Stroud District Council (202107955)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107955

Stroud District Council

12 July 2022

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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the aftermath of an accident at the property- in particular the landlord’s communication with the resident and its handling of access to the property and possible damage.

Background and summary of events

2. On 15 April 2020 a vehicle crashed into the property. The vehicle caused substantial damage to the property and it was uninhabitable. The morning after the accident building control attended. The structural engineer advised the resident to enter the property to get essential items. The property was secured. Alternative accommodation was organised by the landlord and furniture and food vouchers were provided.
3. On 23 April 2020 the property was handed over to the control of the landlord’s insurers.
4. On 21 May 2020 the resident raised concerns with the landlord about how the property was being managed in his absence.
5. On 30 May 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord complaining about lack of, and conflicting, communications. On 1 June 2020 there was a conversation between the landlord and the resident. The resident raised concerns that an officer had “lied” to him about the handling of goods and property in the house. The resident said that the landlord had told him that all his goods would be removed into storage, and he would be given a key but this had not happened and he was concerned for his belongings. The resident complained that the landlord had not updated him. He complained that the landlord had not shown due diligence and had kept the rear of the property wide open and viewable with his personal belongings on display. He also complained that scaffolding equipment had damaged his plant boxes.
6. On 26 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise him that the property was under the control of the insurer and a formal request would need to be made to them before entry could be granted. The landlord was progressing that.
7. On 3 July 2020 the landlord sent the customer a stage one complaint response. It summarised the resident’s complaint as being about the following key areas: communication about the handling of the resident’s possessions; communication about the security of the property; disparity between the responses of different officers; lack of response to emails; an allegation that two officers lied to the resident. The landlord stated that it had identified some inconsistencies in its communications with the resident. It concluded that this was because a communication plan was not completed. It found that there were no direct lies by any officers but acknowledged that communication about different responsibilities had been unclear. It noted that it attempted to provide items needed by the resident. It stated that the resident should have been informed that responsibility for the resident’s possessions was with his insurer and that his insurer, in conjunction with the landlord’s insurers, were responsible for the security and storage of items. It stated that the landlord sought to make the property as secure as possible until the insurance companies could take control however it had to balance this against safety concerns. It partially upheld the complaint because it identified that there were issues with information provision, however it did not find evidence of any deliberate deception.
8. On 3 July 2020 the resident asked for the details of the insurance company and paperwork and emails regarding the matter. He requested that the complaint be escalated.
9. On 6 July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord complaining that he had not been able to access the key safe.
10. On 7 July 2020 the landlord confirmed to the resident that the complaint had been escalated to stage two of its complaints procedure.
11. On 24 July 2020 the resident’s MP sent an email to the landlord raising his concerns about communication levels and the way the property was being handled during repairs.
12. On 4 August 2020 the landlord provided a stage two complaint response to the resident. The landlord stated that the stage one complaint deal with the issue of its communications and dealings with one of its officers in sufficient detail. It noted that it had apologised for the communications failings and a communications plan, with a single point of contact, had been put in place. It provided the details of the insurers and apologised for the delay in providing them. It apologised for the delay in providing the reimbursement for the postal redirection and stated that the money had been transferred. It noted that the resident was in the system for automatic bids for rehousing but it could not guarantee a timescale. It noted that the carpets would be removed from the property whilst work was carried out and asked if they were covered by the resident’s insurance. It stated that it anticipated it would take ten weeks to complete the works from when the items were cleared from the property and an asbestos survey was carried out, although it may be longer. It stated that it partially upheld the resident’s complaint and it was optimistic that the handling of the matter would improve moving forward.
13. The parties met on 10 August 2020 to discuss the resolution of the resident’s complaint and the way forward.
14. On 18 August 2020 the landlord sent the resident an email confirming the outcome of the meeting on 10 August 2020. It apologised for information about the storage of belongings given immediately after the incident. It acknowledged it could have handled this better and it was a lesson that it had learnt. It noted that the communication plan had been discussed in the meeting and it had been agreed some aspects were unclear. It noted that this would be improved, with training where needed. It noted that it had agreed that an action plan would be put in place for a similar incident in the future which clearly set out lines of responsibility and ownership. The landlord further confirmed that it had been discussed that the landlord would seek further information about damage done to the resident’s garden and would work with the insurer if there had been damage. The landlord then set out the steps it would take to support the resident in the move to his new property.
15. On 26 August 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to complain that he had been locked out of the property. On 27 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that he could access the property the next day to remove items and leave the remainder of items for the insurer to remove and store.
16. On 4 September 2020 the landlord emailed the resident noting that it was confident that the issues were being managed. It acknowledged that the resident was seeking access to the property and stated that, as the resident was aware, access to the property “must be carefully managed”. It observed that the tenancy services team was working with the resident to manage safety issues around access. It confirmed the name of the contact officer for the resident.

Assessment and findings

17. The Ombudsman understands that this has been a very distressing experience for the resident. As well as the shock of the accident itself, significant repairs were needed to the property and ultimately the resident has moved to different permanent accommodation. The Ombudsman further acknowledges the resident has health issues that have exacerbated these challenges.
18. The crux of the resident’s complaint about the landlord is about its communication with him and its handling of access to the property. Whilst the prime responsibility and control for repairing the property and compensating the resident falls to the relevant insurers, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to communicate with the resident in a reasonable manner about its role and provide appropriate support in the circumstances, particularly given that this situation had arisen through no fault of the resident and must have caused significant upset to him.

