Hightown Housing Association Limited (202341812)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341812

Hightown Housing Association Limited

30 September 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:
1. A leak into the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s move to temporary accommodation following the leak.
3. The resident’s request for compensation for his damaged belongings.
4. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy is an assured shorthold fixed term tenancy for 5 years, which started on 30 July 2018. The property is one bedroom second floor flat. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, who it said has mental health concerns.
On 10 January 2024, whilst conducting repairs a contractor of the landlord accidently cut through a water pipe, which caused several inches of water to pour into the resident’s property. The landlord said it attended within 30 minutes and booked a hotel for the resident within 2 hours of the incident.
Between 10 January 2024 and 16 February 2024, the landlord provided temporary accommodation to the resident at a hotel, which included breakfast, one meal a day with a drink and Wi-Fi.
On 31 January 2024, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. His complaint was about the landlord moving him to a hotel following a leak in his home and not updating him on when he could return home. Additionally, he said the landlord did not provide him with money to do his laundry. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and referred the resident for support.
On 13 February 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. It said the resident made the complaint on 8 January 2024. Its response was as follows:
1. It explained that following a major leak, it was drying out the moisture in the property and could not provide an exact date when the resident could return to his home. It explained that it had promptly sought alternative accommodation for the resident and paid for his food and accommodation since.
2. It explained that it had agreed to pay for the resident to wash his clothes. It acknowledged that the resident requested to use the hotel’s laundry service but said this was not agreeable. It reiterated its offer to support the resident to complete his laundry.
3. It advised that the resident was entitled to compensation for gas and electric.
4. It apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident. It did not indicate whether it upheld the complaint.
In February 2024, the landlord provided the resident with updates on the repairs at his home and said it expected the property to be ready on 23 February 2024. The landlord agreed to pay the resident towards the cost of using the laundrette to wash his clothes. It explained that the new hotel would only provide breakfast and issued the resident with a daily allowance of £15 towards the cost of his meals.
On 20 February 2024, the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response because it did not offer him compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused to him and for his damaged belongings. He also said he did not want to return to his property.
On 23 February 2024, the resident was unable to return to his property as expected because there was no electric at the property to complete the repairs. The resident agreed to request a new key for his electric meter from his utility supplier. The landlord transferred money to the resident to top up his electric meter. It said this was to clear the debt accumulated on the meter and ensure there was electric at the property to complete the repairs.
The resident informed the landlord that staying in hotels impacted on his mental health and requested to move to a self-contained flat. The landlord booked a self-contained flat for the resident between 23 February 2024 and 26 April 2024. The landlord said the leak caused water damage to the resident’s mattress. Its contractor agreed to replace the resident’s mattress as the resident did not have contents insurance. The resident said the amount offered by the contractor did not reflect the value of his mattress. The landlord and its contractor disputed the resident’s estimate and said that the resident was unable to provide evidence to support his claim.
On 14 March 2024, the landlord provided a detailed stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint. It was as follows:
1. It reiterated the actions it took following a leak into the resident’s property. It acknowledged that there was a delay in processing the payment to the resident’s daily allowance for food. It apologised for the inconvenience this caused him. It also reiterated its offer to replace the resident’s mattress.
2. On 23 February 2023, the resident said he could no longer stay at the hotel as it affected his mental health. He requested to move to a self-contained flat, which the landlord promptly organised and booked until 20 March 2024.
3. It explained that because of the difficulties in topping up the electric prepaid meter, there were delays in completing the repairs by 23 February 2024, which was out of its control. It confirmed that it would complete the repairs and electric checks by 18 March 2024, and the resident could then return to the property.
4. It clarified that it could not offer a permanent transfer to the resident and advised the resident on the process for mutual exchange.
5. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
6. In recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident and its complaint handling failing, it offered to pay £200 compensation to the resident, broken down as follows:
  1. £50 for the delay in paying the allowance to the resident during his time at the hotel.
  2. £50 for the delay in responding to the resident stage 1 complaint.
  3. £100 for the inconvenience caused by the leak.
In March 2024 and April 2024, the landlord completed the repairs, electric checks and cleaning of the flat. It noted that there were delays in completing the repairs because of the lack electric and access to the flat. It noted that although it had provided payment to the resident for electric, he refused to top up the electric on several occasions.
During that time, the landlord took the lead in replacing the resident’s mattress and made several attempts to come to a resolution on the matter. It noted that the resident returned the £300 it transferred into his bank account for the purchase of the new mattress. It said this caused further delays and it agreed to extend the resident’s temporary accommodation until the 26 April 2024. The landlord also purchased an air bed and pump for the resident to use until he purchased a new mattress and to enable him to return to his flat. The resident returned to his flat on 26 April 2024.
The resident informed this Service that as a resolution to his complaint, he was seeking a move to a new home and compensation for the inconvenience caused to him. He also said he was seeking compensation for his damaged possessions. It explained that although the landlord offered compensation, it was insufficient to replace his bed, cooker, fridge, TV, kettle and toaster, which were damaged because of the leak.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

