Lincolnshire Housing Partnership Limited (202313318)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313318

Lincolnshire Housing Partnership Limited

28 November 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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Staff conduct.
2. Damage caused by a leak.
3. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The tenancy started in August 2022.
The resident has reported to the landlord that she has a disability.

Summary of events

On 23 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that her boiler was making noises. As such, the resident was unable to access hot water or heating. The landlord attended the same day and repressurised the boiler. It did not identify any noises and found that the heating and hot water was working.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 December 2022 and reported a leak in the property coming from an upstairs radiator. She said the leak caused damage to her personal belongings and floorboards. Also, she had no access to hot water or heating. The landlord attended the same day and repaired the radiator and refilled and vented the system to ensure the hot water and heating was working.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 20 February 2023 about the level of service she received. Additionally, the resident sought compensation for damaged possessions which she had to replace and she reported that the leak had damaged floorboards. In both of the landlord’s complaint responses it did not uphold the complaint. It found no evidence of members of its staff being discourteous. The landlord also said it did not find that the leak was present when it originally attended on 23 December 2022.
In bringing the complaint to this Service, the resident said the landlord did not apologise for its actions. The resident said she is seeking her damaged items to be replaced and compensation for the stress caused to her. She also wants her floorboards and the ceiling replaced due to the damage caused by the leak.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to relevant legislation, its policies and procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Scope of investigation

The resident has reported damage to her personal belongings. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the upset that may be caused by damaged personal items, it is important to explain that the Ombudsman cannot make decisions on liability for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. Where a landlord’s action or inactions may have contributed to the damage of a resident’s belongings landlords should refer residents to their insurers and assist with claims where needed. However, this Service can look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports, any advice or guidance it offered, and whether it followed its policy and procedure. Where this Service finds a failing in these areas we will consider awarding compensation for any inconvenience and distress caused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct

The landlord’s code of conduct policy states that it will:
1. Treat everyone it meets in the performance of its role with equal respect, care, and consideration.
2. Promote, through its own behaviours, an organisational culture that is welcoming, accepting, and accommodating to people of all backgrounds, cultures, and personal and protected characteristics.
3. It will not harass, bully, or attempt to intimidate any person, or use threatening or aggressive behaviour or other discriminatory behaviours. Additionally, it will seek to avoid microaggressions in its speech and behaviour.
As this Service was not present during the calls or during the engineers visit, it is not possible for us to determine what actually happened. Therefore, it is for the Ombudsman to consider the available evidence and to decide whether the landlord’s response was reasonable, and appropriate, in the circumstances. Taking this into account, this investigation will focus on whether the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and conducted a thorough investigation.
In this case, the resident contacted the landlord on 23 December 2022 to report noises coming from the boiler. The resident said that during her initial call to the landlord its adviser was arguing with her. She called a further time as the landlord had not arrived by 7.40pm and the resident reports that the adviser was also argumentative and aggressive in tone. Further to this, the resident reports that the landlord’s engineer was also rude when he attended on 23 December 2022.
The landlord has no contemporaneous record of the conversations, although it documented they had taken place on 23 December 2022. In the absence of any written record of the call or other documentary evidence, it is difficult for the Ombudsman to assess the landlord’s initial handling of the resident’s concerns (besides its complaint responses).
The landlord took appropriate action in investigating the resident’s concerns about the calls between the resident and its adviser in its complaint process. As part of its investigation, it listened to the call logs from 23 December 2022. It found that the adviser had been polite throughout the call. At stage 1 the landlord did not uphold the complaint as it found no evidence that its advisers had been rude. Taking this into account, there is no evidence of a failing in this part.
However, the landlord failed to investigate the resident’s complaint that the engineer was rude when he attended her property. Had the landlord have investigated this, it would have identified concerns around the engineers visit due to what is stated in the repair log. A failure was identified in the landlord’s repair logs which was inappropriate and raises further concerns with the landlord’s communications. When communicating to or about resident’s a landlord has a duty to remain professional and courteous. The failure to do so in this instance was unreasonable and was not in line with its code of conduct to treat everyone it meets with equal respect, care, and consideration. This amounts to a service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused by a leak

