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

Hastoe Housing Association Limited (202007770)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007770

Hastoe Housing Association Limited

9 March 2021


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:

 

a)     The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water damage to her laminate flooring, following the replacement of her hot water tank.

 

b)     The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of concerns over the conduct of its member of staff when attending the property to inspect the damage.

 

c)     The landlord’s complaint handling with regards to these matters.

Background and summary of events

Background

 

  1. The resident lives in a four-bedroom property and is a tenant of the landlord.

 

  1. The resident has sought the assistance of a representative who has corresponded with the landlord on her behalf. For the purposes of clarity, in this report, both the resident and the representative will be referred to as ‘the resident’.

 

 

Summary of events

 

On 25 May 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to report the following repairs:

 

a)     There was no heating or hot water.

 

b)     The kitchen units had degraded, and the resident believed they needed replacing.

 

  1. On 1 June 2020, the landlord responded to the resident to advise the following:

a)     It had visited the property on 26 May 2020 and had not seen the resident’s email at this time. During this visit, the resident had not mentioned the concerns detailed in her email. It further highlighted that it had requested to look inside the property; however, it respected that the resident was too unwell to allow a visit.

 

b)     It had raised repair work orders to check the heating and the kitchen electrics. As it was only doing emergency repairs due to the corona virus restrictions, any further work on the kitchen would need to be put on hold. It also confirmed it would need to inspect it to decide what action was required.

  1. On 2 June 2020 the landlord’s contractor confirmed it had attended the resident’s property the previous evening and identified an issue with the boiler. This meant that the job needed to be passed to a heating contractor. No leaks were present during the visit. It also highlighted that the resident did not have hot water due to the valve on the heating system not working, and the immersion being damaged. A corroded hot water tank was thought to be the cause of the leak.

 

  1. The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property on 3 June 2020 and confirmed an appointment for the following week to fit a new thermostat and hot water tank.

 

  1. On 14 June 2020, the resident emailed the landlord referencing a meeting held on 12 June 2020. She requested it confirm the resident’s understanding of the conversation, including that the kitchen was to be replaced, with the date to be advised.

 

  1. The new hot water tank was installed on 15 June 2020 however, when refilling the new tank, further leaks were seen on the pipework. This resulted in water leaking onto the resident’s laminate flooring.

 

  1. On 22 June 2020, the resident sent a further email to the landlord reporting “significant water damage to the laminate flooring in the lounge, the hall and the landing” along with pictures, and requested advice on how she can avoid being “out of pocket for remedial action”.

 

  1. The landlord’s records confirm an internal email from the landlord’s former surveyor, which was also sent to the resident on 22 June 2020. It requested an investigation into the reported water damage, stating that it “may have been accidental but it could have been avoided”. The resident had understood this to be an admittance that the landlord’s contractors were negligent.

 

  1. On 3 August 2020, the landlord spoke to the resident and supported this conversation with an email stating the following:

 

a)     It apologised that its former member of staff had promised the resident a new kitchen without suitable authorisation. It offered to arrange a second inspection of the kitchen. It apologised for the fact that it had already conducted an inspection on 12 June 2020.

 

b)     It requested further photographs of the damaged flooring. Furthermore, it advised that it wanted to arrange a new inspection of the damage.

 

  1. The landlord’s records confirm an inspection of the resident’s property on 12 August 2020, and advised the following:

 

a)     The resident’s own laminate flooring had been fitted throughout, and it found evidence of gaping and general wear and tear. It was unable to determine whether the gaping had been caused following the “spillage”, or whether it was general wear and tear. It was unsure if permission had been granted for the flooring to be fitted originally.

 

b)     It confirmed a discussion with the resident, where it had explained this was likely to be an issue for the resident to claim under her own home insurance.

 

c)     The existing kitchen was installed in 2006, with its current condition representative of its age. It outlined repairs to the doors, plinths and backboards, at which point it would be “fit for purpose and would likely remain so until its scheduled replacement programmed for 2026.

 

  1. The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 August 2020, which was considered as a stage one complaint response by the landlord. She explained that the inspection that had taken place earlier that day was unsatisfactory, and stated the following:

 

a)     The landlord had advised that, having reviewed the pictures of the flooding, and given the nature of replacing a water tank, the volume of water leakage was acceptable. The resident highlighted that, during the inspection, it had already been determined by the landlord that the “water damage could and should [have been] avoided.

 

b)     She said the landlord questioned the quality of the flooring and the standard to which it had been installed. It also stated that the resident was “in the wrong” as she hadn’t sought permission for the flooring to be laid.

