Hyde Housing Association Limited (202229397)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229397

Hyde Housing Association Limited

21 March 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 response to the resident’s complaint about the delay in progressing repairs to the property following a flood and its related communication.

Background

The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since 2012. The property is a three-storey mid-terraced house. The evidence provided to this Service shows that the resident has a mental health disorder.

Scope of Investigation

Issues that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure

There is a continuing dispute about the cause of a flood at the resident’s property on 3 August 2021. Within her communication to the Ombudsman and the landlord, the resident disputed being liable for the flood in the property. Over the course of the complaint between October 2022 and February 2023, the landlord’s investigations were ongoing, and it had not yet determined the cause of the issues. The landlord informed the resident that she may be liable for the cost of the work during the complaints process.
Following a request for additional information from the landlord, it advised in February 2024 that it did not yet have the final cost for the works as works were ongoing. It noted that it was entitled to recharge residents to recover costs where appropriate but did not confirm whether it intends to recharge the resident or, if so, which aspects of the repairs it intends to recharge for.
As this is a separate issue to those raised within the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord in October 2022, this is not something the Ombudsman can adjudicate on at this stage, because the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to formally respond.
A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to confirm whether it intends to recharge the resident for the works and provide a breakdown of the reasons, costs and its process to her. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s intention, she may wish to raise a separate complaint to it in the first instance. If she remains dissatisfied following the landlord’s final response, she may wish to approach the Ombudsman for further review.
In her communication to the Ombudsman, the resident also raised concerns about the delay in placing her in temporary accommodation and issues with the temporary accommodation, including sewage smell, and the area in which she had been placed. These issues did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration and the Ombudsman is unable to consider these concerns further for the same reasons set out above.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident had historically reported issues, including leaks in the property and damage to her kitchen ceiling as a result. These issues formed part of a discontinued disrepair counter claim. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in October 2022.

