Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202114238)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114238

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

18 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s damaged laminate flooring in her hallway.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, and the property is a flat.
3. On 14 July 2021 the resident raised concerns over damaged laminate flooring in her home. She said that this had come apart since it had been replaced by the landlord in 2016. She explained the floor was now a trip hazard, and caused “my son to trip and fall cutting his hand and needing to seek medical attention”. She did not specify which part of the flat was affected. The landlord gave its first response to the resident on 16 July 2021 acknowledging the situation and requesting a job to be logged. The first visit was in August 2021 (no specific date provided) to take measurements and inspect the damage. The repair records refer to the problem being in the hallway of the property.
4. After the initial visit in August there is no record of a follow up from the landlord to the resident to complete the works. Having heard nothing from the landlord the resident came to this Service in September 2021. We contacted the landlord asking it to treat the resident’s concerns as a complaint.
5. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 5 November 2021. It acknowledged that the repair work was not followed up after the first visit. The landlord had subsequently misplaced the information taken at the August visit, and needed to arrange a new inspection, which it had arranged with the resident for 8 November 2021. It apologised for the delay, and offered £80 compensation (for poor service, time and trouble, and a missed appointment).
6. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 16 November 2021. She explained that she was dissatisfied with the compensation, saying that it did not reflect the injury to her son, and the four–month delay. The landlord asked the resident for more information about her son’s injury, but there is no evidence that any was provided.
7. The landlord sent what it labelled as its stage two response on 14 December 2021. It acknowledged that the resident believed further compensation was due because of her son’s accident, but noted that no evidence had been provided for it to consider revisiting the compensation amount, and that “all detriment was considered at your stage one review.” It explained that the resident had not met the grounds for her complaint to be escalated, and referred her to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
8. In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident explained that she remained dissatisfied with the compensation offered by the landlord. She also explained that she had experienced problems with laminate flooring in a bedroom.

Assessment and findings

9. A large part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord, and to this Service, concerned an injury her son received, which she said was due to the poor condition of the laminate flooring. Matters of personal injury, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts – who can consider medical evidence, allegations of negligence, and make legally binding findings. Because of that (in line with paragraph 23(i) of the Scheme), this aspect of the complaint will not be investigated. Any references to the matter in this report are only to provide context. The resident should consider taking legal advice if she wishes to pursue the matter with the landlord further.
10. In her contact with this Service the resident said that she was now experiencing flooring problems in a bedroom. The evidence shows that the problems raised in this complaint related to the hallway flooring. No evidence has been provided showing that the resident reported to the landlord repair problems with the bedroom, or that she raised the bedroom issue in her complaints. In light of that, this investigation centres on the landlord’s actions in relation to the hallway repairs. Any new repair issues need to be raised as a report to the landlord, and then as a complaint if the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handing of them.
11. The landlord did not dispute that it was responsible for the repair of the laminate flooring in the hallway. It initially attended within its 28-day timeframe for routine repairs (as set out in its repair guide). That was reasonable and appropriate, as the landlord needed to assess the situation to determine what remedial work was needed, and, while the resident had explained her concerns about the floor being hazardous, there is no indication it was an immediate threat to health and safety — such as a fire, loss of heating, electrical malfunction, or burst pipes— which would justify the matter being considered an emergency (with a 24 hour response time, as per the landlord’s repairs guide).
12. Having initially responded well, the landlord (through its contractors) then took no further action until the resident chased the matter in late September 2021. Compounding this failing, the landlord lost the information obtained in its original inspection, and needed to inspect again, which it did in early November 2021, followed by work to complete the repairs on 25 November, more than four months after the issue was first reported. That was clearly a significant failing in terms of delay and inconvenience to the resident, especially given her concerns about the floor being a trip hazard.
13. The landlord acknowledged that its service had been poor. It apologised, explained what had gone wrong (as far as it could determine), and offered £80 compensation, of which £70 was for the delay and the inconvenience it caused. Following the resident’s dissatisfaction with the compensation and her request to escalate her complaint, the landlord informed her that the compensation amount was in line with its policy, and with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It said that the circumstances of the service failure had been considered when deciding the amount. However, while the amount may have been in line with the landlord’s own policies, it was not in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance for a complaint with significant delay, poor communication, the resident needing to chase up, and concerns about potential hazards. The compensation was disproportionately low in those circumstances, and indicates that the landlord had not appropriately considered or appreciated the scale of its failings and their impact. Accordingly, the landlord did not fully remedy the resident’s complaint about its handling of the damaged flooring in her home.

Determination

14. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint.

Orders

15. In light of the landlord’s failure to reasonably remedy its poor repair service, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200. This payment should be made within four weeks of this report, and evidence of payment provided to this Service.
16. If it has not already done so, the landlord should also now pay the compensation it previously offered to the resident. The findings and orders in the investigation are partly based on it doing so.