The Guinness Partnership Limited (202221331)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221331

The Guinness Partnership Limited

28 March 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a roof leak and its communication with the resident.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to her belongings and the kitchen flooring.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident has an assured tenancy which started on 23 May 2005. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

Summary of events

The landlord raised an order on 21 February 2022 to replace 2 tiles that had slipped from the roof of the property. The landlord’s records show that the repairs were completed on 14 April 2022.
The landlord raised an order on 25 August 2022 to repair a roof leak which was resulting in water entering the bathroom light fittings. The landlord’s contractor attended on the same day and made the light fitting safe. The contractor also sealed around the vent in the roof as it believed this was the cause of the water ingress.
On 2 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the roof was still leaking when it rained. The landlord therefore raised a further order on the same day to repair the roof.
The landlord’s records confirm that the resident contacted the landlord on 29 September and 6, 10 and 19 October 2022 to chase the landlord to carry out the repair.
On 20 October 2022, the resident completed an online complaint form regarding the outstanding roof repair. She stated that she had been advised that a member of staff would ring her to provide an update but she had not received a phone call. The landlord phoned the resident on 21 October 2022 to obtain further details about the complaint and confirm it had logged a stage one complaint.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 3 November 2022, in which it included the following information:
1. The landlord confirmed that the resident had reported the roof leak on 25 August 2022 and its contractor had carried out emergency repairs using expanding foam to seal around the vent fitting in the roof.
2. The landlord confirmed that the resident had reported damage to her kitchen flooring, which she stated had been caused by some of the expanding foam falling from a towel onto the floor.
3. The landlord stated that the resident had phoned on 2 September 2022 and on various subsequent occasions to report the leak. The landlord apologised for its lack of communication with the resident. It stated that she should have received a call back within 2 working days and an appointment arranged within 20 working days.
4. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had reported having to empty buckets of water from the loft.
5. The landlord offered compensation of £125, which was made up of £50 for delays in completing the repair and £75 for poor communication.
6. The landlord stated that its sub-contractor would contact the resident on 3 November 2022 and the landlord would contact the resident on 9 November 2022 to check that the repair had been scheduled.
The resident replied to the landlord on the same day (3 November 2022) and questioned why the landlord had offered compensation before the repair had been resolved. She reiterated that she was regularly having to go up and down the steps to the loft to empty 2 buckets of water. The resident requested the landlord to escalate her complaint as she stated it had not communicated with her regarding the leak. The resident added that, in her view, the latest leak had occurred because the repairs carried out in relation to the February 2022 leak had failed.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 4 November 2022 and questioned why no one had inspected the damage to her kitchen flooring and why this had not been part of the landlord’s compensation offer. The resident mentioned that she was concerned the water ingress would cause damp and mould in the loft area.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 4 November 2022 and advised her that she would receive a reply within 20 working days.
The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted the landlord on 9, 10 and 14 November 2022 to request an update regarding the repair. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 November 2022 to ask her whether the works had been completed. The resident replied on the same day to advise that the repair had not been carried out and no one had contacted her.
The landlord contacted the resident on 15 and 17 November to apologise for the lack of communication and to confirm that it would chase its sub-contractor for an update. The resident replied on 17 November 2022 and stated that she had spent a sleepless night worrying about the heavy rain. She requested that the landlord call her with an update.
On 21 November 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that the roofing contractor had not attended an appointment on Saturday, 19 November 2022. She had called the roofer several times on the day and he had then texted her to explain that he could not attend due to family circumstances.
The landlord contacted the resident on 21 November 2022 to advise her that the contractor would attend on 22 November 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 November 2022 to confirm that the contractor had attended on that day and would be submitting a quotation to the landlord to carry out the work. The resident advised the landlord that the expanding foam that had been applied was now falling down and rain was entering the loft. She attached photos showing the reported damage caused to the kitchen floor by the expanding foam and repeated that she expected the landlord to replace the flooring.
The landlord phoned the resident on 23 November 2022 to confirm that it had approved the contractor’s quotation and was waiting for the contractor to confirm the date scaffolding would be erected.
The landlord’s records show that the scaffolding was erected on 26 November 2022. The landlord spoke to the resident on 29 November 2022 and she confirmed that the work had been completed on 29 November 2022. She asked the landlord to keep the scaffolding in place until it rained to check that there were no further leaks.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 29 November 2022 in which it stated the following:
1. There had been a leak in February 2022 and the landlord had carried out repairs to the roof on 25 March 2022.
2. The landlord accepted that at time it sent its stage one reply on 3 November 2022, it had not provided the resident with a date for the repair.
