Dacorum Borough Council (202212553)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212553

Dacorum Borough Council

17 July 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 the landlord’s:
1. Response to a leak and subsequent collapsed ceilings at the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy at the property, which is a 3 bedroom house. She has lived at the property since 2013 and lives with her husband and two sons ages 19 and 11. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. It is noted that during the correspondence in this case, the resident advised the landlord that she suffered from OCD, back ache and knee pain. She also advised that her husband had previously suffered from a heart attack and a stroke.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Leaks are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The landlord’s repairs, maintenance and improvements policy sets out its repairs response timescales, which includes the following:
1. Emergency: It will respond within 4 hours. This priority is used when there is a real danger to life or limb, major damage to the property, flooding, or the property is insecure. It gives examples such as a burst water pipe, cylinder or cistern.
2. Priority 1: It will respond within 24 hours. This is used for repairs that need to be carried out urgently, to overcome substantial inconvenience to the tenant, to prevent immediate damage to the property or where there is a potential health and security risk. It gives examples such as a leak from a water tank.
3. Priority 2: It will respond within 3 days.
The landlord’s asbestos management plan sets out that if suspected asbestos containing material is disturbed it will identify the material and conduct an asbestos test. If the material does not contain asbestos works can commence or recommence.
The landlord’s decant policy states as follows:
1. Where possible, it will aim to carry out necessary works around residents while they remain in their property. If work cannot be carried out while the resident remains in the property, it will aim to make the decant period as short as possible.
2. If an emergency decant is required (i.e. in the case of fire or flood) it may need to place residents in temporary accommodation and therefore this may not be of the same suitability as their decanted property.
3. It will offer a payment of £400 to residents who are required to decant from their existing home. This payment should be used to offset any costs to the resident resulting from the move, i.e. additional travel costs, loss of earnings and redirection of mail etc.
The landlord’s compensation policy states as follows:
1. If money is owed, it will credit any compensation to the rent / service charge account, unless an existing arrangement is in place and being adhered to.
2. Loss incurred by a resident such as taking time off work would generally require supporting information to be provided to consider any quantifiable loss being claimed.
3. Discretionary payments of £1000 or over will be considered if there was a severe long-term impact caused to a resident by the landlord’s failures.
The landlord had a two stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it will acknowledge the complaint with 5 working days and will provide a response within 10 working days of receiving the complaint. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 30 August 2022 the landlord noted that the resident had reported a leak from her loft, through her ceiling over the weekend (27- 28 August). A contractor had attended on 29 August 2022 and had turned off the water. The landlord’s repairs log from that same day noted that the water tank had been leaking and a new tank was required.
A contractor attended the property on 5 September 2022 and turned the water supply off. It noted that it had shown the resident how to turn the water back on for emergency use. The contractor noted that the resident had advised that there was asbestos in the loft so they had not accessed the loft space.
Later that day (5 September 2022) the resident contacted the landlord just before midnight and stated as follows:
1. The leak had got worse that day. The landlord should have decanted them when the leak started.
2. She believed the leak had disturbed asbestos and the household’s lives were at risk. Her children’s throats were getting irritated by the strong smell in the property.
3. The landlord’s call taker had advised nothing could be done as it was late at night.
The landlord noted internally on 6 September 2022 that the resident had called 3 times that day. Her daughter also made contact and stated that the family should be rehoused until the asbestos had been removed.
On 7 September 2022 a contractor attended the property and took samples for testing for asbestos.
The following day (8 September 2022) the resident contacted the landlord and stated as follows:
1. The main bedroom ceiling had collapsed the evening before which she had reported to the out of hours line. No contractor had attended that morning as she had expected.
2. Another part of the ceiling had also just collapsed. She was worried that more could fall down and cause injury.
That same day the resident attended the landlord’s office. The landlord noted that she was visibly upset and advised that the situation was impacting her earnings as an agency worker. She also explained that a second ceiling (it is not clear which room) was bowing. The landlord completed a temporary decant form with the resident and noted that this would be required for at least a month. The resident and her family were decanted that same day to a hotel. It provided the resident with details of its tenants contents insurer.