In contact with this Service, the resident has advised that the situation has had a significant impact on his mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.
Additionally, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident said the leak had damaged some of his belongings. We also acknowledge that the Landlord made an offer of £300 to reimburse the resident for his damaged mattress, but that we will not make a decision on that offer because it is outside our remit to assess damages. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on negligence nor the causation of, or liability for, damage to property. This would be usually dealt with either as an insurance claim or through the courts. However, we can look at how the Landlord dealt with the resident’s request for damages/allegations of damaged possessions.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and queries by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident. We will determine whether the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where the Ombudsman has identified failures on the landlord’s part, we can also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The resident has informed this Service that his desired outcome was to move to a new property. On 15 August 2024, we advised it is not within this Service’s jurisdiction to determine whether the landlord should rehouse a person. Whilst we can consider how a landlord has handled the resident’s complaint and whether it has followed fair process in considering the resident’s concerns relating to their complaint, we do not have the powers to instruct a landlord to allocate housing as a resolution to a complaint.

A leak into the resident’s property.

The Ombudsman recognises that the leak into the resident’s property would have caused him significant distress and inconvenience. The leak occurred when a contractor accidently cut through a water pipe, which resulted in water pouring down into the resident’s flat. Both the resident and the landlord described the leak as a flood, which gives an idea of the scale of the incident.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that due to the nature of the damage caused by the leak, it would be unreasonable to consider this as a routine repair. This is because in such cases, it can take time to dry out a property before any subsequent repairs can commence. Therefore, in this case, the landlord’s published timescale to complete routine repairs within 20 days would not apply. Instead, the Ombudsman will determine whether the landlord’s handling of the leak and subsequent repairs were reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to take prompt actions following such incidents. In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord attended the property within 30 minutes of the incident to assess the issue and stop the leak. This was in keeping with its repairs policy to make a property safe within 1 day of an issue occurring. The landlord demonstrated that it took the issue seriously and acted with urgency. This was reasonable from the landlord.
The evidence shows that the landlord immediately installed dehumidifiers to dry out the property, which was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord demonstrated that it took reasonable steps and used the tools at its disposition to speed up the drying out of the property. Whilst this would have taken time, it was an important for the landlord to ensure the property was fully dried prior to complete the repairs, such as repairs to the electrics of the property. The landlord showed that it was committed to appropriately resolving the matter.
The evidence shows that approximately 20 days after the incident, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. He said that the landlord had not told him when he could return home. It is understandable that the resident was keen for the landlord to provide him with a timeframe for a resolution. He later described how staying in temporary accommodations and hotels had impacted on his mental health. While the Ombudsman recognises that this was a distressing time for the resident, we also acknowledge that it would have been difficult for the landlord to provide the resident with a definite moving back date at that stage. Nevertheless, in such circumstances, we would expect to see high level of communication from the landlord with regular updates to the resident until it resolved the issues.
In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord remained in regular contact with the resident following the leak and until he moved back home. It provided the resident with regular updates on the repairs at his property and offered support to the resident. Those were reasonable actions from the landlord in accordance with what we would expect from landlords in such cases.
The evidence shows that the resident moved back home approximately 3 and half months after the incident. The Ombudsman recognises that this would have felt like a long time to the resident. However, the evidence shows that the delays in completing the repairs were out of the landlord’s control. The property has a prepaid electric meter, which operates by using a key to top up the meter. The landlord required the resident’s cooperation to put the electric back on in the flat to proceed with the electric checks and the cleaning.
The resident informed the landlord in February 2024 that his key was damaged because of the leak and he requested a replacement key from its utility supplier. Additionally, he said that he had a debt on the meter and no funds to top up the meter. The evidence shows that the landlord transferred money to the resident to cover the debt and top up the electric meter.
However, there was a few delays to the resident receiving a new key and topping up the electric meter. This impacted on the landlord’s ability to complete the electric checks and the cleaning of the property in readiness for the resident to move back in. Whilst the delays were unfortunate, no evidence was seen that those were due to the landlord’s inactions. The evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve the issues of the electric at the property and complete the outstanding repairs.
Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord took appropriate steps to resolve the issue within a reasonable timeframe and communicated effectively with the resident. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint that the leak caused him distress and inconvenience and offered £100 compensation to reflect this. This was in addition to provide payments to cover the resident’s electric debt and its offer of a £100 decoration voucher. The landlord’s offer of compensation shows that, although the leak was due to an accident, it recognised the impact on the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman determines that, in all circumstances of the case, the level of compensation amounts to reasonable redress.

