Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London & Quadrant H T (202003138)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003138

London & Quadrant H T

24 December 2020

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 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:
    1. the level of compensation offered by the landlord for its response to the resident’s report of a bad odour from her sink and bathroom drainage
    2. the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint
    3. the level of compensation offered by the landlord for the handling of an increase to the resident’s rent.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’). 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, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the level of compensation offered by the landlord for the handling of an increase to the resident’s rent.
  3. This is because paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. There is no evidence that the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her rent increase was raised as a formal complaint. It must be afforded the opportunity to address this issue through its formal complaints process after the completion of which, if she remains dissatisfied, she may bring the matter to the Ombudsman.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a one-bedroom, ground-floor flat.
  2. The landlord’s tenants repairs and maintenance booklet confirms the landlord’s obligation “To make sure all fixtures and fittings for the supply of water, gas, electricity, heating and sanitation are in working order”.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaint process. At stage one, the complaint is to be acknowledged within one working day, an action plan agreed within ten working days, and the landlord is to “ensure the resident is kept up to date with progress”. No time limits are provided for when the stage one or final stage resolutions are to be issued.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy provides for awards of discretionary compensation “in recognition of the time and trouble the customer may have taken” to resolve the issue and confirms it does not pay compensation for any loss of earnings. No limits are specified for this compensation.