On 9 September 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and was upset that only 1 hotel room had been booked for the whole family. She stated this was against her culture. She advised that she had had to pay for an extra hotel room for her adult son. The landlord arranged an emergency panel meeting that day during which it agreed to pay for a second hotel room and pay towards the family’s meals.
That same day, the asbestos report confirmed there was no asbestos.
On 12 September 2022 the landlord noted internally as follows:
1. Works were likely to take 6 weeks.
2. It had no temporary accommodation available so it had extended the hotel by a further 3 nights.
3. It had agreed a food payment of £15 per person per day.
4. It asked for payment to be raised so that the funds would be with the resident by the end of the week. It noted that such payments were outside of its decant policy and had been agreed on an exceptional basis.
On 13 September 2022 the resident submitted a complaint and stated as follows:
1. The landlord had not taken her reports of the leak seriously before the ceiling collapsed.
2. She had not received any payments towards food as had been agreed. She was in urgent need of financial help.
3. £60 a day for food was not sufficient for the family of 4. She could not continue buying takeaways due to underlying health issues.
4. She was in “high emotional distress” as her and her husband were agency workers and were uncertain as to what was happening.
5. She could not leave her children in hotels whilst working.
6. She was “forced” to drive her son to college and drop her younger son to school. Their independence had been taken away and they were extremely distressed. Fuel was very expensive and she could not afford to keep moving around.
7. Both hotels had had a strong smell of cannabis.
That same day the landlord enquired into the availability of temporary housing.
On 14 September 2022 the landlord advised the resident as follows:
1. An additional payment for food and sundries should be in her account by the end of the week.
2. The £400 decant payment would be paid urgently.
3. It had no temporary accommodation available and so had requested hotel accommodation up to 20 September 2022 at which time it would look again for temporary accommodation.
4. It had requested an update on the works and when the resident could return.
That same day (14 September 2022) the landlord noted internally as follows:
1. The complaint should be logged and actioned as a complaint.
2. It had made an exceptional decision to award £15 per night, per person to contribute towards the cost of food. This type of payment was not covered in its decant policy or compensation policy. Its Insurance team were going to continue to award this payment for each night in hotel accommodation.
3. The resident had stayed in 2 hotels and it was looking at moving the family to a third. It suggested its procedure be amended to make the calculation of hotel accommodation standard (i.e. hotel accommodation is booked for a 3 night stay minimum, if that booking expires on a weekend or national holiday, those additional nights are also covered).
On 15 September 2022 the resident submitted a further complaint and stated as follows:
1. She had been shocked by the condition of the guesthouse. It was “filthy with dead insects” on top of the duvets and pillows and the staff “couldn’t control their laughter”. It was noisy with a strong smell of cigarettes and alcohol. She did not feel it was safe for her children to stay there. She had called the out of hours homeless team and had been advised that there were only hostels available.
2. Her husband and oldest son had slept in the car and her daughter had looked after her younger son.
The landlord noted internally on 16 September 2022 that it had secured hotel accommodation until 23 September 2022. The resident had declined sheltered housing guest flats.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 and 20 September 2022 and advised that she had not received money for food. She stated on 20 September 2022 that moving back to the property would “retraumatise” the family and her children feared the ceiling would collapse again. She said the repairs felt rushed and that the whole property should be rebuilt from scratch. The landlord advised that it would refer her concerns to its panel and it advised her to log onto its website in respect of her request to move. It advised her in respect of payments as follows:
1. Food payments had been increased to £20 per person per day from 16 September 2022 and this would be paid weekly.
2. It had paid £420, which was £15 per person per night from 9 to 15 September 2022.
3. £800 would be paid on 23 September 2022 to cover 16 to 25 September 2022.
4. The decant payment of £400 was being arranged and this was a separate amount.
That same day (20 September 2022) the landlord referred the case to it panel and noted the resident’s desire for a permanent move.
On 21 September 2022 the landlord advised the resident that there was a 3 bedroom property but it was waiting for works to be completed to bring it up to temporary accommodation standard. It advised that it could arrange removals of her possessions to this property. The resident advised that she was worried about her furniture due to asbestos and that she suffered from OCD.