Communication 

19. The resident was understandably upset by the accident and concerned about how the repairs would progress. He was concerned about finding alternative accommodation and about how his belongings would be kept secure and stored. The evidence indicates that the resident was very happy with the communication and support provided by one of the landlord’s officers. However, he was unhappy with his interactions with other officers.
20. The landlord has acknowledged that there were some communications failings by it. Following the resident’s complaint, it put in place a Communications Plan. It apologised in its stage two complaint letter for failing to provide its insurer’s details and provided them in that letter and for the delay in the reimbursement for post redirection expenses. It explained that the resident was on the list for alternative housing, but no time scale could be given for this. It also set out the proposed timetable for the repairs. Whilst the landlord acknowledged some failings, it did not offer the resident specific compensation. In its letter of 18 August 2020, the landlord acknowledged that the communications plan established required some refinement.
21. Whilst there may have been some communications failings by the landlord, the Ombudsman finds that the evidence does not indicate wilful, significant or pervasive communications failings by the landlord. An internal folder was set up by 17 April 2020 to collate all issues about the matter and to be the basis of communications with the resident. Internal emails from 22 April 2020 show that the landlord was aware that the resident wished to be kept up to date with information and that it turned its mind to how best to do this – concluding that a single point of contact would work best. The text correspondence indicates that the landlord was helpful and responsive to the resident’s daughters text messages.
22. There appears to have been some confusion between the parties about the collection and storage of the resident’s belongings. The landlord’s position is that it advised the resident that the insurers would be responsible for this. It acknowledged that it may have originally given the resident incorrect information immediately after the incident that all the belongings would be relocated to the temporary accommodation. The landlord has apologised for this incorrect advice. The Ombudsman understands that the resident was concerned about the security of his belongings. However, the evidence does not indicate that the landlord wilfully gave the resident incorrect information. It is unfortunate that the landlord gave the resident incorrect information in the immediate aftermath of the accident and the Ombudsman understands why this was distressing for the resident. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that it remedied the incorrect information given to the resident within a reasonable timeframe.
23. The resident was also unhappy that the landlord told him that the temporary accommodation would be fully kitted out with a fridge/freezer, washing machine and cooker. It appears that a cooker was sourced but not other items. The landlord’s position was that it would normally be for the insurer to provide alternative accommodation in a hotel and the landlord had gone beyond what it would usually do. Again, the Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence that the landlord gave the resident incorrect information. The Ombudsman is satisfied that any miscommunication that there may have been was inadvertent.
24. The resident has also referred to the landlord failing to contact the police in a timely manner. However, this appears to have been due to an email address not working. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the evidence demonstrates that the landlord took reasonable steps to communicate with the police and insurers in a timely manner.
25. The Ombudsman notes the landlord’s in depth consideration of the complaint points raised by the resident and its self reflection. The landlord acknowledged where it could have done better and has stated that it has put in place new procedures to ensure this does not happen again.
26. The Ombudsman has considered whether it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have paid the resident some compensation for its communication failings. The landlord apologised but did not specifically offer financial compensation, although it did offer generous support to the resident to help him to settle in his new property. The Ombudsman is sympathetic to the distress of the resident but is not persuaded that the service failings warrant specific compensation. The Ombudsman is not persuaded that the service failings – in themselves – contributed in a notable way to the distress which the resident understandably experienced because of the accident and the damage it caused. In coming to this view the Ombudsman has taken into account the efforts made by an allocated officer who supported the resident.
27. The Ombudsman therefore finds that there have been some service failings with respect to the landlord’s communication with the resident, however it has already provided reasonable redress in recognition of these – being an apology and a commitment to alter its approach going forward.

Handling of access to the property and the resident’s belongings

28. The resident was also concerned about damage to the backyard of the property by contractors and obtaining access to the property to retrieve his goods.
29. The landlord met with the loss adjustor and Quantity Surveyor on 23 April 2022, who advised that the property was unsafe and could not be accessed. A structural engineer was appointed to put in place the required supports. At that stage the landlord was unable to say when the property could be accessed. The property then passed to the control of the landlord’s insurer who needed to be included in access issues. The evidence indicates that the landlord communicated with the resident to facilitate access to the property to retrieve items, although this had to be subject to the safety concerns about access. The evidence provided includes a number of communications between the landlord and the insurer regarding access to the property. The Ombudsman understands that the resident was unhappy about only being allowed access on specific occasions and with an officer present, however given the safety concerns this was reasonable.
30. The insurer would be liable to any damage to the resident’s property, which the landlord acknowledged. The landlord indicated that it would further investigate any damage. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take.
31. As said, the Ombudsman understands that this has been a very distressing experience for the resident. However, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has not inappropriately dealt with access to the property and possible damage.
32. The resident has also referred to paying “double rent” for a period – that he was paying rent for the damaged property and also for alternative accommodation property. The Ombudsman is satisfied by the landlord’s submissions that this is not the case. The landlord has indicated that some of the funds paid by the resident were used towards the arrears on the damaged property that existed at the time of the accident.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with section 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has provided reasonable redress with respect to its communication with the resident.
34. In accordance with section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman finds that there has been no maladministration by the landlord with respect to access to the property and possible damage.

Reasons

35. The landlord has acknowledged that there were some communications failings and took reasonable steps to address these with the resident. The Ombudsman is not persuaded that the service failings – in themselves – contributed in a notable way to the distress which the resident understandably experienced because of the accident and the damage it caused. The landlord acknowledged where it could have done better and has stated that it has put in place new procedures to ensure this does not happen again. These actions together with its apology constitute reasonable redress in the Ombudsman’s opinion.
36. The Ombudsman understands that the resident was unhappy about only being allowed access on specific occasions and with an officer present, however given the safety concerns this was reasonable. The landlord indicated that it would further investigate any damage. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take.