Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202342221)

Background

1. The resident reported a leaking radiator. He wanted to be compensated for damage it had caused to a carpet and curtains.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports of a radiator leak causing damage to the resident’s belongings.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a radiator leak causing damage to the resident’s belongings.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of a radiator leak causing damage to the resident’s belongings

5. The landlord failed to manage the radiator repair properly. It delayed raising the follow-on works.
6. It did not apply its own compensation policy. It failed to consider compensation for the loss of heating in a main room and for damage to belongings.

Complaint handling

7. There were delays with complaint responses that were not addressed by the landlord.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Report of radiator leak

8. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and appointable repairs within 28 working days. The resident reported a leaking radiator on 12 January 2024. An operative attended the same day, within timescales for an emergency repair. The resident and the operative gave different accounts of this appointment. The resident said the radiator leaked and was not fit for purpose. He said the operative assessed the leak and isolated the radiator to stop it. He believed the operative would report that it needed replacing. The operative said he found no leak, just some flaking paint.
9. On 16 January 2024, the resident chased the repair. The landlord contacted the subcontractor several times to ask whether follow-on works were needed. On 29 January 2024, the subcontractor confirmed the operative had not raised any follow-on work because he believed there was no leak. Despite this the landlord accepted that the radiator had leaked and apologised for this in its stage 1 response on 29 January 2024.
10. The resident said the radiator was 26 years old and not fit for purpose. Under the decent homes standard, central heating distribution such as radiators are generally expected to last up to 40 years. The landlord said this radiator was installed in 2000, so it was still within its expected life. It could not have foreseen that the radiator would leak.
11. After the resident reported his complaint, the landlord raised an order on 1 February 2024 and the radiator was replaced on 6 March 2024. This was 38 working days after the repair was reported, outside its timescale of 28 working days for appointable repairs. The delay in raising this order was due to miscommunication with its contractors. A radiator in good condition would not need to be isolated. This radiator was isolated and therefore needed further work.

Compensation for damaged belongings

12. We do not decide legal negligence or liability. We do not award compensation in the same way a court or insurance provider would. Our role is to assess whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures and treated the resident fairly.
13. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may offer compensation for loss of facilities or for damage to possessions “where liability doesn’t exist”. It will assess liability claims to decide if compensation is appropriate. On 16 January 2024 the resident sent photos showing damage to his carpet and curtains caused by the leak. The landlord said it attended within the repair timescale and isolated the radiator so it would not leak any further. It said the leak was due to wear and tear, not negligence. It told the resident to make a home insurance claim. This response led the resident to submit a stage 1 complaint. In its complaint responses the landlord repeated that it attended within timescales and did not directly cause damage, so it was not liable. While this may be accurate, the landlord did not follow its own compensation policy, which allows it to consider compensation even where liability does not exist.
14. The resident lost the use of a radiator in a main room for 38 working days at the coldest time of year. The landlord’s policy allows compensation for loss of facilities, but the landlord did not consider this. The leak also damaged the resident’s carpet and curtains. The landlord did not consider his request for compensation for these items, even though its policy allows it. It did not offer the resident the option to submit a liability claim for proper assessment.

Summary

15. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
16. The landlord delayed the radiator repair due to miscommunication. The landlord correctly denied liability for the leak, but it did not apply its own compensation policy for loss of facilities or damage where liability does not exist. This amounts to maladministration. We have made an order for compensation and identified learning points for the landlord.

17. The landlord’s definition of a complaint is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Its complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 1 working day. It says it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 10 working days. At each stage it will inform the resident if this timescale will be exceeded. This is not in line with the Code which states that complaints must be acknowledged within 5 working days, issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
18. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 17 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged it on 22 January 2024, 3 working days later. This missed its 1 working day target but met the Code’s 5 working days requirement. The landlord contacted the resident on 24 January 2024 to say it was still aiming for the 5 working day target and would update him if it needed more time. There is no evidence that it provided that update. It issued the stage 1 response on 29 January 2024, 8 working days after the resident reported the complaint. This failed to meet the landlord’s own timescale but still met the Code’s standard.
19. It is not clear when the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2, however the landlord acknowledged it on 5 February 2024 and responded on 19 February 2024. Even if the resident escalated the same day, the landlord still exceeded its own 10 working day timescale by 1 working day. However, the response remained within the Code’s 20 working day limit.
20. The landlord’s complaint responses were structured and clear and covered all points. However, it did not meet its own response timescales for either stage. It also failed to address the delays or offer any redress. This amounts to service failure. We have made an order for compensation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord should have reliable processes to confirm whether follow‑on work is required and to record this clearly.

Communication

22. The landlord needs to ensure clear and accurate communication with its subcontractors. Miscommunication caused delays to the repair and led to incorrect updates being given to the resident.

Complaint handling

23. The complaint responses are clearly structured, covering all aspects of the complaint and in line with the Code.
24. The landlord did not consider compensation for a loss of facilities or for damaged belongings, even though its policy allows this where liability does not exist. This case highlights that staff need a clear understanding of the compensation policy.

Repairs

25. Isolating a radiator means it cannot operate and therefore needs further work. It is important that staff recognise this, record it clearly, and act promptly to arrange the necessary follow‑on repair.