On 22 September 2022 the resident submitted a further complaint and stated:
1. The plumber who had attended on 28 August 2022 (the day she reported the leak) had advised that they had turned the water off. As the leak had not stopped she had called the plumber who advised they would attend the following morning.
2. By around midday on 29 August 2022 the plumber had not returned so she called the landlord as the leak was “extremely unmanageable”. The plumber attended in the afternoon and advised they had turned the water off.
3. The plumber turned the bath taps on and told her to keep them on until the water stopped running. By the evening, the water was still running and she noticed that the kitchen ceiling had starting to leak and it had caved in. she called the landlord who advised it would attend the following day.
4. There had been a bad smell and they started coughing which she believed was asbestos in the ceiling. This caused anxiety for the family.
5. There had been no hot water and the drinking water had a black substance in it.
6. As no one had attend by around midday the following day (30 August) she had attended the landlord’s office. A contractor attended around 2pm and advised a new tank would be fitted on 9 September 2022 and they had switched off the water tank.
7. She had requested a further contractor to attend on 31 August 2022 however no one attended. When she had queried this, the landlord had advised that the contractor had stated it did not need to attend.
8. The kitchen ceiling had collapsed on 4 September 2022. She had called the landlord who had advised it could not do anything due to it being out of hours.
9. A plumber attended on 5 September 2022. They had noted an “acidic” smell and declined to go in the loft when the resident had advised it of asbestos.
10. The plumber advised that the only action would be to switch off the water at the mains supply outside the house.
11. Mould had appeared but the landlord did not listen to her requests to be moved.
12. On 7 September 2022 the main bedroom ceiling had collapsed (in the evening). The landlord had advised her to sleep downstairs and not use the water.
13. On 8 September 2022 she attended the landlord’s office and “begged” the landlord to take action. She stated that seeing contractors attend with hazard equipment had left her “traumatised”. The landlord had left them to live with a hazard for 10 days. With the amount of communication from her to the landlord, the ceiling collapse could have been prevented.
14. She had reported repair issues “a long time ago” as follows:
  1. Bathroom tap was old.
  2. Toilets and tanks needs to be changed as they were old and cracked.
  3. The kitchen was old and cold.
  4. Guttering.
15. Her 11 year old son was affected and did not go to school for 2 days and was having flashbacks.
16. Her and her husband had to cancel work shifts which impacted their “block booking opportunities” and had a big impact on their lifestyle.
17. Her furniture had not been protected and had been covered in dust. She explained that a number of items and carpets had been damaged.
18. She requested compensation for “emotional distress, neglect, trauma, loss of earnings and discrimination.”
On 26 September 2022 the landlord advised that it had chased up the temporary accommodation and had booked a room at another hotel . It confirmed that her items were not contaminated by asbestos. The resident advised she needed a hotel in a different area or she would not be able to take her son to school. The landlord confirmed that same day that there were no other hotels available. The resident requested that the landlord arrange transport for her son to and from school. The resident later called the out of hours service as the hotel would not check them in without a payment card. As such she reported that the family slept in the car.
Between 4 and 7 October 2022 the landlord noted internally as follows:
1. Works would be completed by 10 October 2022. The replacement bed and carpet was being actioned by the insurer.
2. The kitchen flooring was being fitted on 6 October 2022 and another clean had been arranged for that day.
3. Decoration works were complete and the property was tidy.
On 10 October 2022 the family moved back to the property.
On 20 October 2022 the resident sent a list of damaged items to the insurer. This totalled £8069.17. The insurer queried some of the valuations.
On 27 October 2022 the landlord noted internally that it had tried to arrange a date for snagging works but the resident had declined until her MP had seen the property and how badly she had been treated.
The landlord attended a meeting at the property on 3 November 2022 with the resident’s MP, its insurer and surveyor. Following this meeting it raised the following works:
1. Replace bath and bathroom flooring.
2. Trace leak under the kitchen sink and seal the kitchen taps and sink.
3. Repair a kitchen unit hinge.
4. Check the outhouse felt and remove the lean-to plastic roofing.
On 14 December 2022 the resident asked to escalate her complaint as she had not had a response. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 16 December 2022.