The tenancy agreement required the landlord to keep and proper working order any installation. This mirrored its repair obligations of section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, that a repair must be completed within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord’s repair policy sets out target times for repairs. This states it will complete immediate repairs within 4 hours which includes uncontrollable leaks. Also, emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 20 days.
The records show that the resident initially reported concerns about her boiler on 23 December 2022. This included that the boiler was making loud noises and that there was no hot water and the heating was not working. The resident raised further repairs on 26 December 2022 this included that the boiler was making loud noises and there was a leak from an upstairs radiator. The resident advised she became aware of it the day before, on Christmas day evening. The resident reported that the leak had caused damage to her personal belongings and also the floorboards.
The landlord was proactive in attending the resident’s property the same day to establish and repair the cause of the leak. This was reasonable and in line with its repair obligations to complete immediate repairs within 4 hours. This was due to the fact that the resident reported the leak at 1.08pm and the repairs were completed at 1.45pm.
The records provided by the landlord do not show any evidence that the leak originated from the resident’s first report that the boiler was making loud noises. Therefore, this Service would be unable to determine whether this was the case.
In this case, the resident had advised the landlord that the leak caused damage to her personal belongings. As such, the resident requested for the landlord to compensate her for the cost of replacement items such as a television and mattress.
In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord in its stage 1 dated 20 March 2023 asked her to provide photographs of her damaged belongings. It advised that once it received her pictures it would assess the damage against its compensation policy criteria. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask for evidence before compensation would be awarded. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to make a claim on her own content’s insurance or for the landlord to provide its insurers contact details.
In terms of the damaged items, as the resident had not provided evidence it was reasonable that the landlord did not make an award of compensation. In the resident’s stage 2 progression letter she said that she was open to the landlord attending the property to obtain the pictures. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to attend the property as requested or provide an explanation why it was not appropriate for it to do so. As this did not happen, this could have impacted on the landlord tenant relationship
The landlord failed to investigate the resident’s concerns about the damage to the property caused by the leak. There is no evidence that the landlord completed an inspection of the property to establish what damage had been caused, despite the resident reporting that her floorboards were damaged in her initial complaint. Additionally, that the resident said she felt the floorboards smelt of damp and mould.
This was not reasonable as the landlord should have considered carrying out an inspection at its earliest opportunity. The landlord missed multiple opportunities to complete timely checks of the resident’s home to assess the damage caused by water penetration, ensure her home was safe and take any appropriate mitigation measures. This left the resident living with the aftereffects of the leak for a prolonged period of time. It’s treatment of the damage to the resident’s possession issues in isolation, meant it lacked oversight and missed opportunities to investigate the damage to the property sooner. The landlord’s lack of identification and assessment of potential risks to the resident’s household, as well as lack of investigation were failures in its handling.
The landlord failed to consider its handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused by the leak within both of its complaint responses, despite the resident specifically raising this in her complaint. In doing so, it missed another opportunity to reflect fully upon its handling, learn or offer an appropriate remedy.
This Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests financial redress of between £100 to £600 where a maladministration finding is made and the landlord’s efforts to put matters right or address detriment caused were disproportionate. The failings in the landlord’s handling caused distress to the resident over a prolonged period of several months. Accordingly, compensation has been awarded to reflect this.

The associated complaint

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was introduced with the aim of improving complaint handling across the housing sector. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is obliged to establish and maintain a complaints procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman.
In accordance with its complaint’s procedure, the landlord’s response to residents’ complaints at stage 1 is required within 10 working days of the complaint and the stage 2 response in 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, this will be communicated to the resident.
The resident initially complained to the landlord in a letter dated 20 February 2023, the landlord acknowledged the complaint on the day it received the complaint on 7 March 2023.The landlord provided its response 9 working days later on 20 March 2023 which is in line with its own complaint procedure and the Code.
The resident requested that the landlord progress to stage 2 of its complaint process which the landlord received on 17 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged its stage 2 response the following day as well as providing its stage 2 response on 18 April 2023. In its stage 2 response the landlord declined to escalate the complaint as it said all aspects of the complaint had been investigated and answered in its stage 1.
However, the landlord failed to investigate all of the resident’s complaints. This included her complaint about the engineers conduct and also, the damage caused to the property by the leak. Therefore, the landlord’s decision to decline to escalate the complaint to stage 2 as all points had been investigated at stage 1 was not appropriate. This contributed to the resident’s distress and exacerbated the situation further. It was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to identify, address and learn from the failings identified above.
This Service noted the complaint investigation was handled and responded to at both stages by the same person. This handling presents as contrary to the Code’s then provisions about the fairness of complaint investigations. To ensure the fairness of investigation expected by the Code, it would not be expected that the same person would manage all stages of a complaint process. There is a reasonable risk of a conflict of interest if the same person determines a complaint about their own previous decision-making. Additionally, ensures that at stage 2 of the complaint process the person investigating has an open mind and acts independently.
The landlord’s failure to decline to progress the complaint to stage 2 and its lack of procedural fairness constitutes maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused by a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior manager to apologise to the resident for its handling of damage caused by the leak and the associated complaint handling.
2. Pay the resident £500 compensation, this comprises of:
  1. £100 to reflect its failings to investigate the resident’s concerns about the engineer.
  2. £300 to reflects distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and time and trouble in its handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused by the leak.
  3. £100 to reflect its failings in the handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
1. Within 8 weeks of the date of this decision the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the damage caused to the property by the leak. If repairs are identified, a schedule of works with timescales for completion should be agreed.
Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. The landlord should review its complaint handling approaches and to consider the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (Complaint Handling Code – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The landlord to share the findings with relevant staff, including training where appropriate and to incorporate the findings of this report in its management of complaints in future.
2. Review its correspondence with residents to ensure it is professional. Also, conduct training to ensure that all staff are aware of delivering good customer service both in contact with its residents and in its recording of communication.