 

  1. On 13 August 2020, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident by email, confirming the following:

 

a)     It had spoken directly with the member of staff who conducted the inspection the previous day.

 

b)     Having reviewed the inspection notes and photos of the kitchen, it agreed that the kitchen did not need to be replaced. It suggested repairs to address the issues experienced by the resident in the kitchen.

 

c)     In relation to the flooring, it confirmed that there was general wear and tear and gaping present, but no lifting of the floor or trip hazards. It further confirmed that it would raise the issue that adequate floor protection was not used; however, in line with the landlord’s repairs handbook, it would be unable to compensate for damage to the flooring. It suggested the resident claim on her contents insurance for this.

 

d)     By way of an apology for the miscommunication, the landlord offered to discuss monetary compensation with the resident.

 

  1. The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 August 2020 to request the escalation of the complaint for the following reasons:

 

a)     It was unreasonable for the resident to cover the cost of remedial work to the flooring, she believed it was caused by the negligence of the landlord’s contractors.

 

b)     The resident felt that during the inspection of 12 August 2020, the landlord had tried to deflect blame away from its contractors. This was due to the landlord’s inconsistent assessment of the water damage in fitting the replacement hot water tank.

 

c)     In respect of the comments made by the landlord about the flooring during the same inspection, she felt that the landlord displayed “partiality…and a pronounced lack of even-handedness” towards its contractors. The resident also highlighted that the floor was in excellent condition until it was damaged by water, and that there was no evidence of wear and tear.

 

  1. On 18 August 2020, the landlord issued its stage two response to the resident to confirm the following:

 

a)     The landlord’s contractors had confirmed that a dust sheet was used to cover the floor as they had not expected any further leaks. It highlighted that sometimes damage occurs as a result of leaks and when undertaking repairs; and as this was unforeseen, it would not have used further protection. It confirmed that when this happens, residents would need to claim against their own contents insurance.

 

b)     In response to the concerns over whether the flooring required approval, it had discussed this with the staff member directly, who recalled commenting that they would need to check if permission was required. The landlord highlighted that some organisations require approval for such flooring, and the member of staff was new to the organisation. As a result of the differing accounts of the discussion, it was difficult for the landlord to draw any conclusions about exactly what was said.

 

c)     During its review of the complaint, it had also noted that it had not raised a complaint as soon as it could have done, and therefore the resident did not receive a timely response. It apologised for this and offered £50 compensation.

 

d)     It confirmed that, regarding the resident’s concerns with the advice given by the landlord in relation to kitchen repairs, it offered a further £100 in compensation. The total compensation offer was therefore £150.

 

  1. The resident responded on 21 September 2020, stating the following:

 

a)     The damage to the floor could have been avoided had reasonable care been taken.

 

b)     The resident felt it was “strange” that the landlord’s member of staff denied making the comments including that the she had breached her tenancy conditions, when there was no such denial in its earlier response of 13 August 2020. She also raised concerns that this had not been investigated by the landlord in its stage two response.

 

c)     The resident also did not feel that the landlord was concerned about the effect this situation had on her, particularly given her vulnerabilities.

 

  1. On 24 September 2020 the landlord responded to the resident, confirming the following:

 

a)     It provided an extract of its earlier response of 13 August 2020 and supported this with confirmation that the flooring was not subject to landlord approval.

 

b)     In respect of the comments made by the landlord, it had been advised that it was stated it “could not comment on permission” for the laminate flooring, which was understood to mean unable to comment on the landlord’s policy. It apologised for any confusion, and further apologised if the resident found these comments upsetting.

 

c)     It repeated its offer of £150 in compensation for the complaint and confirmed that this was its final response to the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Damaged flooring

 

  1. As per the landlord’s repairs handbook, the landlord strongly advises residents to take out home contents insurance to cover against damage to items such as carpets. It states that “if there is a water leak, we are not normally responsible for any damage to [the resident’s] belongings”.

 

  1. It is noted that the resident believes the landlord’s contractors were negligent and therefore should be responsible for the cost of the damaged caused. However, this Service would not be in a position to determine liability in this instance, as the matter of negligence would be a legal dispute which would be better suited to the courts to decide. The resident may be able to make a claim against the landlord for negligence if she feels her flooring was damaged by its contractors acting negligently. This would be a legal process and the resident would need to seek independent legal advice if she wished to pursue this option. Nevertheless, this Service can look at the landlord’s communication and complaint handling in relation to the resident’s concerns about the damage to her flooring to see whether this was fair and proportionate in the circumstances.