On 3 January 2023 the landlord responded at stage 1 and stated as follows:
1. The resident had submitted a complaint on 16 December 2022.
2. Following the report of the leak, a plumber had attended that day. They confirmed that the cold water tank was leaking and a new tank was required. The plumber had attended at 10:45am the following morning and had drained down the water tank to make it safe.
3. On 31 August 2022 its contractor had advised that the resident had reported water leaking through the kitchen ceiling when filling up the bath tub. An operative had attended on 6 August (it seems this should have said 6 September) and stated that no leak was identified.
4. On 8 September 2022 it’s surveyor notified it of a water leak. It raised an emergency job and a plumber attended the same day and turned off the upstairs water supply, drained down the tank and replaced the cold water tank.
5. That same day tests for asbestos were carried out which came back as there being no asbestos present.
6. At the resident’s request it had attended a meeting at the property on 3 November 2022 to discuss her concerns. Works were arranged following this.
7. The landlord had paid her a total of £2,847.75 for additional food costs, with the first payment having been paid on 16 September 2022.
8. The resident’s request for assistance with increased travel costs (taxis, Ubers and petrol costs) had been agreed with the resident on 2 November 2022. This payment of £439.26 had been paid to her on 11 November 2022.
On 13 January 2023 the resident escalated her complaint and stated as follows:
1. In addition to the financial impact, the family had also faced emotional distress and their mental health had been impacted.
2. Her bed had not been replaced (by the insurers) and the ceiling in her son’s room had not been repaired.
3. She had been advised that it was her responsibility to move the furniture in her son’s room to allow the works to commence which she stated was “appalling”.
4. Moving from hotel to hotel with luggage had exacerbated her back pain and she was seeking medical advice.
5. Had the landlord listened to her concerns the ceiling collapse could have been avoided. Her daughter had to help her communicate and the contractors had discriminated against her by saying her English was hard to understand.
On 16 January 2023 the resident advised the landlord that she was concerned about the second bedroom ceiling replacement as her grandson had respiratory issues. She requested to be moved to a different property.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 19 January 2023.
On 31 January 2023 the resident submitted a complaint and stated that the insurer had not paid her enough for her damaged possessions. She had claimed £13,704 but had only received £8,558. She stated that the landlord needed to make up the difference.
On 6 February 2023 the landlord noted internally that the resident had requested that the work to her son’s bedroom ceiling be put off until after Christmas because she wanted to move her belongings into the other bedroom. She had stated that she would contact the landlord when this had been done but it had not heard from her.
The landlord visited the resident on 9 February 2023 to discuss the complaint. It advised her on 10 February 2023 that it needed more time to respond at stage 2 and it aimed to respond by 9 March 2023.
On 24 February 2023 the insurer advised the landlord that the resident’s contents had been underinsured and that the claim had been settled for £8558.08. That same day the landlord noted internally that the second bedroom ceiling should have been replaced during the decant. As the resident could not remove the bedroom furniture to enable works to commence, it had arranged an external moving company to store the furniture temporarily.
On 7 March 2023 the landlord noted that the insurer had agreed to review the settlement figure.
On 9 March 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. The leak had been caused by a cracked water tank. Its operative had drained the tank, left it safe and a job was raised to replace it. The water supply to the tank had been closed off but the resident had been left with access to the normal water supply. The resident had raised further concerns from the end of August 2022 until 8 September 2022, when the bedroom and kitchen ceiling had collapsed.
2. It had looked for temporary accommodation, however this had not been available. It acknowledged that the resident had to move around hotel/bed and breakfast accommodations on numerous occasions. Some of this accommodation was not to the standard it would expect. As a result of the resident’s concerns, it had removed these from its supplier list. It apologised that the family had to sleep in their car on at least 2 occasions.
3. There was no evidence of asbestos at the property, however it acknowledged that it had taken time to assess the situation which had caused a high level of distress and anxiety.
