Slough Borough Council (202006996)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006996

Slough Borough Council

9 September 2021

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

The complaint is about:
1. The level of compensation offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of roof repairs and water leaking into the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s investigation into the conduct of a member of its staff.
3. The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

Section 4 of the landlord’s compensation and remedies policy confirms that it will pay up to £40 per week for residents’ distress and inconvenience, and up to £10 per week for residents’ time and trouble in progressing complaints. It will also pay up to £50 for failing to respond to complaint correspondence.
Section 2.4 of the compensation and remedies policy confirms that the landlord should refer complaints as potential insurance claims if residents have suffered personal injury or financial loss.
As per the landlord’s complaints procedure, it will aim to respond within ten working days at each stage of its internal complaints procedure. If it needs more time, it will inform the resident of this.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The complaint refers to issues experienced by the resident in 2019 and 2020, and was referred to this Service in October 2020. There was a delay in our acceptance of this referral. This is because it was unclear whether the landlord had exhausted its internal complaints procedure in relation to the complaint.

Summary of events

On 9 November 2019, the resident made her stage one complaint to the landlord, stating the following:
1. Since moving into her property in September 2019, she had experienced water leaking throughout the property. This had been reported to the landlord’s contractor on 15 October 2019.
2. It had told her that the above issues were caused by condensation. However, the contractor had told the resident that they were advised to replace the property’s roof before she had moved in. Neither the contractor nor the landlord had inspected the property’s loft at this time. Further external inspections of the roof had also suggested a third cause of the wet patches in her property.
On 13 November 2019, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident, stating the following:
1. It would be arranging for a dehumidifier to draw out moisture within the property, and insulation would be installed there on 22 November 2019. No further work was deemed to be necessary to the roof.
2. In response to her request for a report following the inspection that it had carried out, it requested that she contact its member of staff about this directly. The landlord apologised for the confusion over the required work to the resident’s property.
On 19 November 2019, the resident made her stage two complaint to the landlord, stating the following:
1. The contractor had emailed her on 12 November 2019 to confirm that the plumber had reported a leak from her roof. The landlord had visited the resident, talking to her “very rudely” and had suggested that there was condensation at the property. She did not understand why it was not looking at the leak issue, which got worse whenever it rained.
2. There was mould growing in her property, and there had been damage to her personal possessions.
On 5 December 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident to explain that its stage two complaint response would be delayed until the next week.
On 16 December 2019, a contractor’s inspection was carried out of the resident’s property, which is summarised as follows:
1. They did not consider the property to be habitable. The contractor found a leak in the roof and insulation that was 100mm deep where regulations required a depth of 270mm. There was also no breathable membrane between the roof tiles and the rafters. The contractor highlighted that there may be cracked tiles, although a detailed inspection would be required for this. Concerns were also raised about the windows at the property.
2. They recommended the replacement of the property’s roof, batons and tiles, dependant on their condition. The contractor also recommended the installation of insulation to a depth of 270mm, and a breathable membrane between the tiles and the rafters. There should additionally be an inspection of all fascias at the property, with the replacement of this or the installation of new PVC where necessary.
On 20 December 2019, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident, stating the following:
1. In response to the previous contractor’s report on the condition of the property’s roof prior to her moving in, the landlord had determined that the roof did not need replacing, and it had instead carried out work “to ensure it was repaired and water-tight”.
2. It recognised that the plumber had reported a roof leak at the property, yet it had assessed there to be no leak, and was “assured” that the “significant damp” was due to condensation. The landlord reiterated the need for loft insulation, which had been booked for 13 December 2019, however this work was not carried out. It apologised to the resident for this.
3. In response to her reports of being spoken to very rudely by a member of its staff, it had discussed the matter directly with its operative, who had confirmed that there was “no intent to be rude” and had apologised for this. Following this, the landlord had arranged for an inspector for the property from a different team on 6 December 2019 and, again, it had found there to be condensation there. It had reiterated the need for loft insulation at the property, along with an inspection of the rendering on two external walls. The landlord also noted during the visit that the dehumidifier that it had provided was not turned on, which was essential to draw condensing damp from the walls.
4. The property’s small bedroom should not be used until this had been dried out.
5. It apologised for the experience of the hand basin falling through an area of rotting flooring, and for her then waiting for both the repair to the floor and for the hand basin to be reinstated.
6. It had visited her on that day, and had agreed the following:
  1. Her bathroom hand basin was to be reinstalled on 23 December 2019.
  2. It was to make good the property’s wall tiling and floor “in the new year”.
  3. Loft insulation would be installed at the property in “approximately two to three weeks.
  4. Her kitchen extractor fans would be reviewed for possible improvement.
  5. A cracked tile had been identified near the property’s chimney, but this was not contributing to the issues experienced by her, and so would be replaced “when weather and access permits”.
  6. Redecoration, including anti-fungal treatment of her hallway, bedroom and bathroom, would be carried out once the property had sufficiently dried out.
7. It would be looking at applicable compensation, considering the increased electricity used for the dehumidifier, the non-use of the small bedroom, the lack of the hand basin, the time incurred, and the distress caused to her. The landlord would also see if it could arrange an interim payment to the resident for this.
8. In respect to temporary accommodation, its experience was that if residents could remain in their homes while repairs and defects were attended to, then “this can be a better solution”.
On 17 January 2020, the resident made her final stage complaint to the landlord, stating the following:
1. She had previously been in temporary accommodation for four months while waiting for the above work to be carried out to the property before she had moved in there. After four months of being in the property, the stairs, the toilet, the resident’s son’s bedroom and the storage in her bedroom were “full of damp”, and her living room had “wet lines” on the walls. Her son was sleeping in the living room, as his bedroom was too damp to use.
