Stonewater Limited (202210100)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210100

Stonewater Limited

19 December 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:
   1. The condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the decant process.
   3. The landlord’s handling of ongoing repairs and the conduct of its staff.
   4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

2. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. The Scheme provides in paragraph 42(a) that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion 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.”
4. The landlord is entitled to defend its handling of situations, through its internal  complaints procedure, where appropriate. Alternatively, the landlord is reasonably expected to take the opportunity to acknowledge service failings and offer a resolution where things have faltered. To achieve this, residents are expected to raise issues with their landlord first for it to investigate, and before referring matters to this Service. Essentially, the landlord must be given a chance to ‘get things right’ before consideration is given to whether it has ‘got things wrong’.
5. In this case, the complaint was made within 2 weeks of the start of the tenancy and many of the issues raised with this Service took place afterwards. They were not therefore included in the complaint and the landlord has not had the opportunity to examine its handling of those situations through its internal complaints procedure.
6. According, those matters are outside of jurisdiction and will not be considered further in this investigation.  A summary of the excluded matters is set out below.
7. The landlord’s handling of the decant process: The resident was decanted from the property from the outset of the tenancy. He reports being moved 9 times in 3 months and that this caused him considerable distress and inconvenience. This was especially so given his individual vulnerabilities of which the landlord was aware. The resident was unhappy with the level of communication he received regarding moves, sometimes with late notice being given. He considers that he had to push for arrangements to be made, rather than the landlord taking a proactive approach. These events took place after the complaint was made and were not included in it. Further, the second decant took place 7 months after the complaint and was not envisaged at that point.
8. The landlord’s handling of ongoing repairs and the conduct of its staff: The resident has referred the issue of the landlord’s handling of ongoing repairs to this Service, not associated with the original decant reasons. This includes loft insulation, windows, blocked drainage (due to overgrown vegetation), damp and mould and the quality of the kitchen facilities. He states that he discovered contractors in his property smoking drugs whilst there to carry out repairs. These repairs/issues took place after the complaint was made.
9. Any further mention of these issues in the paragraphs below would be for contextual purposes only as they have not been assessed in this report.

Background

10. The resident was the secure tenant of a 2-bedroom bungalow with effect from 1 April 2022. He was due to live in the property with his carer and a service dog.
11. The resident has limited mobility, a lung condition, and an ongoing mental health disorder. However, he refused to move into the property stating that it was in an unfit condition. The landlord subsequently agreed that a decant was necessary and arranged alternative accommodation for him on a temporary basis. Repairs were then carried out and the resident moved into the property in early July 2022.
12. However, the resident was decanted again in early November 2022 when further problems arose. Repairs were carried out but the resident was reluctant to return. The landlord arranged a managed move and he transferred to an alternative property in June 2023.
13. On 12 April 2022, shortly after the start of the tenancy, the resident complained to the landlord about the situation. In his view the void works had not been completed and he stated that there was a leak to the roof with water running down the walls. His health situation meant that he could not live anywhere damp as this was likely to have a serious effect on him.
14. On 23 May and 22 July 2022, the landlord provided its responses to the complaint. It regretted that the resident had had such a “challenging” start to his tenancy. It agreed that there had been poor communication in general with the resident since. It explained that a lot of work had been carried out to the property during the void period but that the roof leak happened right at the start of the tenancy and could not have been foreseen. The landlord offered compensation of £750 which it calculated as £100 for its poor communications, £500 for inconvenience, and £150 for ongoing delays in getting repairs finalised.
15. In addition, the landlord had paid for storage costs for the resident’s furniture and moving costs to return these to the property when the initial decant was over. It asked for additional information in respect of claimed damage to furniture and additional travel costs due to the location of the resident’s temporary accommodation. Further, the resident had claimed the cost of levelling and laying flooring. The landlord stated that it would consider refunding this cost upon an occupational therapist confirming it was necessary to meet the resident’s needs.
16. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response. In his view the landlord had failed to properly take his medical needs into account when assessing an acceptable level of compensation for the disruption he had experienced. He considered it had also acted unreasonably in failing to pay his additional travel costs, furniture damage, removal of belongings to storage at the start of the decant, or for the cost of levelling the flooring. In total he claimed £1,726.32 for these expenses. As a result, the resident referred the matter to this Service for investigation. At that point the second decant had not yet taken place. 

