We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Tamil Community Housing Association Limited (202123536)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123536

Apna Ghar Housing Association Limited

11 January 2024


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 handling of the resident’s:
    1. reports of a leak affecting their property.
    2. request for suitable alternative accommodation while works to the repair the leak were undertaken.
    3. concerns regarding the conduct of its staff.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a two-bedroom flat and holds an assured shorthold tenancy which began on 20 January 2014. The resident lives in the property with her two children.
  2. On 20 and 22 September 2021 there were two leaks from the upstairs neighbour’s flat which entered the resident’s property, damaged her possessions and rendered the electrics unsafe. The electrics were made safe on 21 September, but were then affected again by the second leak.
  3. Following the leaks, the landlord was not able to make timely assessments and repairs within the property as the resident was not able to facilitate access, which she stated was due to childcare, work commitments and travel costs.
  4. On 4 November 2021, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint which centred around delays to the repairs being undertaken, a lack of clear communication, behaviour by the landlord’s staff and a lack of consideration of the resident’s personal circumstances.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 November 2021 and noted that it had first attempted to access the property within 24hrs of being notified of the leak. The landlord asserted that access had not been granted by the resident, which had delayed progress with repairs. The landlord offered mediation between the two residents, £100-150 compensation to replace a mattress and £50 compensation for the delay in issuing the complaint response.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 07 February 2022. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 28 April 2022 and clarified that the landlord could not reimburse the resident for damage to her possessions as she would be expected to hold contents insurance. In this instance it gave the details of its own insurer and re-offered the previous £100-150 compensation payment to replace the resident’s mattress. Additionally, the landlord offered a further £150 for delays in issuing the stage 2 complaint response and compensation for an issue related to a non-functioning lift, which was the subject of a different complaint.
  7. Between April and June 2022, the landlord pursued legal action against the resident, to gain access to the property to affect repairs and inspections. Court hearings were held on 29 June 2022 and 6 September 2022. On both occasions, the resident was permitted to make oral or written submissions regarding this case. Ultimately, in an order made on 6 September 2022, the court found in the landlord’s favour and awarded damages and costs be paid by the resident to the amount of £4034.58. Alongside this, a tenancy warning letter was issued and the resident ended her tenancy in September 2022.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 3 May 2022 seeking compensation for damages to her personal possessions.

Jurisdiction

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the following elements of the complaint are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks affecting their property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for suitable alternative accommodation while works to repair the leak were undertaken.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the conduct of its staff.
  3. Paragraph 41(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given”.
  4. Additionally, paragraph 42 (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings”.
  5. In this case, the resident attended court proceedings with the landlord on 24 June and had the opportunity to make written and oral submissions to the court regarding the merits of her case. In a further hearing on 6 September 2022, the resident gave oral evidence to the court. This is noted in the court order signed by the Judge.
  6. The court issued an order against the resident and awarded the landlord damages for re-charge costs as a consequence of no access and costs of the proceedings. Therefore this indicates that the court has made a judgement on the merits of this case.
  7. Given that the resident had opportunities to present evidence to the court on these matters and that a judgement on the merits was made by the court, these elements of the complaint do not sit within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. As a result, only the complaint regarding the landlord’s complaint handling has been considered as part of this determination.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord operates a two-stage complaint procedure and commits to issuing its responses within the following timescales:
    1. Stage 1 – 10 working days
    2. Stage 2 – 20 working days
  2. The landlord acknowledged in both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses that these were delayed and issued beyond its policy timescales. Taken together, there were delays of 44 working days in issuing these responses. In redress for this, the landlord offered £50 compensation in its stage 1 complaint response and £150 in its stage two complaint response, to acknowledge the delays and any time and trouble caused as a result.
  3. The landlord did not award compensation for any damage caused to the resident’s property or possessions as it, rightly, stated that residents should have contents insurance in place to cover damage to their own possessions. The landlord did make its own insurer’s details available to the resident to raise a claim if she wished. There is no evidence that the resident submitted a claim in this way.
  4. There was evidence of the landlord offering the resident flexibility to re-open her complaint at stage 2, despite being outside of its policy timescales to do this. Whilst not obliged to do this, it was positive to note that the landlord made this reasonable adjustment. 
  5. Throughout the initial leaks and the subsequent complaints there is evidence of substantial communication from the landlord, both via its customer services department and, later, its solicitor. This included multiple letters (both posted and hand delivered), emails, telephone calls, text messages and face to face attendances at the property. As part of the process of the stage 2 complaint, the resident was also invited to attend an independent complaints panel meeting. The aim of this panel was to more fully understanding her complaint and potential redress sought. There is no evidence that the resident responded to these invitations or attended the meetings.
  6. Throughout the complaints process, the landlord identified the following learning:
    1. The need for a full review of the complaint history, to identify any ways that these types of complaint could be handled differently in future.
    2. The need to offer more flexible appointment times, where possible around contractor availability and dependent on the severity of the presenting repair issue.
    3. To assess whether it could offer more flexibility when booking hotels (used for temporary decants) in future cases.
  7. Overall, the landlord operated an effective complaints process, which identified opportunities for learning, remained open and communicative with the resident and offered appropriate compensation for the delays in issuing its complaint responses. Given these findings, the landlord has offered redress to the resident, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this matter satisfactorily.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint handling issues satisfactorily. 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the compensation previously offered in its complaint responses, if it has not already done so, as it is on this basis that the finding of reasonable redress has been made.
  2. The landlord should undertake the learning it previously identified in its complaint process, if it has not already done so.