2. Since receiving its stage two complaint response, which was late, it had completed the repair to the property’s bathroom hand basin on 3 January 2020. However, the repairs to the floor and tiles above the sink were still outstanding, and the resident had not been told when this would happen. She was also not aware of any action being taken on the other items that she had agreed to, as detailed above in the landlord’s stage two complaint response. It had also not given the resident the option of temporary housing while the work was carried out.
3. In respect to the property’s loft insulation, its contractor had attended on 3 and 15 January 2020, but on both occasions it was unable to complete the work. The resident also advised the landlord of two missed appointments by the contractor on 13 and 16 January 2020. A further appointment had been booked by them for 22 January 2020 to install the loft insulation. The resident was concerned that she had to miss work to attend these appointments.
On 5 February 2020, a final stage resident complaints panel meeting between the resident and the landlord was held. It reached the following conclusions:
1. The void inspection carried out at the property prior to the resident moving in “was not up to standard.” It did not pick up the issues with the bathroom floor and extraction there. Furthermore, taking five weeks to replace the bathroom wash basin was “unacceptable.”
2. Its assertion that the property’s issues were caused by condensation was not questioned soon enough, and it was “negligent” in not following up on her claims disputing this.
3. It had not given serious consideration to the replacement of the property’s roof, as recommended by the contractor. The landlord recommended that it produce a full work programme and timeline, and that it share this with the resident by 29 February 2020.
4. Its contractor must address the issue of missed appointment and manage sub-contractors better. To capture the learning from the complaint, the landlord suggested a review of its handling of the resident’s complaint, and of its contractor’s management and use of sub-contractors.
5. Its handling of the complaint had been poor, and it had delayed its stage two complaint response. The landlord also did not feel that it had taken into account the resident’s circumstances and the impact of these issues “enough, or at all”.
6. It should consider re-housing the resident in alternative, permanent accommodation.
On 5 March 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to provide revised timescales for the completion of the work at her property, as poor weather had delayed all work. It had planned for the property to be ready shortly after 29 May 2020, assuming that this had dried sufficiently. The landlord apologised for the delay in completing the work to the property.
On 13 May 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that she had accepted an offer of alternative accommodation, and that she was waiting for confirmation on a moving date.
On 20 May 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it had reviewed the complaint for compensation.
1. It had assessed her to have been impacted since moving in on 16 September 2019, and it had used the end of the calendar month to calculate a total of 35 weeks.
2. It offered her total compensation of £1,275, which was made up of £30 per week totalling £1,050 for her distress, £5 per week equating to £175 for her time and trouble, and £50 for its delayed complaint responses, with the latter being the maximum that it could award for such failings.
3. It recognised that, although it had met some of her costs already, there were more of these for it to meet, and some of these would be dependent on receipts for it to reimburse her. The landlord would also be arranging the removal company for the resident, and the carpets for her new property.
On 11 June 2020, the resident responded to the landlord to explain that she did not feel that its above compensation offer was acceptable. The following concerns were summarised by her:
1. She felt that she was due a rent deduction from it, as she was not able to use her son’s bedroom due to damp. Additionally, the resident felt that a rent deduction was due because of the issues with her bathroom hand basin.
2. The level of its missed appointments, and the increased electricity that she had used for the dehumidifier at the property.
3. There had been damage to her personal items, including two beds and mattresses, a folding table, and sports and travel bags. The resident did not have receipts for these items, as she did not expect to need them. She had also left behind items such as the carpet, a shower, and a wall mirror at the property.
4. Her time and associated costs for moving, including while previously being in temporary housing.
On 21 July 2020, the landlord responded to the resident, stating the following:
1. It would be calculating the rent deductions for the loss of use of her son’s bedroom from her moving in date to her moving out date. The landlord also wanted to reflect the resident’s partial use of the bathroom.
2. It was trying to establish how many missed appointments there had been in order to compensate her for these accordingly. Similarly, the landlord had asked for details of the cost of running the dehumidifier at the resident’s property, which it would use to calculate its compensation offer to her.
3. It asked her for the details of the cost of the items which had been damaged and left behind, and also why she did not pack the items which had been left in the property.
4. In respect to her time and associated costs for moving, it explained that she would need to quantify her claims for it to consider these.
On 3 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to explain again that she did not accept its compensation offer. She highlighted five missed appointments to it. The resident also asked the landlord how she should provide it with a cost estimate for her son’s bed, and she expressed concern over having to get her employer to issue a certificate for when she took annual leave for the appointments. As she had now used her annual leave allowance, any further leave would now be unpaid.
On 22 September 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to increase its offer of compensation to her. It now offered her total compensation of £1,925, which was made up of £40 per week for her distress for 35 weeks, £10 per week for her time and trouble during this period, £50 for its delayed complaint responses, and £125 for the five missed appointments. The landlord also offered the resident compensation for the replacement of the personal possessions which had been damaged, and for her other costs, if she provided it with evidence of these.
On 28 September 2020, the resident responded to the landlord to further explain that she did not feel that its compensation offer was satisfactory. She believed that the property’s roof should have been replaced by it before she had moved in, and she felt that it had tried to convince her that condensation was to blame for the condition of this.
On 1 October 2020, the landlord responded to the resident. It had hoped that she would provide it with details of any additional compensation claims in order for it to consider these. The landlord also referred the resident to its compensation guidance, which detailed a maximum award of £40 per week for distress and inconvenience. It additionally confirmed the contact details for this Service, should she wish to escalate her complaint further.
The resident subsequently complained to this Service that the landlord had not taken into account that it had known about the leak from the property’s roof that meant that this had to replaced entirely since she had moved there, but that it had done nothing about this at the time and had instead kept saying that the condition of the property was due to compensation. She reported that this had affected her and her son’s health, had impacted her mentally, and that she had lost her job so that she was seeking a minimum of £20,000 compensation from it.