 

  1. In this instance, the landlord has evidenced its investigation into the reports of negligence, reviewed photographs provided by the resident, and visited the property to inspect the damage. It assessed that it was unable determine if it the damage to the floor had occurred from water damage or general wear and tear. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to explain that the reported damage was not within its remit to address, and to advise the resident to claim under her contents insurance.

 

  1. As such, The Ombudsman has not identified any service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water damage to her laminate flooring.

 

Staff conduct

 

  1. When the landlord received the reports of concerns over the conduct of its staff, it was obliged to conduct a fair investigation, which would generally involve discussing the concerns with the relevant staff involved.

 

  1. Regarding the advice previously given to the resident on the possibility of a new kitchen being installed, the landlord was unable to talk to its member of staff as they had left the organisation. It apologised for the miscommunication and arranged for a further inspection of the kitchen to be completed.

 

  1. It is acknowledged that the landlord had previously promised the resident a new kitchen. In such instances, the landlord should seek evidence in order for it to determine the best course of action to address the resident’s concerns. In this instance, the landlord apologised for the miscommunication, and arranged for a further inspection of the kitchen to check if any repairs were needed.

 

  1. When the landlord has made an error, then where possible, it would be expected to put the resident back into the position they would have been in if the error had not taken place. In this case, the landlord would not be obliged to replace the kitchen because a former member of staff had incorrectly promised it would be replaced. This is because the kitchen was not due to be replaced until 2026, so the resident has not lost out on a new kitchen because of this error, as the landlord would not have fitted a new kitchen if the error had not happened.  The incorrect information would have clearly been disappointing for the resident, but the landlord has recognised a failure in its service and has offered £100 in compensation for this aspect of the complaint. This is appropriate and proportionate to the severity of the service failure and is consistent with this Service’s remedies guidance, published on our website.

 

  1. The resident also raised concerns of staff conduct following the inspection of 12 August 2020, regarding the question of approval for her laminate flooring. The landlord evidenced a discussion with the member of staff who conducted the inspection. Following its investigation, it offered a reasonable explanation for the discussion, and provided the resident with written confirmation that approval was not required for the laminate flooring.

 

  1. It is not disputed that the resident felt discriminated against by some members of the landlord’s staff and that lessons can be learnt on how to reduce the risk of such interpretation in the future. Discrimination is a legal matter which is best suited for the courts to decide. Therefore, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether discrimination has taken place. However. We can look at whether the landlord has treated the resident has treated the resident fairly, and whether its responses to her concerns we appropriate in view of the circumstances. As explained above, this Service is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns during the investigation process, and no evidence has been provided suggesting the resident has been treated unfairly while handling this complaint.

 

  1. In short, the landlord has acted reasonably because it identified the resident had been misinformed and it rectified the matter in arranging for a further inspection of the kitchen. It recognised a failure in service with regard to the miscommunication, apologised and offered £100 in compensation.

 

Complaint handling

 

  1. As per the landlord’s complaint procedure, complaints must be acknowledged within two working days. It aims to provide a response within 14 days for stage one complaints, and 21 days for stage two complaints. When additional time is required, this will be communicated to the resident.

 

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states “claims for compensation will only be considered where services have not been delivered in accordance with our policies and the customer has suffered financial loss, distress or significant inconvenience as a result”.

 

  1. During its investigation, the landlord identified that it did not provide a timely response to the resident’s initial reports of concerns. The resident initially discussed matters with the landlord on 3 August 2020; however, this was not raised as a stage one complaint by the landlord until 13 August 2020. To put matters right, it apologised for this delay and offered £50 compensation.

 

  1. The landlord has acted fairly in recognising the distress and inconvenience of not providing a timely response and offered compensation for its failure in service. The offer of £50 for this aspect of the complaint is appropriate and proportionate to the severity of the service failure and is consistent with this Service’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the resident’s damaged laminate flooring.

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of the reported concerns over the conduct of its staff. This, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has assessed the damage to the floor and was unable to determine negligence on the part of its contractors. Furthermore, the resident’s handbook outlines residents should get contents insurance to protect their belongings from issues such as water leaks. Having communicated this to the resident, the landlord has evidenced it has taken reasonable action in dealing with the resident’s complaint.

 

  1. The landlord has evidenced its investigations into the resident’s reports and has offered compensation for misinforming the resident regarding a new kitchen. In respect of the question of approval for the laminate flooring, the landlord provided a reasonable explanation, confirmed that it did not require such approval, and apologised.

 

  1. The landlord has acted appropriately in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It took reasonable steps to deal with her concerns in arranging for inspections to the resident’s property and relying on the findings of its qualified staff. It did acknowledge its failure to provide a timely written acknowledgement to the complaint and has offered fair compensation.

 

  1. The compensation awarded by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.