3. The landlord stated that it could not conclude for certain that the leak in February 2022 was linked to the leak reported on 25 August 2022.
4. The contractor had attended on 25 August 2022 and applied expanding foam around the roof vent as it believed this was the source of the water ingress. The landlord accepted that the contractor had used excessive amounts of expanding foam and this had fallen on various surfaces in the loft area. The landlord accepted that the standard of workmanship by the contractor had been poor and stated that it would share the photos with the operatives as part of its learning.
5. The landlord stated that the foam had stopped the leak until the resident contacted the landlord on 2 September 2022 to report that the leak had returned. The landlord accepted that it should have called the resident back after her contact but had not done so. Consequently, the resident had contacted the landlord 4 times from 29 September 2022 to 19 October 2022.
6. The landlord apologised that the resident had to carry buckets of water from the loft to be emptied and for any impact this had on her health.
7. The landlord confirmed that the roofing contractor had failed to attend an appointment on 19 November 2022 due to the operative’s family circumstances. The visit was rescheduled and took place on 22 November 2022. The scaffolding was erected on 26 November 2022 and the repair completed on 29 November 2022.
8. The landlord referred to photos of the kitchen floor the resident had sent. It accepted that the photos showed a stain on the floor but said there was no evidence that the stain had been caused by the foam. Therefore, it was unable to replace the kitchen flooring.
9. As a goodwill gesture the landlord offered the resident a £10 voucher to purchase a laminate floor cleaning product.
10. The landlord upheld the complaint and accepted that its communication had been poor. It offered the resident compensation of £225, which was made up of £100 for stress and inconvenience, £75 for poor communication and £50 for the delay in completing the repair.
11. The landlord stated that it had carried out an organisational restructure in order to address problems with residents not receiving updates about their repairs.
The landlord raised an order on 30 November 2022 to check the loft space and the roof trusses for any damage caused by the leak (the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence concerning the outcome from the order).
On 1 December 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated the following:
1. The rain had still been entering the property after the repair on 25 August 2022 and she had been expecting a call from the landlord to confirm when the follow-up repairs would be carried out.
2. The resident had not received a call from the landlord and therefore she had phoned the landlord on 2 September 2022.
3. The resident stated that the kitchen flooring was vinyl rather than laminate flooring. She stated that she would accept the £10 voucher if the landlord recommended a product that would clean the stain.
4. The resident advised that no one had attended to inspect the damaged possessions and therefore the landlord had not taken these into account when making its offer of compensation. She stated that the damaged items were 6 towels and various children’s games and puzzles.
5. She asked the landlord to remove the expanding foam in the loft as it was falling down and in her view did not serve a purpose.
6. She stated that the whole experience had affected her mental health, her family and her work and she had not slept properly for 3 months.
7. The resident stated that before accepting the landlord’s offer of compensation she wanted:
  1. The landlord to include provision in the compensation for the damaged items.
  2. The landlord to recommend a product that would clean her vinyl floor.
  3. The landlord to provide a date for someone to attend and inspect the loft for any damage.
  4. The landlord to remove the expanding foam from the loft.
  5. The landlord to provide her with contact details for someone she could speak to directly should the repair fail.
The landlord replied to the resident on 5 December 2022 and stated:
1. It had previously advised the resident that in order to be compensated for the damaged items, she would need to provide proof of ownership and details of the value of the items in the form of receipts or invoices.
2. It was unable to recommend a specific product as it could potentially be liable for any further damage caused by the product.
3. It had arranged for a service manager to inspect the loft for damage and during the visit the manager would remove any remaining foam from inside the loft.
Between 5 and 9 December 2022, the landlord and the resident exchanged further emails. The landlord offered the resident an appointment to inspect the loft on 9 December 2022 but she was unavailable on this date. The landlord said it would contact the resident to offer a further appointment.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 December 2022 to reject its offer of compensation as she stated the landlord had failed to contact her.