Assessment and findings

The condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.

17. The resident was already dissatisfied with the condition of the property when the roof leak occurred. As set out above, the landlord states that it could not have foreseen this problem, and that the property was in a lettable condition following works during the void period. Notwithstanding that, it agreed to carry out further works to the property which did not relate to the leak. Some were cosmetic and others remedial in nature. They touched upon every room in the property and its outside areas. Further, it took 3 months to dry the property out and carry out any repairs from the leak itself.
18. It is outside of the role of this Service to diagnose faults within a property or to specify what remedial works are required to put things right. We do not have the expertise to carry out such an exercise. Further, we do not ordinarily inspect properties and no survey has been produced confirming the condition of this property at the time in question (April 2022). Notwithstanding this, the timing of the leak, so close to the end of the void works raises concern. It is supportive of the suggestion that the property was not adequately inspected/prepared during the void period. Even if this were not the case, as stated above, the landlord accepted that further works were warranted.
19. Ultimately, the landlord’s contractor installed a new kitchen, toilet, shower, lights, and internal doors and carried out landscaping and roofing works externally. The landlord states that some of these works were not required but were done to take advantage of the property being empty to upgrade it. However, on that basis, those works might reasonably have been carried out during the void period when the property was empty to begin with.
20. It is reasonable to conclude that the property was not ready for letting. This is because of the nature and extent of the works undertaken in the first three months of the tenancy. The landlord might reasonably have been expected to realise this, especially having regard to this resident’s personal set up and limitations. This represented a service failing on its part. 
21. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress.
22. The landlord did not accept specific service failures in its complaint responses other than one of poor communication, but it did agree that it had caused the resident significant inconvenience. It referred to the start of his tenancy as “challenging” for him. Its acknowledgement that the letting of this property had not gone smoothly and to plan was an important part of its response.
23. The landlord operates a Compensation Policy which confirms it can make awards where there has been a service failure. Its offer of an award in this case therefore reflects an acceptance that there had been flaws in its handling of the letting. That policy does not set out, however, the basis upon which an award should be calculated.
24. This Service’s Remedies Guidance offers information on this point. It states that an award for distress and inconvenience of between £100 to £600 is appropriate where the resident has had a negative experience but there is no permanent effect on them. Where the effect on the resident is more significant an award of up to £1,000 may be appropriate and awards over this sum are only relevant where there has been a long term/permanent impact.
25. In this case, the effect on the resident was intensive, particularly given his personal circumstances – but it was relatively short-lived in terms of time. Account is not taken here of the decant process, changes of temporary accommodation or the eventual permanent move because, as set out in the Jurisdiction section (above), these matters were not included in the complaint under investigation. The landlord’s offer of £750 falls within an appropriate bracket relating to the matters that have been investigated in this report. There was a significant effect on this resident but over a defined period of time. The offer could be considered reasonable in this regard. However, it is necessary to also consider its handling of the resident’s claim for his expenses.

Travel Expenses

26. The resident reported that due to his temporary accommodation being located further away from his routine journeys he spent an additional £675.64 in petrol. He provided evidence by way of receipts. It is noted that the landlord’s Decant Policy states that it will consider reimbursing “additional travel expenses to work or in continuing normal routines for a maximum period of 3 months.”
27. The landlord’s response to the claim was to require the resident to complete a mileage claim form. It was unlikely at this point that the resident would be able to detail every journey he had taken, and the exact additional mileage involved and it was unfair of the landlord to expect him to be able to do so. If this was its requirement, then it might reasonably have instructed the resident to keep this record from the outset of the decant. The landlord was aware of the location of the temporary accommodation compared to the area the property was situated in. It might reasonably have been expected to make a sensible offer in respect of this claim.

Wardrobe Boxes

28. The resident claimed the sum of £270 in respect of boxes that he was using for storage in the property which had been water damaged and needed to be replaced. The landlord asked for photographic evidence to enable it to assess this claim further. This was a reasonable response to this claim.