Assessment and findings

The resident has previously raised concerns over the effect of the moisture at the property on her and her son’s health, and that she had been impacted mentally and lost her job. The Ombudsman does not dispute her comments regarding her and her son’s health and wellbeing or the loss of her job, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health, wellbeing and the loss of income or to award damages for these. This because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way that a court or insurer might. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident.
The resident has also requested that the landlord compensate her for the damage caused to her personal belongings, for which it requested evidence from her for it to consider this. It is not within the scope of this investigation to determine the landlord’s liability for the resident’s damages in relation to her belongings in the way that a court or insurer might, however, because the Ombudsman does not have the authority or expertise to do so. However, we have considered whether the landlord has acted in accordance with its policies, procedures and other obligations with regard to her request.

The level of compensation offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of roof repairs and water leaking

The resident has suggested that she was hoping for a minimum of £20,000 compensation from the landlord to resolve her complaint. The Ombudsman’s awards of compensation are not intended to be punish or to make an example of landlords, and so we do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service takes into account a range of factors including any particular distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions.
Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s compensation awards are generally moderate, taking into account the landlord’s need to make the most effective use of its limited resources as a social landlord, the requirements of its own policies and procedures, and our remedies guidance. The purpose of compensation is to therefore recognise acknowledged service failures by the landlord proportionately.
There were a number of failings leading to the resident’s roof repairs and water leak complaint to the landlord. For example, it failed to carry out an adequate void inspection of the property before she moved in there in September 2019, and it also failed to address these repairs in a timely manner until after she received an offer of permanent alternative accommodation in May 2020. This added distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident. This Service has also been unable to determine whether her above claims for personal injury and financial loss had been referred to the landlord’s insurance team, which it was obliged to do under its compensation and remedies policy above at paragraph 3.
In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord took the opportunity to use its full internal complaints procedure to identify the above failings in her case. As detailed following its panel review meeting on 5 February 2020, these also included it not picking up bathroom floor and extraction issues at the property, taking five weeks to replace her bathroom wash basin, attributing the property’s condition to condensation and not seriously considering replacing the roof, and missing appointments. It was reasonable for the landlord to take advantage of the complaints procedure to seek to identify and therefore attempt address the resident’s concerns about these problems after it had initially failed to do so from her initial reports of these.
In recognition of the impact of these failings on the resident, the landlord offered her the maximum compensation that its compensation and remedies policy allowed for her distress and inconvenience at the rate of £40 per week for 35 weeks totalling £1,400, and for her time and trouble at the rate of £10 per week for this period totalling £350. It also offered her £125 for five missed appointments. The total compensation offer for this aspect of the complaint was therefore £1,875. It is noted that the landlord had additionally committed to recognising the loss of the small bedroom in the resident’s property, and the partial use of her bathroom.
The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy does not have specific guidance around compensation for the loss of a room. In such circumstances, it would be expected to consider this in its overall compensation offer. The landlord did so in the resident’s case by offering her the maximum compensation award that it was allowed to under the policy, which was a reasonable action for it to take.
In addition to the compensation offer, the landlord also paid for the removal company when the resident moved out of the property and for new carpets at her new property. This was also a fair action for it to take, to seek to put her back to the position that she would have been in prior to the roof repair and water leak issues occurring from when she moved into the property. The landlord recognised, moreover, that there might have been additional costs incurred by the resident, for which it requested receipts or evidence from her to enable it to quantify and consider these. This was a reasonable action for it to take, as it would have needed her assistance in determining the value of her losses for it to consider a reimbursement to her for these.