On 14 March 2024, the resident confirmed to this Service that she had not experienced any further roof leaks following the repairs carried out on 29 November 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 March 2024 and stated that it had carried out a further review. As a result, it had identified failures in terms of its complaint handling, record keeping and communications. It apologised that it had mistakenly stated in its stage 2 reply that the previous roof repairs had been completed on 25 March 2022 whereas they were completed on 14 April 2022. As a result it could not confidently say that the 2 leaks were unconnected. Therefore, it increased its offer from £350 to £750.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In her correspondence with the landlord, the resident requested compensation for damage to her possessions and the kitchen flooring. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to determine negligence or liability for damaged items in the same way as the courts, or to order damages in relation to these. Only a court can offer a definitive and legally binding decision. Similarly, this Service does not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. The Ombudsman has, however, assessed whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s compensation request in line with its policy and procedure and followed good practice when reaching its decisions.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 December 2022 and stated that the experience had affected her mental health, her family and her work and she had not slept properly for 3 months. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health and wellbeing, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a roof leak and its communication with the resident

The landlord categorises repairs as either ‘emergency’ or ‘routine’ repairs. Emergency repairs are completed or made safe within 24 hours and routine repairs are completed within 28 calendar days. Emergency repairs are defined as those where there is “an immediate health and safety risk to our customers, their home or their neighbours…they include…a flood or leak that cannot be contained or causes a risk of electric shock”.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 November 2022 and stated that the leak she reported on 25 August 2022 had occurred because the repairs carried out in relation to the February 2022 leak had failed. The landlord has stated that the repairs were completed on 14 April 2022 and that it cannot confidently say that the 2 leaks were not connected.
The Ombudsman has noted the landlord’s statement, however, the landlord’s statement is insufficient for this Service to conclude with any certainty that the 2 leaks were linked or that there were issues with the quality of the work carried out to address the original leak. In the absence of more conclusive evidence, the view of this Service is that it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that it could not confidently say that the initial repair had failed. The landlord’s roofing contractor had carried out repairs in April 2022 by replacing 2 roof tiles and, as a result, considered the leak to have been resolved. The landlord was therefore entitled to rely on the advice of its contractor that it had addressed the leak.
In terms of the time taken to address the earlier leak, the evidence shows that the leak was reported on 21 February 2022 and the repairs were completed on 14 April 2022. Therefore, it took 52 days to complete the repair, which was longer than the landlord’s published target of 28 days for routine repairs but was not excessive given the need to erect scaffolding.
The resident reported a roof leak on 25 August 2022 and advised the landlord that water was entering the bathroom light fittings. The landlord therefore raised an emergency order and attended on the same day. As water was entering the light fittings, it was appropriate for the landlord to treat it as an emergency and to attend on the same day to make the light fitting safe.
As an interim measure to address the leak, the contractor applied expanding foam around the roof vent as it considered this to be the source of the water ingress. The Ombudsman does not have the expertise to comment on whether the use of the expanding foam by the contractor was an appropriate temporary repair. However, in its stage 2 reply the landlord accepted that the standard of workmanship by the contractor in applying the foam had been poor.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that the expanding foam had temporarily stopped the leak until it restarted on 2 September 2022. However, the resident disputed this and stated that the leak had been continuous. The Ombudsman’s view is that while it was reasonable that the contractor had attempted a temporary repair on 25 August 2022, the work carried out had not been effective as the resident reported a further leak a week later on 2 September 2022.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that it did not raise a follow-up order to repair the roof until the resident reported the leak again on 2 September 2022. As the repair carried out by the contractor on 25 August 2022 had been temporary in nature, it was inappropriate that the landlord had not raised a follow-on repair for a contractor to inspect the roof and identify permanent repairs. The landlord’s website at the time stated: “Our contractors may do a temporary repair to make the situation safe. They’ll return at a later date to fix it”. The lack of pro-active action by the landlord added to the delay experienced by the resident in getting the roof permanently repaired.
The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted the landlord on various occasions in September and October 2022 seeking updates regarding the repair. The landlord’s failure to keep the resident updated led to her submitting a formal complaint on 20 October 2022 regarding the lack of communication and the delays in the landlord addressing the roof leak. At the time of submitting her complaint it had been 2 months since the resident first reported the leak on 25 August 2022. During this period, the evidence seen by this Service shows that the landlord did not provide updates to the resident nor take meaningful action to progress the permanent repair of the roof. This was inappropriate as the resident had advised the landlord on 2 September 2022 that water was still entering the loft when it rained.
The landlord apologised in its stage one reply on 3 November 2022 for its lack of communication with the resident regarding the repair. It accepted that the resident should have received a call back from the landlord after her contact on 2 September 2022 and that an appointment should have been arranged within 20 working days. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord had not met either of these service standards. The lack of contact meant that leak had not been addressed and the resident had received no information to reassure her that the landlord had the matter in hand.
The resident replied to the landlord on 3 and 4 November 2022 to express her continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the repair. However, the landlord’s records show that even after these contacts by the resident, the landlord still did not pro-actively communicate with her regarding the repair. This was inappropriate as the landlord had stated in its stage one reply dated 3 November 2022: “Our subcontractor will contact you today, 3 November 2022, and I will contact you on 9 November 2022 to ensure the repairs have been scheduled and will monitor these until completed”. Furthermore, the resident had explained in her email dated 3 November 2022 that she was having to empty buckets of water from the loft. This was particularly difficult as the evidence shows that the resident had to use a step ladder to access the loft area.
