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

Newlon Housing Trust (202224478)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224478

Newlon Housing Trust

12 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of damage to flooring.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.  

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the housing association landlord, and lives in a 2-bedroom flat. The tenancy commenced in 2012. There are no vulnerabilities recorded.
  2. There have been historic disputes between the resident and the landlord about repairs, access, and quality of works. Around 2016 there was a leak in the property and the landlord repaired the floor of the bathroom and corridor. In subsequent years the resident reported damage in other parts of the property. In October 2021, the landlord stated that there was damage identified to the floor, but this was not caused by the historic leak. It therefore declined to repair the laminate floor and signposted the resident to claim on her contents insurance.

Summary of events

  1. The resident raised a new repair request for the bedroom and living room floor in February 2022. In response, the landlord questioned whether permission had been given for the laminate flooring as it was not recorded on file, and the resident advised she was given verbal permission when she moved in. The landlord therefore explained that, with permission granted, it would not be responsible for repairs to the laminate floor as this was the resident’s personal property and responsibility.
  2. The resident repeated her request to the landlord in August 2022 and its position remained unchanged. It said it could only repair the subfloor for which it was responsible. The resident asked for a copy of its complaint process and the landlord logged a formal complaint on 26 September 2022.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 5 October 2022 it said its position remained unchanged and reiterated its previous response. It identified that it had missed the opportunity to arrange the repair of the subfloor and offered £25 compensation for the delay. It asked the resident to arrange access for this repair, but confirmed that she would remain liable for the repair/replacement of the laminate flooring. It identified a further failure in not providing a copy of its complaint process when requested, and offered £25 for the inconvenience.
  4. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 9 October 2022 and provided additional reasons on 2 November 2022. She said the landlord had previously accepted responsibility for repairs to the corridor and bathroom flooring following a leak, so she queried why it would not also repair the floor in the living room and bedroom. She disputed that damage to the subfloor and laminate flooring was not connected to the historic leak and she found the offer of £50 compensation insulting.
  5. On 24 November 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 response, as follows:
    1. It recounted events from October 2021 and February 2022 and its decision to not repair/replace the laminate flooring. It had taken its lead from its expert and concluded that the damage reported in the living room and bedroom was unconnected to the historic leak.
    2. It had repaired the floor following damage by a leak as a gesture of goodwill, and not because of any liability or service failure.
    3. It explained the limits of its repairing responsibilities for tenant improvements (including the laminate floor) and upheld its stage 1 decision.
    4. The stage 1 offered to raise a work order to repair the damage to the subfloor but it was not responsible for replacing the laminate floor, and the landlord waited for the resident’s response to this.
    5. It apologised for the delayed stage 2 response and offered £25 compensation. It explained that the previous offer of £50 for both the complaint handling and the delay for repairs was in line with its compensation policy.
  6. The resident disputed that the landlord previously repaired the floor as a gesture of goodwill, and generally disputed the landlord’s account in respect of historic repairs.

After the internal complaint process

  1. Following further correspondence between the parties, the landlord inspected the floor in July 2023 and arranged work in August 2023 to carry out repairs.
  2. The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that it remained the resident’s responsibility to repair the laminate floor, that it was not responsible for damage or the repairs, but it did the repairs as a gesture of goodwill due to the time that it had been outstanding. Furthermore it was unaware of any further reports of dissatisfaction from the resident in relation to the floor repairs. The resident subsequently reported concerns to the Ombudsman about the standard of separate remedial works, to a wall, in June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The scope of this investigation is from February 2022 when the resident requested the landlord’s repairs (before subsequently complaining about its response in August 2022). Historic disputes while noted in the background have not been investigated, as these would have needed to be raised as a formal complaint at the time that they happened (as reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme).
  2. The Ombudsman can also only consider matters which have first exhausted the landlord’s complaints process (reflected at paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme). Reference is made to events which occurred after the end of the complaints process only in so far as they relate to the original complaint. The resident should report any new concerns to the landlord in the first instance, so that it has the opportunity to address and resolve them locally.