Removal Costs

29. The landlord paid the costs of keeping the resident’s furniture and belongings in a storage facility during the decant process. It also paid the cost of moving the belongings back into the property after that first decant. It was fair and reasonable that it met those expenses. However, the resident wants the landlord to contribute £200 to the cost of moving his things to the facility at the start of the decant. The landlord has responded that the resident would have incurred a cost had he moved them into the property at the start of the tenancy as planned. Accordingly, by moving them to the storage facility instead he had suffered no additional loss. This was a reasonable response to this part of the resident’s claim.

Flooring

30. The resident reports that he had spent £580.68 on flooring materials. He stated the floor was in poor condition and not suitable for his needs given his mobility issues. The money he spent was then wasted when damp from the leak ruined his flooring. He has invited the landlord to reimburse him. Its view is that the flooring was acceptable, and the work did not need doing in the first place. It offered to reconsider this approach, however, upon an Occupational Therapist confirming it was necessary. This was a reasonable response to this claim. No evidence has been provided to this Service of any such report being provided to the landlord. Accordingly, it acted reasonably in dealing with this expense.

Conclusion

31. Overall, this Service finds that, whilst the landlord mainly responded appropriately and reasonably, it failed to go as far as it could have in terms of dealing with the expenses – specifically the travel costs. It did not offer reasonable redress, therefore, in respect of the identified failings in service. An order will be made below for the compensation offered of £750 and for a contribution of £500 in respect of petrol expenses. This is a rounded sum which takes account of the lack of detail in the claim but recognises that the claim of additional mileage was a genuine one.
32. For the sake of completeness, it is noted that since the second decant the resident has claimed many more expenses relating to ruined flooring, furniture, and belongings. As already stated, those events took place after the complaint was made and are not being examined here. However, the landlord’s records show that an insurance claim is being made, as well as initial steps being taken in a legal disrepair claim. It is possible that the damaged wardrobe boxes are included. A recommendation will be made for that claim to be added if this has not already been done.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

33. The landlord has a Complaints, Compliments and Comments Policy setting out its approach to complaint handling. It operates a two-stage process. The first involves an investigation into the issues complained about and the second, a review of the situation. The landlord aims to acknowledge complaints within 2 working days, with an initial response within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate the complaint to the second stage. The landlord then aims to respond within 10 working days of the request. The landlord retains a discretion to extend these timescales “where appropriate”.
34. The complaint was raised orally on 12 April 2022. However, the landlord did not send out its acknowledgement until 21 April 2022, which was 5 working days late. It then calculated its response time based upon this belated date as 5 May 2022.  A stage 1 response was not, however, sent until 23 May 2022, a further 12 working days delay. The landlord did not notify the resident in the meantime that an extension was required.
35. On 21 June 2022, the resident requested escalation of the complaint to stage 2. Accordingly, a response should have been provided by 5 July 2022 but was not sent until 22 July 2022. This represented a delay of 13 working days and again no extension request was made to the resident in the meantime.
36. It can be seen that the landlord failed to comply with the timetable it set out for itself in its policy and its handling of the complaint was inappropriate.
37. The resident has raised concerns about the accuracy of the information contained in the landlord’s complaint response(s) but has not gone into further detail on that point. A landlord is entitled to put their version of events forward in their responses but there is a reasonable expectation that what is said should be open and honest. There is no evidence here from which to conclude that the landlord deliberately or wilfully tried to mislead or misdirect the resident. He is, of course, entitled to hold his own view of what unfolded in this case.
38. The landlord might reasonably have acknowledged the delays in its complaint handling as part of its final response but failed to do so. This, together with the delays themselves, represent a failing in the service it offered to the resident. He was ‘left in the dark’ as to what stance the landlord was going to take but there was no long term or serious effect upon him. An order for compensation of £100 has been made below.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following issues are outside of the jurisdiction of this investigation.
    1. The landlord’s handling of the decant process.
    2. The landlord’s handling of ongoing repairs and the conduct of its staff.
40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

42. The landlord should pay the resident total compensation of £1350 calculated as:
    1. The additional sum of £500 for the resident’s expenses related to the above, thus, increasing its offer of £750 to £1250.
    2. The sum of £100 for its complaint handling.
43. It should confirm with this Service that it has complied with the Order within 4 weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

44. The landlord should consider including the resident’s claim for damage to his wardrobe boxes in the insurance claim in progress if this has not already been done.