4. The bedroom and kitchen ceiling had been replaced and repairs had been completed to the kitchen, bedroom and bathroom. There was some minor snagging work outstanding.
5. There had been an issue with replacing the ceiling in bedroom 2 due to furniture in the room. It had agreed to arrange for a removal company to store the furniture to enable the work to take place. The work would take approximately 2 days and it acknowledged that this would cause inconvenience. It had been unable to ascertain why this ceiling had not been replaced during the major works.
6. It acknowledged that there was a dispute between the resident and the insurance company in respect of the value of her bed and as such she had been unable to replace it. It advised that the settlement of the insurance claim was outside its jurisdiction. It signposted the resident to the Financial Ombudsman in respect of this.
7. The resident’s personal injury claim was being considered.
8. It concluded that the complaint was upheld and offered its apologies. It stated as follows:
9. It had acted quickly to stop the leak however, it had not addressed the resident’s subsequent reports of it continuing quickly enough and this resulted in significant damage to the property.
10. The move to temporary accommodation had caused distress and anxiety.
11. Work to replace the ceiling in the second bedroom had not been completed during the decant. It would consider a further temporary decant whilst bedroom 2 was being completed.
12. It had paid the resident a total of £3,246.95 for food, travel costs and the decant payment. An amount of £8,558.08 had been paid through the insurance claim to cover the replacement of personal items and property. This claim was being reassessed by the insurer.
13. It acknowledged that the situation had had an impact on family life, use of the property, her employment, and the health and emotional wellbeing of the family. To recognise the overall distress, anxiety, frustration and inconvenience caused, it offered £500 compensation. This would be offset against any rent arrears.
On 10 March 2023 the resident referred her complaint to this Service and stated as follows:
1. £500 compensation was not fair. The family went through “emotional, psychological, anxiety and financial distress”. Her sons had missed school and college and her and her husband lost income. Her back was in pain from moving luggage between the hotels.
2. The landlord should not consider the insurance payments or payments towards food to be compensation.
3. She believed there was asbestos in the ceilings.
4. They were only moved out of the property after the ceilings collapsed. The landlord had ignored her concerns about the ceiling in bedroom 2. Her bedroom was not in use and they did not have anywhere to sleep.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

The insurer advised the landlord on 27 November 2023 that the final settlement was £11,325.15.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In accordance with paragraph 42 (j) the Housing Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. As such this Service cannot draw conclusions on the action or lack of actions of an insurer. Complaints concerning insurance claims are not within the Ombudsman jurisdiction. This is because the insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s actions. As such the resident’s concerns about the valuation of her possessions and the purported delay in the insurer replacing her bed will not be considered by this Service.
It is noted the resident reported an impact on the mental and physical health of the household. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. It is noted that the resident has pursued these matters via a liability claim. This Service will consider the landlord’s response in respect of compensation, its handling of repairs and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to consider the resident’s reports on how the issues were impacting on the health of the household. Such issues reflect the detriment experienced as a result of potential failures by the landlord.
The resident stated that the landlord had treated her unfairly and not taken her reports of the leak seriously based on her personal characteristics. It is acknowledged that this is a serious allegation. Though the Ombudsman is unable to reach legal findings, we can consider the landlord’s handling of her reports and its response to her concerns around discrimination. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns using equalities legislation.

Leak and subsequent collapsed ceilings

When the resident reported the leak, the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its repairs policy by sending a contractor to the property that same day. It is noted that the resident advised that the leak occurred on 28 August 2022 however the landlord advised in its correspondence that the date was 29 August 2022. Despite the discrepancy in what date the leak was reported, it is not in dispute that the contractor attended the same day as the report. The contractor advised the landlord that a new tank was needed and this was ordered by the landlord in a timely manner. The landlord’s complaint responses also confirmed that the household was left with a water supply during this time.
There was a gap of around a week (until 5 September 2022) when the resident reported the leak worsening and her concerns about asbestos in the ceiling. The landlord did not arrange for a contractor to attend following that report, nor after her 3 telephone calls from 6 September 2022. The ceiling subsequently collapsed on 7 September 2022. It is noted that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns about asbestos seriously and a contractor attended 2 days after she raised her concern to sample the ceilings on prior to the ceiling collapse (on 7 September 2022).