Summary of events

  1. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 23 May 2019 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her report of a bad smell coming from her sink and bathroom. She was unhappy that it had informed her that it would not attend to this report and that unblocking the sink was her responsibility. The resident believed that this should be the landlord’s responsibility and requested clarification of her repair responsibilities.
  2. The landlord’s repairs log recorded that an emergency callout was raised on 5 June 2019 to attend to an “uncontainable leak” from the resident’s toilet cistern. This was attended the same day after the resident called back to report the contractor’s non-attendance.
  3. On 6 June 2019, the landlord left a voice message with the resident and emailed her to confirm that the leak had been resolved and no further works were scheduled. It advised that it would provide her with a £20 voucher as a gesture of goodwill for its “service failure” in needing to re-raise the emergency call out and enclosed its resident’s responsibility booklet.
  4. The resident replied the following day to state that, although the leak from the toilet had been fixed, the sinks and drains were not looked at, which were the cause for her initial complaint. She stated she had requested a call from the operative before 12.30pm that day but had not received one “and indicated that he wouldn’t”.
  5. On 10 June 2019, the landlord confirmed that the complaint remained open and a new job had been raised which the contractor would book with her directly that week. On 12 June 2019, the resident called for an update and was called back by the landlord. On 13 June 2019, it provided a further update, to which she replied to state that the process of investigating her original complaint had taken longer than it should, asserting that it had been a “3 months complaint”. The landlord provided a further update the following day to the resident
  6. The resident reported to the landlord on 20 June 2019 that the smell was worsening. She contended that the complaint procedure had not been followed and wanted to escalate the complaint to “level 2”.
  7. The resident called the landlord for an update on 25 June 2019 and was advised on 1 July 2019 that an appointment had been made for 8 July 2019. It responded to a call back request from her on 10 July 2019 to advise that it was awaiting reports from the descale of the drains and CCTV inspection of the drains two days previously. The landlord’s records showed that it received a “full report and recommendations” on 11 July 2019.
  8. The resident called the landlord on 22 August 2019 to express her dissatisfaction with the remedial works not being completed yet. Works were scheduled to be carried out on 3 September 2019, but she wanted this to be completed sooner. The landlord advised the resident that this was not possible due to it awaiting parts. She called back on 23 and 27 August 2019 to request updates on the appointment.
  9. A job to fit “anti vac traps” to the resident’s bath and sinks was completed on 30 August 2019.
  10. The landlord apologised to the resident on 30 October 2019 for the delay in providing an appointment and advised that it would be providing compensation for the delay. She emailed it on 6 November 2019 to say that the contractor failed to attend the appointment for the previous day.
  11. On 12 November 2019, the landlord completed work to jet the drains at the resident’s property to clear a blockage. She called it on 26 November 2019 to say that it had not followed its complaints procedure. The resident stated that the work had taken “a very long time” to complete, she had lost time from work as a result and she had “been fobbed off” by the landlord who had not listened to her concerns.
  12. The landlord emailed the resident on 5 March 2020 in which it apologised for its lack of communication, attributing this to staff absence, but acknowledged that this did “not excuse the poor management on [its] part”. It noted that the repairs were complete and offered £250 compensation broken down as:
    1. £100 for poor communication
    2. £50 for inconvenience
    3. £50 for distress
    4. £50 for time and effort.
  13. The resident responded the following day to express her dissatisfaction with the offer, stating that her health had suffered as a result of the complaint, she had lost time from work which had affected her relationship with her employer and left her in financial difficulty. She asserted that she had experienced “months of calls and stress” with no response to her calls and emails.
  14. The landlord replied on 6 March 2020 to increase its offer of compensation to £450. It confirmed that it could not offer compensation for loss of income and the health effects she stated she had experienced as these were not covered by its compensation policy. The award was broken down as:
    1. £120 for poor communication
    2. £50 for inconvenience
    3. £100 for distress
    4. £120 for time and effort
    5. £60 for missed appointments.
  15. Later that day the resident emailed the landlord to reject the offer as she felt this was not representative of the “stress” she had experienced. She contended that this could have been avoid by the landlord following its complaints policy.
  16. The landlord emailed the resident on 29 April 2020, apologising for its communication being delayed due to the corona virus pandemic. It advised that it was able to increase the compensation award to £500 in total which was in accordance with its compensation policy and constituted its final offer.
  17. Following further contact from the resident, the landlord emailed her on 29 June 2020 to confirm that it would review the complaint under stage two of its complaints process.
  18. The landlord spoke to the resident on 3 July 2020. During the conversation she contended that it had contributed to her receiving a cancer diagnosis. The landlord advised that this would not be considered within its complaints process and medical evidence would need to be provided to support making a claim. It acknowledged that it may have “contributed to a difficult time” but declined to offer the £2500 compensation which she was seeking. The landlord agreed to offer £750, confirm the outcome and look to assist her with mould in her bathroom.
  19. On 4 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to state that, in light of its acknowledged failings in the handling of the complaint, she felt that an acceptable resolution to the complaint would be the award of £750 compensation and her current month’s rent to be paid by it, in addition to remedial works to the mould in her property.
  20. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response on 7 July 2020, in which it acknowledged that it should not have informed her prior to 23 May 2019 that it could not address her reports of a smell in her bathroom. It also acknowledged that: it did not return all of her calls of emails in a timely manner; the work “took too long” to be completed; it did not follow its complaint process; and its operatives failed to attend.
  21. The landlord stated that “there was a great deal more [it] could do and should have done” for her. It assured her that action would be taken to prevent a reoccurrence of her experience. The landlord asserted that its offer of £750 compensation was fair and declined to pay her requested amount of a month’s rent. However, it noted that her rent account was £217.09 in arrears and advised that it would write this off which effectively brought its compensation award to £967.09. The landlord confirmed this was its final response.

Assessment and findings

The level of compensation offered by the landlord for its response to the resident’s report of a bad odour from her sink and bathroom drainage