The resident’s move to temporary accommodations following the leak.

The landlord’s decant policy states that on occasion it may be necessary for residents to move from their homes on a temporary basis following an emergency which renders their property uninhabitable. In this case, there was a major leak into the resident’s property in January 2024. The evidence shows that neither the resident nor the landlord considered that it would have been appropriate for the resident to remain at the property. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to seek temporary accommodation for the resident, in keeping with its policy.
The landlord said that within 2 hours of the leak it organised alternative temporary accommodation for the resident. The Ombudsman recognises that this was an unplanned move and would have caused inconvenience to the resident. We do not doubt that the incident also caused some distress to the resident who would have been concerned with the damage caused to his home. However, the evidence shows that the landlord acted with urgency and relocated the resident, which was appropriate in this case. It was also in keeping with its decant policy.
The evidence shows that between January 2024 and February 2024, the landlord provided temporary accommodation to the resident in two different hotels. It explained that after 16 February 2024, the first hotel was fully booked and it had to organise an alternative hotel for the resident until 23 February 2024. Whilst this was unfortunate and cause further inconvenience to the resident, this was out of the landlord’s control. Additionally, the evidence shows that the landlord communicated the change to the resident and provided a reasonable explanation for the additional move.
In addition to providing temporary accommodation to the resident, the evidence shows that the landlord also covered his expenses during his stay at the hotels. It organised for breakfast, daily meals and Wi-Fi. This was above its policy to provide temporary accommodations with bed and breakfast board only. The Ombudsman recognises that in this case, the landlord used its discretion in implementing its decant policy by providing daily meals and Wi-Fi. This demonstrates that it was sympathetic towards the resident’s situations and the inconvenience caused to him.
The Ombudsman recognises that the resident requested to use the hotel’s laundry service. He explained that he could not use the laundrette because he did not have money and because of his mental health. Based on the evidence seen, we cannot determine whether the resident’s mental health would have prevented him from using the laundrette. However, the evidence shows that the landlord discussed the request with the resident and offered him a one of payment of £10 towards his laundry cost. This was reasonable from the landlord.
On 23 February 2024, the resident informed the landlord that he could no longer stay in hotels because of the impact on his mental health. He explained that he wanted to move to a self-contained unit, where he could cook and clean his clothes. The landlord discussed the request with the resident and moved him to a self-contained flat on the same day. This was reasonable from the landlord. This further demonstrates its commitment to do the right thing for the resident and meet his needs.
In March 2024, the landlord acknowledged that because of an IT issue, there was a delay in paying the resident’s daily allowance for some of his meals when he stayed at the second hotel for a week. The evidence shows that the landlord transferred £130 into the resident’s account 5 working days after he moved to the second hotel. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this caused the resident some inconvenience and he told us that he had to use a food bank during that time. It is unclear whether the resident contacted the landlord for support at the time. Nevertheless, the landlord acknowledged its failings in processing the payment for the resident’s food as agreed. It apologised and offered £50 in compensation to the resident to reflect the inconvenience this caused him. This was appropriate from the landlord and in keeping with its compensation policy to offer a discretionary payment to a resident when it identifies a service failure.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that in February 2024, the resident informed the landlord that he did not wish to return to his property and sought a permanent move as a resolution to his complaint. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the resident’s wishes and provided a reasonable explanation for not granting his request. It also advised the resident that mutual exchange was an option for him to move and provided information on the process. This was reasonable from the landlord and in keeping with his mutual exchange policy, which states that mutual exchange is a way for social housing tenants to move by swapping homes with another social housing tenant. It also states that residents with an assured or a fixed–term tenancy have the right to apply for a mutual exchange.
The Ombudsman recognises that moving to temporary accommodation caused distress and inconvenient to the resident. We do not doubt that this was a challenging time for the resident. However, the evidence shows that the landlord took prompt actions immediately after the leak and sought suitable temporary accommodations for the resident. It acted in keeping with its polices and demonstrated that it was sympathetic and sensitive to the resident’s needs and circumstances. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay in processing the payment for the resident’s food expenses when he stayed at the second hotel. It offered £50 compensation to the resident to reflect this. This was in addition to meeting the resident’s expenses while staying in the temporary accommodations. The Ombudsman determines that, in all circumstances of the case, the level of compensation was a reasonable redress.