This Service acknowledges the significant impact this situation had on the resident and her family. Although the landlord should be aware of potential hazards associated with the identified leak under the HHSRS and take steps to minimise them, it had relied on the findings of its contractors, that a new water tank was needed and the water supply to the tank had been turned off to stop the leak. There is no evidence that its contractors had raised the possibility of the ceiling collapse with the landlord and no evidence to suggest that the landlord ought to have known that this was going to occur.
The landlord became aware of the ceiling collapse on 8 September 2022 and it responded appropriately by arranging a temporary decant into hotel accommodation. It subsequently held an emergency meeting to discuss the resident’s case the following day. During this meeting, the landlord demonstrated a resident focused approach and took her concerns seriously in respect of the cost of food and needing a second hotel room for her adult son due to cultural reasons. Despite the landlord’s decant policy stating that it would pay £400 to cover costs such as food and transport, it used its discretion to award further payments in response to the resident’s concerns. In addition to its standard £400 decant payment to cover such costs, it considered the impact on the household and agreed to an additional £15 per person, per day towards food. It later increased this to £20 per person, per day on the request of the resident. In total, in addition to the £400 decant payment stated in its policy, the landlord paid the resident an additional £2846.95 for food and transport. This £2846.95 was over and above what it was required to pay and demonstrated an empathetic and resident focused approach to the situation. The landlord’s agreement to pay over and above standard costs reflected its understanding that the resident and her household had experienced a more significant detrimental impact as a result of the upheaval caused by the leak/ceiling issues.
While the landlord’s agreement to pay additional reimbursement costs is to be commended, it is also noted that the resident advised that she had not been able to work due to the move to temporary hotel accommodation. It is noted that the landlord did not specifically address the resident’s concerns about her loss of earnings within its complaint response, although this is included as something it can offer compensation for as per its policy. The landlord therefore should have made it clear how it had considered this aspect of the complaint.
The temporary decant was for a period of 1 month (from 8 September to 9 October 2022), which was in line with the works timeframe the landlord had originally advised the resident. It had therefore appropriately managed the resident’s expectations as to the timeframe of the temporary decant and the completion of the works.
It should be noted that some level of inconvenience is to be expected when a resident is decanted, due to being away from their home and limitations on the facilities available in some circumstances. Given this, a landlord would be expected to consider any household vulnerabilities when handing what is a difficult situation. In its communication with this Service, the landlord advised that it did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. (An order has been made in respect of this being updated below). It is not clear from the correspondence when the resident first brought her health issues, or those of her husband, to the landlord’s attention and whether the landlord had been aware of these prior to this incident. While it would have been preferrable for the landlord to have enquired about any vulnerabilities and adjustments required prior to offering accommodation, it responded quickly and appropriately in arranging an additional hotel room once the resident had made it aware of the cultural reason this was required.
The landlord’s records show that it acted appropriately in keeping the resident updated with its search of a temporary property, however, none were available which were to a reasonable standard of repair. Ultimately, this was out of the landlord’s control and there were limited further steps it could have taken at this stage to better accommodate the family. It offered the resident the option of sheltered flats which she declined. It also acknowledged the impact that moving hotels was having on the family and agreed to pay towards additional transport costs. This was over and above what it was required to do as per its decant policy and demonstrated an emphatic approach to the resident’s family circumstances.
The landlord demonstrated learning from the decant situation in this case and noted that its policy should be amended to make the calculation of hotel accommodation for a standard period of time and to make sure weekends or national holidays were included. This was appropriate and demonstrated a commitment to learn and improve its services, not only for this resident but for other tenants going forward.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged a number of failures within its stage 2 response, although it is noted that these were not acknowledged within its stage 1 response. Its acknowledgement that it did not respond quickly enough to the subsequent leak reports, the impact of the temporary hotel accommodation and the second bedroom ceiling not having been repaired during the decant period. It is noted that the ceiling of bedroom 2 had not been repaired at the time of the completion of the internal complaints procedure (9 March 2023). This was 6 months after the resident was decanted from the property. Although the landlord apologised for this it is not clear why this was not carried out during the decant period. The landlord’s failure to carry out this works led to frustration and distress for the resident. Although the landlord appropriately offered to store her furniture to enable the works to take place, this should have been offered and carried out prior to the household returning.