As a result of the lack of contact from the landlord, the resident contacted the landlord on 9, 10 and 14 November 2022 to request updates regarding the repair. The landlord apologised to the resident on 15 and 17 November 2022 for its lack of communication and stated it would chase the roofing contractor. As a result, an appointment was booked for the contractor to attend on 19 November 2022.
On 19 November 2022, the contractor did not attend the appointment. The resident had contacted the operative on various occasions on the day to check whether he was attending and the operative eventually texted the resident to say that he could not attend due to family circumstances.
The Ombudsman understands that occasionally unforeseen circumstances will arise which mean that a contractor cannot attend an appointment. However, where possible this Service would expect the resident to be advised before the appointed time that the contractor cannot attend. In this case, there is a lack of information about the events that led to the cancellation of the appointment. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to comment on whether it would have been reasonable or practical for the contractor to advise the resident beforehand that it could not attend.
The appointment was rescheduled shortly afterwards and the contractor attended on 22 November 2022. The contractor produced a quotation for the work and the landlord approved the quotation on 23 November 2022. Given that the contractor had not been able to keep the appointment on 19 November 2022, it was reasonable that the contractor had rescheduled the appointment within a short period. It was also reasonable that the landlord had to obtain and approve a quotation for the work as it had not inspected the roof itself and the job involved scaffolding costs.
The scaffolding was erected on 26 November 2022 and the works were completed on 29 November 2022. Therefore, given that the scaffolding had to be erected first, the view of this Service is that repair was completed within a reasonable timescale after the landlord had approved the quotation on 23 November 2022. However, overall it had taken over 3 months to complete the repair from when the resident reported the leak on 25 August 2022. The time taken was unreasonable as it was considerably longer than the landlord’s advertised target timescale of 28 days.
The delay meant that the resident had to empty buckets of water from the loft when it rained, which was made more difficult because she had to use a ladder to access the roof. The resident stated in her email dated 17 November 2022 that she was particularly worried during the night when there was heavy rain. The resident’s concerns about the roof leak were exacerbated by the landlord’s lack of consistent, pro-active communication with the resident about the repair.
In its stage 2 reply dated 29 November 2022, the landlord accepted that its communication had been poor and that there had been a delay in carrying out the repair. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service considers whether the landlord applied the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles during the complaints process. The principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging and apologising for its failings due to the delay in repairing the roof and for the poor standard of the temporary repair. It also acknowledged and apologised for its poor communication.
The landlord demonstrated that it had learnt from outcomes by feeding back to its contractor about the poor quality of the temporary repair and by advising the resident that it had carried out an organisational restructure to improve communications in relation to repairs.
In terms of putting things right, the contractor completed a successful repair of the roof on 29 November 2022 and offered the resident total compensation of £350 (£125 at stage one and £225 at stage 2).
The Ombudsman welcomes that the landlord offered the resident compensation to put things right. However, the view of this Service is that the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the impact of the delayed repair on the resident. In particular, the amount offered did not sufficiently recognise the added inconvenience of the resident having to use a ladder to access the attic in order to empty buckets of water.
The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of service failure as the landlord’s offer did not reflect the level of detriment to the resident. Additional compensation of £200 has been ordered, which brings the total compensation to £550. This amount is within the range of redress outlined in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but where there has been no permanent impact.
The resident’s request for compensation to cover reported quantifiable losses is covered below.
The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord wrote to the resident on 20 March 2024 to correct the date that the original roof repairs were completed. The revised date of 14 April 2022 has therefore been used in this report. The landlord also offered the resident additional compensation to bring its total offer to £750 (although the breakdown shown in the letter came to £650).
While it is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and made an offer of redress, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the landlord’s offer as ‘reasonable redress’ because the offer was made after the Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation. Paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that [the landlord]… has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This will result in a finding of reasonable redress”.
If the landlord’s offer of £750 is accepted by the resident, then this would cover the amounts ordered by the Ombudsman in this report.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to her belongings and the kitchen flooring

The landlord’s compensation policy states:
1. “When making a claim for compensation, we will need to be provided with relevant evidence such as:
  1. Proof of ownership and the value of the lost or damaged item. For example, photos, instruction booklets or receipts
  2. Proof of the damage (This may include the damaged items themselves)
  3. Supporting information about how the failure has affected the individual or household”.
2. “If the claim is for loss or damage a customer will need to give us or our contractors access to, or allow inspection of, the damaged property”.
