord’s policy timeframes; however, it appropriately used its discretion to continue to investigate the complaint.
  5. Although the landlord’s complaints policy does not give a timeframe by which the landlord will issue its final stage complaints response, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that the landlord must issue its final stage complaints response within 20 working days of a complaint being escalated. This means that the landlord should have issued its final stage complaints response in July 2022 in order to meet the timeframe. The landlord did not issue its final stage complaints response until 4 October 2022, nor did it provide any interim updates. Therefore, the landlord failed to act in accordance with the timescale set in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  6. In its stage two complaints response, the landlord did acknowledge and apologise for the delay. As noted above, it offered compensation of £150 but did not provide a breakdown. Therefore, the Ombudsman has worked on the assumption that £75 was goodwill compensation in relation to the carpet, and £75 was to reflect the impact of its complaint response delays.
  7. However, £75 compensation cannot reasonably be considered as appropriate remedy for a response that took four times longer to issue than the timescale set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, let alone when considering the delay in its first stage complaints response and the fact that this service had to intervene numerous times at both stages in order for the landlord to even begin to issue either response.
  8. There was also poor record keeping by the landlord. In its stage one response it stated that the resident had claimed that its contractors had been rude towards him, and the resident pointed out in his complaint escalation that he had never made this claim. Its response had also stated that the resident had claimed that its contractors had damaged his carpet with their muddy foot prints, and the resident advised it that this was also incorrect as his claim was that his carpet had been damaged by oil transfer from its contractors shoes and that he had photographed the damage.
  9. Although the landlord accepted that there was conflicting information, it did not explain what it would do to stop this happening again in future. It was not appropriate for the landlord to have incorrectly attributed statements to the resident, and although its response was that its position was based on the accounts of its staff, this does not excuse incorrect attribution.
  10. Due to the failings identified above, there was maladministration by the landlord. In this case, an order for £400 compensation has been made, and this includes £200 in recognition of the landlord’s stage one response delay, £150 in recognition of its stage two response delay, and £50 in recognition of its poor record keeping. This replaces £75 of the initial £150 compensation offered by the landlord.
  11. It should be noted that although the landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord has 28 working days to issue its first stage complaints response, this is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which states under section 5.1 that the landlord must issue its first stage complaints response within ten working days. Also, as stated previously, the landlord’s complaints policy does not give a timeframe within which the landlord will issue its final stage complaints response and this does not help manage a resident’s expectations. Therefore, the landlord is recommended below to review its complaints policy to make sure that it falls in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, specifically first stage and final stage complaints responses.

Determination

  1. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s reports about a hot water tank leak and damage to his carpet.
  2. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling and record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £400 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its ineffective complaints handling.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £75 (being half of its offer of £150). This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to reiterate its previous offer of compensation in relation to the carpet, being the remaining £75 of its offer of £150.
  2. The landlord to provide the resident with the details of its liability insurers in order for him to consider making a claim.
  3. The landlord to review its complaints policy in order to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.