As per this Service’s remedies guidance, compensation awards of £700 or more are used in recognition of failures that have had a significant long-term effect on the resident, for example a long stay in temporary accommodation due to the mishandling of repairs. Accordingly, the landlord’s compensation above offer was in line with this guidance, and so was proportionate to recognise the detriment experienced by the resident as a result of its failings.

The landlord’s investigation into the conduct of a member of its staff.

Following the resident’s reported concerns over the conduct of its member of staff from 19 November 2019 regarding their rudeness towards her and reports of condensation at the property, the landlord was obliged to carry out an investigation into this, and to respond to her accordingly. It communicated the outcome of its investigation to her, which included discussing the concerns directly with its member of staff, in its stage two complaint response to her of 20 December 2019 above. This was fair action for the landlord to take.
Under the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to take no further action, having reviewed the resident’s reports and communicated its actions to address her concerns by speaking to the member of staff involved, obtaining an apology from them, and arranging another inspection by a member of a different team on 6 December 2019, who also found condensation at her property. Therefore, this Service has not found any failures in the way that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports over the conduct of its member of staff.

The landlord’s associated complaint handling

As per the landlord’s complaints policy above, it was required to aim to provide a complaint response within ten working days at each stage of its complaints procedure, and to notify the resident if it needed more time. It received her stage one complaint on 9 November 2019, and it responded to this accordingly on 13 November 2019, within its above stated timescale.
Having received the resident’s stage two complaint on 19 November 2019, the landlord responded to her on 5 December 2019 to request an additional week for it to provide its full stage two complaint response. This was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy’s above requirement for it to do so. However, the landlord did not respond to the stage two complaint within its revised timescale to do so, as it replied to this on 20 December 2019, which resulted in a further delay of eight working days to its stage two response that was not communicated to the resident.
The landlord also responded to the resident’s final stage complaint of 17 January 2020 by arranging its final stage resident complaints panel meeting on 5 February 2020, which was three working days later than its complaints policy’s above timescale for it to do so. There is additionally no evidence that it notified her that it needed more time to arrange this.
The landlord nevertheless then offered the maximum compensation available under its above compensation and remedies policy for the above delays of £50 to the resident from 20 May 2020, as a result of its complaint handling in her case. This compensation offer from it was fair in respect of this aspect of her complaint because it recognised its above complaint handling delays proportionately in line with the policy. This was additionally in line with this Service’s remedies guidance’s recommendation that such delays in replying to correspondence be recognised with compensation from £50.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaints about:
1. The level of compensation offered by it in relation to its handling of roof repairs and water leaking into her property.
2. Its associated complaint handling.
This decision is dependent on the below recommendations being followed.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its investigation into the conduct of a member of its staff.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged and offered the resident proportionate compensation, in line with its compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance, which fairly recognised the detriment experienced by her from its failings in respect of her reports of roof repairs, water leaking, and its complaint handling.
The landlord demonstrated that it carried out an appropriate investigation into the reported concerns over the conduct of its member of staff, and that it communicated the outcome of this to the resident.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Re-offer the resident the £1,925 total compensation that it previously awarded her, if she has not received this already.
2. Provide the resident with details to enable her to submit her claims for personal injury and financial loss from the loss of her job as insurance claims, if she has not done so already.
3. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its policies and procedures with regard to void inspections, repairs and complaint handling to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above failings in the resident’s case. This should include the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords, if this has not been done recently, at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/.
The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendations.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.