Compensation for the resident’s damaged belongings.

The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident reported that the leak had damaged some of his belongings. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s reports, it is not in our remit to assess damages. However, we can look at how the Landlord handled his request for compensation for his damaged possessions.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that if a contractor causes damage to a resident’s belongings, it expects the contractor to reimburse the resident. It states that a contractor can make a direct payment to a resident or a payment through its public liability insurance. The policy also states that if the involved parties cannot quickly reach an agreement, the landlord would intervene.
In this case, the evidence shows that in February 2024, the resident informed the landlord that his mattress was water damaged. The contractor agreed to reimburse the resident’s for his mattress. However, the resident refused the contractor’s offer as he did not feel it reflected the value of his mattress. As the contractor and the resident could not agree, the landlord took the lead in replacing the resident’s mattress and took reasonable steps to resolve the matter. For example, and not limited to, it offered to pay for a new mattress and asked the resident to choose one from the shop. When the resident did not respond to its offer, it transferred money into his bank account to cover the cost of a new mattress. Those were appropriate actions from the landlord and the contractor, which were in keeping with the landlord compensation policy.
In July 2024, the resident informed this Service that the leak had damaged his white goods and official papers. Whilst this Service does not doubt the resident, the evidence seen did not show that he shared this with the landlord. The Ombudsman cannot determine that the landlord knew of the damage to the resident’s additional belongings. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot determine there was a service failure on the part of the landlord in considering the resident’s request for compensation for those belongings.
In summary, the landlord handled the resident’s request for a replacement mattress in keeping with its compensation policy. The evidence did not show that the landlord knew about the damage to the resident’s other belongings or had the opportunity to clarify its position on the matter. After considering the evidence of the case, the Ombudsman determines that there was no service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation for his damaged belongings.

The associated complaint.

The Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets the requirements for landlord’s to operate effective complaint handling. In keeping with the Code, the landlord has a 2 stage complaint policy. It states that it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days. It also states that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. In this case, the resident made a stage 1 complaint on 31 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and provided its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint within 9 days. Additionally, the landlord provided its stage 2 response within 17 days of the resident requesting to escalate its complaint. This was reasonable from the landlord and in keeping with its complaint policy and the Code.
However, the landlord wrongly assessed in its stage 2 response that it failed to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its published timeframe. The evidence indicates that it based its assessment on an incorrect date. However, the Ombudsman determines that this was due to human error and did not raise concerns about the landlord’s overall record keeping. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation to reflect its findings and in the interest of fairness should honour its offer. Therefore, the Ombudsman determines that the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This results in a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant about its handling of a leak into the resident’s property prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This results in a finding of reasonable redress.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant about its handling of the resident’s move to temporary accommodations following the leak which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This results in a finding of reasonable redress.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation for his damaged belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant about its handling of the associated complaint prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This results in a finding of reasonable redress.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reiterate its offer of compensation to the resident. This is in relation to the compensation it has not yet paid to the resident.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contact the resident to discuss his request for compensation for damage caused to his belongings (not yet considered by the landlord) and clarify its position on the matter. The landlord may wish to refer the resident to its insurers if it has not done so already.