Waltham Forest Council (202127241)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127241

Waltham Forest Council

12 September 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damage to his flooring.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder.
3. In July 2021, the resident reported flooding in his property, which had occurred as a result of extreme weather. The landlord subsequently attended in August 2021 and found that there was no damage to the property as a result of the flood. The landlord subsequently refused to replace the resident’s flooring and advised him to claim on his home contents insurance.
4. The resident complained to the landlord and stated that during an appointment to assess his flooded property, the surveyor appeared to be ‘casually dressed and arrogant’. He stated that, after assessing the flooring, there was ‘nothing’ damaged. The resident stated that he believed the surveyor had ‘lied’ about the damage, and ‘bullied’ the landlord into not replacing the flooring. The resident requested the landlord explain how he was hired, when he had no ‘basic honesty’. The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s complaint handling, and delays to the complaints process. He also requested to be provided with the surveyor’s board certifications and qualifications, so he could make complaints to those accreditation boards.
5. The landlord provided the resident with its stage one response and stated that, after interviewing the surveyor, it found that he had used his expertise to diagnose the damage and did not intend to bully or mislead anyone with his report. It apologised if the resident felt his behaviour was unprofessional. It assured him that the surveyor was ‘extremely qualified, knowledgeable and had worked as a surveyor for many years’. Nevertheless, it took the resident’s concerns seriously and assured the resident that the surveyor would receive appropriate customer service training.
6. In regard to the resident’s concerns about the surveyor’s appearance, the landlord stated it does not have a strict dress code, but expects staff to dress appropriately for their role. In regard to the damage from the flood, the landlord stated that it expected all leaseholders to have contents insurance, on which to claim on such occurrences, and encouraged the resident to pursue a claim via his home contents insurance. However, if he believed the landlord to be at fault, he was entitled to submit a claim against its insurers. As a resolution, the landlord offered £50 compensation, in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
7. Following dissatisfaction, the landlord issued its stage two response and stated that, the flood appeared to have originated from another property. Upon reviewing its records, it found that advice had been given to the resident that he should claim on his insurance policy or submit a claim to it. In regard to the surveyor’s behaviour, the landlord stated that the findings were appropriate in resolving the complaint. It also stated that the resident’s request for the surveyor’s qualifications would not be provided, due to it being deemed as personal information. In relation to the resident’s concerns about its complaint handling, it acknowledged the stage one response was issued late; however, this ‘had no impact on the assessment of the property or its final decision’.
8. The resident referred the matter to this Service on 11 March 2022. The resident remained unhappy that the surveyor gave a ‘false statement’ about the flooding and subsequently, damage to the flooring. The resident also stated he was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint handling as it did not respond to his stage one complaint within 20 working days, and at stage two, it had confused two separate complaints and this was incorrect. As a resolution to his complaint, the resident requested that the landlord repair the damage caused by the flooding and compensate him accordingly.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures.

9. The landlord’s repairs policy states that, leaseholders must keep the property in a good and substantial repair condition, and whenever necessary, must reinstate and replace flooring.
10. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage one response should be provided within 20 working days and a stage two response, should be provided within 25 working days.

Repairs to damaged flooring.