The landlord’s total offer of financial redress (excluding any insurance or liability claim award) was £3746.95. This was made up as follows:
1. £400 decant payment (as provided for in its decant policy).
2. £2846.95 discretionary payment for food and transport costs (over and above its policy requirements).
3. £500 discretionary payment to recognise the distress, anxiety, frustration and inconvenience caused by its failures.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies
The landlord’s offer of £500 compensation for distress and inconvenience alone would not have been sufficient to acknowledge the impact of the failures on the resident. However, this Service considers all the circumstances of a case and in this instance, when this is considered along with the landlord’s offer of £2846.95 towards the resident’s expenses, its total offer of discretionary financial redress of £3346.95 was reasonable. It is acknowledged that the impact of the situation on the resident was significant, however the damage to property and any personal injury cannot be considered by this Service. It is noted that the landlord assisted the resident with such claims and separate awards have been made via the claims process in respect of these.
Although the landlord did fail in some of its handling of the matter, it also demonstrated that it had been responsive following the ceiling collapse. It is also noted that the landlord supported the resident in liaising with the insurer and in making her claim against the landlord. This demonstrated a resident focused approach. On balance, the landlord’s offer of financial redress, its learning demonstrated and its support of the resident throughout amounts to reasonable redress.

Complaint handling

The resident first submitted a complaint on 13 September 2022. Despite the landlord noting the following day that it needed to action it as a complaint, it did not do so. The resident subsequently submitted further complaints on 15 and 22 September 2022. When the landlord had not responded at stage 1 to any of the complaints 2 months later (14 December 2022), the resident requested that it escalate them to stage 2 and following this, the landlord sent an acknowledgement. Within its stage 1 response (3 January 2023) the landlord stated that the resident had submitted the complaint on 16 December 2022. This was incorrect and was the date that it had acknowledged the complaint. It subsequently took the landlord 76 working days to respond at stage 1. This was significantly outside of its complaints policy timeframe of 10 working days. This delay and the impact of it on the resident was not acknowledged within its response and no redress was offered.
The resident escalated her complaint on 13 January 2023 and the landlord responded at stage 2 on 9 March 2023, this was a timeframe of 39 working days. It is noted however that the landlord had advised the resident on 9 February 2023 that it needed more time to respond at stage 2 and it met its extended deadline. It did not however provide an explanation as to why this additional time was required. The stage 2 response did not acknowledge the delayed complaint reposes or the impact of these on the resident.
Within its complaint responses the landlord did not address all of the resident’s concerns as it did not address her concerns about the delay with the discretionary food payments being received nor did it address her concerns of discrimination. This was not in line with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out that all aspects of complaints should be addressed and considered as part of good complaints handling.
In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. To acknowledge the frustration this caused to the resident compensation of £250 has been ordered. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where a resident a been adversely impacted by a failure of the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to a leak and subsequent collapsed ceilings at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged its failures and offered financial redress, apologies and explained the learning it had taken from the case. It also supported the resident in pursuing an insurance claim and a claim against the landlord. Its offer of compensation and discretionary payments was reasonable to acknowledge the impact caused to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint responses were delayed. The resident submitted 3 complaints and request an escalation to stage 2 to prompt the landlord to respond. When it did respond, not all aspects of the resident’s complaint were addressed. It did not acknowledge the failures with its complaint handling and did not consider the impact of this on the resident or consider any redress.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Pay the £500 compensation offered during the internal complaints procedure if not already done so.
2. Pay £250 compensation direct to the resident to acknowledge the impact on her of the complaint handling failures identified. This is to be paid direct to the resident.
3. Update the resident’s records with the vulnerabilities disclosed.