The landlord’s response to reports of damage to flooring

  1. The resident maintained that the cause of the damage to the floor was the historic leak but the landlord disputed this. The Ombudsman is unable to determine the cause of the damage or the accuracy of the expert opinion the landlord relied upon. Instead, this Service has considered whether the landlord took reasonable steps in response to the resident’s repair requests with reference to the relevant policies and procedures and its repairing obligations.
  2. Following the resident’s request in February 2022 the landlord reasonably explained the repairing obligation for the floor between the resident and itself, which aligned with the division of responsibilities under the Repair and Maintenance Guidance. The Repair and Maintenance Guidance states that the resident is responsible for removing laminate flooring to provide access for repairs.
  3. The landlord did not dispute its responsibilities to repair the subfloor, as set out in the Tenancy Agreement, which states that it must repair the structure of the premises including the floors, and also states that the resident may make alterations or improvements such as to the floor, with permission. The landlord’s position therefore followed the terms and obligations under the Tenancy Agreement and Repair and Maintenance Guidance, and was therefore appropriate.
  4. The landlord reasonably recognised a failure to engage with the repair to the subfloor in August 2022 following the resident’s report in February 2022. The landlord is expected to carry out floor repairs within a reasonable timeframe under a target timescale of 20 working days, as per its Repair Policy. It did not do this and this represented a failing.
  5. However, the landlord took appropriate steps to recognise the service failure by arranging the repairs and offering compensation in line with its Compensation Policy. This states that the landlord will offer £25 for a failure to meet published timescales. Its response was therefore reasonable and proportionate.
  6. Delays to the repairs persisted however by the ongoing dispute in which the resident maintained that it was the landlord’s responsibility to repair the floor completely. The landlord addressed the resident’s dispute by explaining its decision making in respect of how it decided that it was not responsible for the damage, with reference to its expert’s opinion, which was reasonable.
  7. The dispute continued beyond the conclusion of the complaint, after which the landlord carried out the full repairs citing this as a gesture of goodwill. This was resolution focused as it prevented further damage and deterioration to the floor and the property.
  8. The circumstances were understandably frustrating for the resident, particularly as she did not agree with the landlord’s expert’s view about the source of the damage or agree with its decisions. However, there is no evidence of failure by the landlord in respect of its repairing obligations and its handling of the dispute under the timeframe considered.
  9. The landlord ultimately acted in line with the terms of the Repair and Maintenance Guidance, the Tenancy Agreement, the Repair Policy and its Compensation Policy in its decision making. It offered to carry out repairs that were under its obligation, though this was delayed by the outstanding dispute. It ultimately completed all repairs despite not accepting responsibility for them, which was resolution focused. Therefore, overall, there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that landlords must respond to complaints within a reasonable timescale, specifically within 10 working days at stage 1 after acknowledging the complaint within 5 working days, and 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. The resident requested the complaint process details in August 2022 but the landlord did not log a complaint until September 2022. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the missed opportunity to provide the resident with the complaint process details as requested. It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge this failure in communication and offer £25 compensation.
  3. Following the complaint being logged on 26 September 2022 the stage 1 response was issued on 5 October 2022, within an appropriate timescale as per the Code. Following the resident’s initial escalation of 9 October 2022 the landlord provided its response on 24 November 2022 which exceeded the appropriate timescale by 14 working days. However, the resident and landlord corresponded during this period to clarify the complaint and the landlord subsequently acknowledged the service failure of the overall delay and awarded £25 compensation, which was resolution focused.
  4. The level of compensation awarded by the landlord at both stages of the complaint process for its acknowledged service failure of delays aligns with the level of compensation under its Compensation Policy for a failure of service, such as failure to meet published timescales. Therefore the the landlord offered redress which resolved the complaint handling failure satisfactorily.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damage to flooring.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. 

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s position outlining its repairing responsibility was in line with its obligation under the Tenancy Agreement and Repair and Maintenance Guidance. It explained its decision making with reference to its expert’s opinion when the resident disputed its position. It recognised the service failure for the repairs it was responsible for and offered compensation in line with its Compensation Policy and to complete the repair in line with its Repair Policy, which was appropriate. The landlord ultimately carried out the repairs, though it maintained that it was not responsible for them, and this was resolution focused.
  2. The landlord reasonably awarded redress in line with its Compensation Policy for the acknowledged service failure in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the compensation offered under the complaint process for its acknowledged service failures, if it has not already done so.