11. The resident raised concerns that the surveyor, had completed a ‘falsified’ and incorrect report about the flooded property and bullied other staff members into not completing repair works at his property. When a resident raises concerns regarding staff conduct, it would be expected that the landlord carries out a thorough investigation into these concerns and, if appropriate, take reasonable steps in order to mitigate any future instances. The Ombudsman is unable to decide whether the accusations made by the resident were indeed true, because the circumstances of the incident are disputed, with different accounts of the events that occurred. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff.
12. In evidence provided to this Service, the landlord completed an investigation into the resident’s claims of bullying and the falsification of reports. However, after discussing the matter with the surveyor, the landlord was entitled to find that he had acted only upon his findings as he ‘saw them’, and there was no intention to bully any resident or worker, but simply provide a ‘professional’ report on his findings. Therefore, the landlord completed an investigation into the resident’s claims which was in-line with good practice and concluded the findings accordingly. It was also clear that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously, as it noted it would provide its surveyor with customer service training. This was reasonable.
13. The landlord was entitled to rely upon its surveyor’s report that there was no damage in the property, as a result of the flood after completing its investigation into the validity of the report. The surveyors are experts in their area and the landlord had no reason to dispute the advice, as no evidence was provided from the resident to directly contradict the findings. Therefore, the landlord was reasonable in relying upon the findings and not replacing the flooring.
14. Furthermore, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s queries regarding the surveyor’s qualifications and ability to complete the job. It stated that the surveyor was qualified to complete surveys of properties. The landlord also acted appropriately in its refusal to provide the resident with the board certifications and specific qualifications of the surveyor. The landlord explained that due to privacy and confidentiality it would not provide this information. This was a reasonable response from the landlord, as it has an obligation to protect the privacy and confidentiality of staff members.
15. The resident also raised concerns about the surveyor’s appearance and attitude whilst surveying the property. The landlord again completed an investigation into the claims made by the resident, and took appropriate steps to inform him that it had no specific dress code for surveyors, as it changed with the nature of the job being attended to. This was reasonable as the landlord informed the resident of its policy in regard to uniform, but it also informed the resident that it would discuss with the surveyor about appropriate clothing, which was also reasonable given the circumstances. In regard to the surveyor’s behaviour, again the landlord stated it would provide customer service training to the surveyor, to remind him of his obligations. This was an appropriate outcome, after investigating the resident’s claims.
16. Furthermore, the landlord would also not be responsible for repairing any internal decoration in a leaseholder property. This is in-line with the landlord’s repairs policy which states the leaseholder is responsible for maintaining and repairing internal decoration. Therefore, its refusal to repair the flooring, was reasonable and in-line with its policy.
17. It is generally accepted that all residents should obtain home contents insurance, to insure belongings against incidents that are outside of the resident’s and landlord’s control such as flooding. The advice given to the resident to pursue a claim on his home contents insurance for the damage caused as a result of the extreme weather, or via its own insurance if he believed the landlord was at fault, was wholly reasonable. This is because a landlord would not typically be responsible for any damage caused as a result of extreme weather, as it is beyond its control, and it would be for its liability insurer to determine whether there was any such liability on its part. Therefore, the advice provided to the resident, was reasonable.

Complaint handling.

18. The landlord did not handle the resident’s complaint in-line with its complaint procedure. At stage one a response should have been provided within 20 working days; however, a response was not provided until 85 working days later, meaning the response was delayed by 65 working days. This is not in line with the landlord’s complaint handling policy.
19. It is acknowledged that the landlord attempted to resolve the complaint informally on 20 December 2021, but this was not appropriate considering the circumstances of the case. The resident had contacted the landlord on at least three occasions previously, requesting a response to his concerns. Therefore, the landlord should have understood the inconvenience the resident was experiencing and should have addressed the complaint via the formal complaint procedure. The informal response also did not address the resident’s concerns regarding the surveyor’s behaviour, appearance and reports, and therefore was not sufficient to warrant the closing of the complaint. The landlord’s failure to understand the inconvenience being caused, only delayed its response, leading to further inconvenience to the resident.
20. At stage two of the complaints process, the landlord did not address the correct complaint. The landlord addressed a previous complaint which was irrelevant to the complaint being pursued by the resident. Not only does this highlight the poor record keeping of the landlord, but it also means the resident has not had his response fully explored by the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. At this stage of the complaint procedure, this Service does not find it reasonable to order the landlord to provide an accurate stage two response, as it has passed the stage of the internal complaint’s procedure. Instead the landlord should pay the resident compensation, in order to be fair to the resident and in acknowledgement of the inconvenience caused.
21. The landlord should pay the resident £150 in recognition of its poor complaint handling and poor record keeping. This compensation offer is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which suggests awards of £50 to £250 for cases where the Ombudsman had found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the resident. An example of this is repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, or failing to address all relevant aspects of complaint, leading to considerable delay in resolving the complaint. This award is sufficient given that it had no material impact on the substantive complaint.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to his flooring.
23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way the landlord handled the associated complaint.

Orders

24. This Service orders the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the poor complaint handling. This is inclusive of the £50 already offered by the landlord.
25. This compensation should be paid within four weeks of this report.

Recommendations

26. To reduce the likelihood of a similar situation occurring in the future, it is recommended that the landlord carry out a review of its record keeping and consider additional training around the way in which complaints are recorded and handled, to ensure no confusion occurs.