3. “When calculating the compensation amount, we will take into account:
  1. Any quantifiable loss or damage
  2. Any distress and inconvenience caused as a result of the service failure. In particular we will consider the detriment caused to the individual or the household”.
The resident requested compensation for the following items that she reported had been damaged:
1. Games and puzzles in the loft, which the resident stated had been damaged by water from the leak.
2. 6 towels which the resident stated had been damaged by expanding foam dropping on the towels (the resident had placed the towels in the loft to absorb the rain water).
3. The kitchen flooring, which the resident stated had been stained when some of the expanding foam dropped from towels she was carrying onto the floor.
The resident had submitted photos of the kitchen floor. Based on the photos, the landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that although the floor was stained, there was no evidence that the stain had been caused by the expanding foam.
It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability, or negligence for damage to property or possessions. Therefore, this Service is not in a position to decide whether the stains on the kitchen floor were caused by the expanding foam. However, the landlord’s compensation policy states that where a claim is made for loss or damage, the resident must give access for an inspection of the damaged property by the landlord or its contractor. In this case, the resident stated in her email dated 4 November 2022 that no one had inspected the damaged items.
It was inappropriate that the landlord had made its decision not to replace the flooring without inspecting it. Furthermore, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord advised the resident that she could submit a claim against its public liability insurance. In January 2020, the Ombudsman produced guidance on complaints involving insurance issues. The guidance stated that the landlord should “…signpost complainants for personal injury and/or any other insurance related claims”.
In its stage 2 reply, the landlord offered the resident a £10 voucher so she could buy a product to clean the stain from the kitchen floor. The resident stated that she would only be willing to accept the voucher if the landlord recommended a cleaning product. The landlord advised her that it was unable to recommend a specific product. The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s refusal to recommend a product was reasonable as it could not be expected to have the necessary knowledge or expertise to recommend a specific vinyl floor cleaning product. Furthermore, the landlord clearly did not wish to risk recommending a product that might damage the flooring.
In terms of the damaged towels, games and puzzles, the landlord wrote to the resident on 5 December 2022 and pointed out that it had previously advised her that she would need to provide proof of ownership and details of the value of items in the form of receipts or invoices. This was in accordance with its policy.
The Ombudsman’s view is that although the resident may not have had receipts or invoices for the towels, games or puzzles, it was reasonable for the landlord to request the information in accordance with its policy. In the absence of receipts/invoices, the resident could have sent the landlord an itemised list stating approximately when each item had been bought or acquired, the estimated value and any additional photos showing the condition of the items. The resident therefore may wish to now consider submitting this information to the landlord.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found there was a service failure by the landlord because:
1. The landlord did not inspect the kitchen flooring before making a decision regarding the resident’s request for new flooring.
2. The landlord did not signpost the resident to its liability insurer for her to consider submitting a claim.
The Ombudsman has therefore made orders for the landlord to inspect the flooring, to reconsider the resident’s claim for replacement flooring and to signpost her to its liability insurer. Compensation of £100 has been ordered, which is within the range specified in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failures.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. The landlord will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord may extend the deadline at each stage by up to 10 working days if there is a good reason. Any extension beyond 10 working days should be agreed with the resident.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 20 October 2022 and the landlord sent its stage one reply on 3 November 2022. The landlord therefore replied within its advertised timescale of 10 working days for stage one complaints.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 November 2022 and indicated that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one response. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 29 November 2022, which was 18 working days after receiving the resident’s email on 3 November 2022. The landlord therefore replied within its advertised timescale of 20 working days for stage 2 complaints.
Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within the appropriate timescales.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of a roof leak and its communication with the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to her belongings and the kitchen flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The landlord offered the resident compensation to put things right in relation to the delay in repairing the roof and the poor communications. However, in the Ombudsman’s view, the amount offered was not proportionate to reflect the inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident. In particular, the resident had to use a step ladder to access the loft regularly in order empty buckets of water.
The landlord did not inspect the kitchen floor prior to making its decision not to replace the flooring. In addition, the landlord did not signpost the resident to its public liability insurer so she could submit a claim if she wished to do so.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one and stage 2 complaints within its prescribed timescales.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to:
1. Pay the resident £550 for its handling of the roof repairs and its communication with the resident (this sum includes the £350 already offered by the landlord).
2. Pay the resident £100 for its response to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged property.
3. Inspect the kitchen flooring and, in the light of the inspection, write to the resident with a decision regarding her request for replacement flooring.
4. Provide the resident with details of how she could submit a claim to the landlord’s public liability insurer should she wish to do so.