  1. The landlord’s tenants repairs and maintenance booklet, above at point 5 confirms its responsibility to attend to ensure that “fixtures and fittings for the supply of… sanitation are in working order”. When a landlord receives a report of a repair, its first action should be to investigate the issue. This is especially important, if the responsibility for the repair is unclear, to provide clarity on the repairing obligation. Therefore, its refusal to investigate the smell reported by the resident from her sink and bathroom, relayed in her complaint on 23 May 2019 was not reasonable and was a failing on its part initially.
  2. The landlord acknowledged its responsibility on 10 June 2019 to investigate the source of smell reported by the resident by arranging for an inspection of the drainage on 8 July 2019. The landlord has not provided any timescales for repairs, however as there was no evidence of the issue being reported as posing an immediate danger to the safety of the resident or the property, there was no need to attend as an emergency and the approximately four weeks taken to attend was reasonable.
  3. It is noted that on 11 July 2019 the landlord was provided with the report of the inspection from 8 July 2019 but then it is unclear why works were not completed until 12 November 2019. It is evident that on 22 August 2019 the resident was aware of an appointment to complete the works on 3 September 2019 but there is no explanation from the landlord why the works were not raised sooner.
  4. From when the landlord became aware of the recommended remedial works on 11 July 2019 to the works being confirmed complete on 12 November 2019, a period of four months elapsed. This is an unreasonable length of time for the completion of the remedial works.
  5. The landlord, in its final stage complaint response on 7 July 2020, acknowledged that the work “took too long” to complete and awarded compensation to the value of £967.09, taking into account the writing off of the resident’s rent arrears. There is no clear guidance in its compensation policy, above at point 7, on recommended compensation amounts; therefore, this award will be assessed against the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  6. It should firstly be highlighted that awards of compensation considered by the Ombudsman are not intended to punish the landlord or ‘make an example’ of it, nor are they intended to reimburse damages to the resident in the way that a court or insurance claim might. The Ombudsman considers whether awards of compensation proportionately recognise any failings exhibited by it and any distress or inconvenience likely to be experienced by the resident.
  7. It is noted that the resident contended, in her conversation with the landlord on 3 July 2020, that it had contributed to her cancer diagnosis. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine if there was any direct link between the landlord’s actions, or lack of action, and any subsequent detriment to her health. It is suggested that the resident seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim if she wishes to pursue this,
  8. The landlord’s compensation offer of £967.09 was a reasonable award, as it is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where “there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact”. This is a significant award which recognises the landlord’s delay in resolving the repair and the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result. 

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. It is noted that there is no evidence of the landlord providing a stage one complaint response. While it is evident that its emails on 5 and 6 March 2020, and 29 April 2020 function to offer a resolution to the complaint, it not made explicitly clear that they are its response to resident’s complaint at stage one of its complaint process. This is a failing on the landlord’s part as it failed to provide clarity on the progress of the complaint.
  2. It is noted that the resident requested that her complaint be escalated on 20 June 2019 and there is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged this. It is evident that it initially made attempts to “ensure the resident [was] kept up to date with progress”, demonstrated by its contact on 10, 12 and 13 June 2019 and 1 July 2019. After this, the intervals between the landlord’s contacts increase and there is an excessive and unexplained delay between her call on 26 November 2019 and its next contact on 5 March 2020.
  3. There was, therefore, a failure by the landlord to maintain contact with the resident about her complaint. Although no time limits for complaint responses are specified in the landlord’s complaints policy, above at point 6, there was an unreasonable, unexplained, delay by the landlord in issuing its stage one resolution on 5 March 2020, nearly ten months after the complaint was raised by the resident on 23 May 2019.
  4. The landlord acknowledged its failure to follow its complaints process in its final stage complaint response on 7 July 2020 and offered a significant award of compensation. Considering the extent of the failings exhibited by the landlord in its handling of the complaint, the value of £967.09 in compensation offered is a reasonable and proportionate award, and is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, mentioned above at point 36.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(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 concerning the level of compensation offered by it for its response to her report of a bad odour from her sink and bathroom drainage satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(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 concerning its handling of the associated complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged its failings in its handling of the resident’s report of a bad odour from her drainage and offered a significant award of compensation which proportionately recognised these failings and the likely distress and inconvenience caused to her.
  2. The landlord acknowledged its failings in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint and offered a significant award of compensation which proportionately recognised these failings and the likely distress and inconvenience caused to her.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to:
    1. Pay the amount of £750 compensation to the resident and write off her £217.09 rent arrears that it previously offered, if not done already.
    2. Provide adequate training to complaints handling staff to ensure that complaints are handled in line with its complaints policy and within reasonable timescales. This should include the completion of this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://hos.staging.civiccomputing.com/landlords/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently, together with consideration of our guidance on remedies at https://hos.staging.civiccomputing.com/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/.
  2. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.