Summary of events

History and Context

The landlord as provided evidence that it had historically pursued claims for the possession of the property. An order for possession of the property was initially suspended in September 2018. A warrant for possession was issued and subsequently suspended on 20 September 2019. The resident submitted a counterclaim of disrepair on 3 December 2019 which included issues of a mouse infestation and damage caused by leaks in the property. The landlord submitted a defence to the counter claim on 13 December 2019. The landlord submitted a claim to vary the possession order on 13 February 2020.
Over the course of the claims, the resident maintained that she had informed the landlord of leaks from the shower room on a number of occasions. She admitted to making alterations to the property, including installing a replacement shower around September 2017. She denied that this was the cause of damage to the property but admitted that this was a breach of her tenancy agreement in that she had not sought the landlord’s written permission. She also admitted to carrying out other alterations, including removing a plasterboard wall between the attic and a bedroom in 2019. The landlord maintained that it was not responsible for leaks to the shower the resident had installed without its consent within its defence. It asked the resident to prove that the damage to the ceiling in 2019 was not caused by her household and was caused by a breach of any of its obligations.
The court issued a notice of discontinuance for the resident’s counterclaim on 13 March 2020. The claim for possession of the property continued following this.
The resident served the landlord with a Notice to Quit on 29 March 2021 via the landlord’s website. On 30 March 2021, the resident’s solicitor asked the landlord to disregard the notice to quit as the resident was suffering with a mental health episode at the time and was not seeking to leave the property. The landlord responded on the same date to advise that in the absence of medical evidence to confirm that the resident lacked capacity to serve the notice, it could not be withdrawn or revoked.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 31 March 2021 to advise her that following the notice to quit being served, the tenancy would end on 3 May 2021.
On 4 May 2021, the court issued a judgment in relation to the previous claim for possession (following a hearing on 8 April 2021). The court ordered that the landlord’s application dated 13 February 2020 was dismissed and that the possession order and the warrant for possession remained suspended on the payment of the current rent plus £16.68 towards the rent arrears.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 May 2021 to advise that her tenancy had ended following her Notice to Quit and her continued occupancy of the property was without its consent or licence. It said that if the resident wished to make it aware of any personal circumstances or other matters that she wished it to take into account, this should be provided in writing within 7 days. It confirmed that as the resident had not vacated the property, it would now apply to court for an order to gain possession. It confirmed that it would also be seeking a money judgement and there were charges, known as damages for use and occupation, amounting to £156.45 a week payable from 3 May 2021.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s repair records show that the resident had reported that her toilet was overflowing on 3 August 2021. This was raised as a non-emergency repair. An emergency repair was raised on the same day as the resident had reported that water was leaking downstairs and through the electrics. The landlord’s records show that this was attended to on 4 August 2021. The records note that the water was shut off on this visit due to a “massive” flood and a further repair was raised to trace the leak.
The landlord’s internal records show that the resident had called to advise that an outside drain had flooded the property the previous day, an electrician had attended and turned off the power and she was staying with her mother but wanted to stay elsewhere.
An appointment was attempted on 10 August 2021 to trace the leak, but there was no access. The landlord’s records from 16 August 2021 show that it had discussed the resident’s request for temporary accommodation. It noted that the resident was currently an unauthorised occupier of the property, and it would need to seek legal advice in relation to its obligations to her.
A further appointment to trace the source of the leak was attempted on 26 August 2021. The operatives’ notes show that they attempted to contact the resident but there was no answer. They provided photos as evidence of attendance.
The landlord issued a claim for the possession of the property on 2 September 2021 on the basis that the resident had not given up possession after the expiry of the notice to quit on 3 May 2021. The resident pursued a counterclaim over the course of the proceedings. However, this did not relate to the repair issues.
A further attempt to inspect the property took place on 14 September 2021. The operative tried to call the resident and spoke to the next-door neighbour who advised that no one was living at the address. The operative provided a photo as evidence of attendance.
A further appointment to inspect the property was arranged for 1 October 2021. The operative reported that there were digi-locks on several doors, the kitchen ceiling had collapsed, and the hallway ceiling needed to come down due to a severe leak. The resident advised that the flood continued for 10 days. The operative noted that a large amount of work was required, and that work was being done by the resident in the shower room and bathroom which may have caused the issues. They noted that there was mould all over and possible plastering needed but that they could not tell due to a lack of light in the property. They provided a series of photos.
On 11 October 2021, the resident’s solicitor sent the landlord a letter of claim using the pre-action protocol for housing disrepair claims. The letter of claim advised of the following:
1. The resident had complained of various defects at the property, including a collapsed ceiling, water leakage from the bathroom, water ingress into the kitchen which had caused pungent odours to emanate throughout the home, damaged plasterwork, faulty boiler, presence of damp and mould, and damaged spotlights due to ceiling collapsing.
2. Water leakage had occurred in 2012 and the resident had notified the landlord immediately, however the repairs service had never been conducted to resolve the issues. The landlord’s delayed response had caused the issues to become worse. The resident had constantly contacted the landlord whilst attending to the water leakage. The water ingress from the toilet and bath caused numerous floods in the kitchen and pungent odours to emanate.
3. Despite not having conducted an inspection of the property, the landlord had deduced that the cause of the leak was because of the installation of a shower in the second bathroom, yet the leak came from the bathroom located above the kitchen. The water leak had subsequently caused a significant presence of damp and mould which were prescribed hazards as defined by the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System Regulations. As such, the property was unfit for human habitation.
4. On 3 August 2021, the kitchen ceiling collapsed due to the persistent water leaks. Prior to this, the resident had notified the landlord on numerous occasions of the persisting leaks and the damages caused by the declining housing conditions. In addition, the boiler system in the property had not worked for approximately 5 years but adequate repairs had not followed.
5. The amalgamation of the issues was severely distressing for the resident as the disrepair had compromised the atmosphere and structural integrity of the property. She was not living at the property as a result of the issues. The declining condition of the property had also led to the destruction of spotlights, vacuum steamer, carpets, mobile phone and plasterwork.
6. The landlord was asked to inspect the property as soon as possible and the letter confirmed that access would be provided if it proposed dates. The solicitors also asked for a schedule of works including the anticipated start date and completion dates.
The Ombudsman has not seen further evidence of what happened in relation to the property following the resident’s instruction to begin the pre-action protocol for housing condition claims on 11 October 2021. It is noted that the resident submitted her defence and a counterclaim in relation to the possession proceedings in November 2021, and the landlord submitted its reply and defence to the counterclaim in December 2021. The counterclaim did not relate to the repair issues.
An appointment was arranged to inspect the property on 31 March 2022, however the resident called to say that she was not there, and the appointment was rebooked for 12 April 2022. The landlord’s records from 12 April 2022 show that there was no access.
On 19 April 2022, the landlord instructed a surveyor to inspect the property and prepare a report on its condition and possible remedial works.
The landlord’s records show that its solicitors were in conversation with the resident’s solicitors between April 2022 and May 2022, regarding the claim for possession, the counter claim she had raised, and the ongoing repair issues. The evidence provided to this Service show that the landlord intended to offer temporary accommodation to the resident (a decant) so that work to assess and resolve the damage could be undertaken. The resident initially refused the decant property due to its condition as it was not furnished or decorated. The landlord agreed to lay carpet and confirmed that it would arrange for the resident’s belongings to be moved from her property to the decant property.
The evidence shows that a survey was to take place on 13 May 2022. However, the landlord’s later records from 31 May 2022 show that the external surveyor was not able to gain access to the property to prepare a schedule of works.
The claim for possession of the property and the resident’s counter claim were both dismissed on 7 June 2022. The order agreed that the landlord allowed the resident to rescind the notice issued on 29 March 2021 and the resident continued to be an assured tenant of the property.
The resident was decanted from the property from 7 June 2022. She initially stayed in hotels and was placed in a decant property from 14 June 2022.
The landlord instructed a surveyor again on 24 June 2022. The surveyor confirmed their availability on 25 June 2022 with the landlord as this needed to be agreed with the resident’s solicitor. On 12 July 2022, the landlord asked the surveyor to contact the resident to arrange the survey inspection.
On 13 July 2022, the landlord provided the resident’s solicitors with the details of the historical counter claim, its defence, and the notice of discontinuance.
An appointment to survey was initially booked for 19 July 2022. The landlord’s records show that the appointment was cancelled by the resident and rebooked for 27 July 2022. This was cancelled on the day as the resident had advised she was unwell.
The survey took place on 5 August 2022 and the surveyor provided their report on 16 August 2022. This was sent to the resident’s solicitor on the same day. The report stated:
1. The surveyor was not permitted access to the bedrooms on the first or top floors or the living room as these were locked and the key holder who had provided access to the property did not have access to these areas.
2. On the ground floor, the ceiling had partially collapsed, and the remaining ceiling plaster was heavily stained. There was water on the floor at the time of the inspection.
3. The water damage was the result of a leak from either the bathroom or shower room, but both were immediately above the kitchen. The shower room had been altered by the resident and a replacement shower cubicle had been partly installed. A number of downlights on the ceiling needed to be replaced but it was unclear who installed these. The water had also damaged the fixtures and fittings within the kitchen.
4. The leak was still active and further investigations were required to establish whether or not this was from the alterations carried out by the resident, or from the adjacent bathroom. The surveyor believed that the leak may have been caused by the installation of the shower.
5. It was unable to confirm whether the boiler was faulty as it was not in operation at the time and it was recommended that this was tested and recommissioned. It advised that the leak should be traced and rectified as a matter of priority.
6. The survey report included a list of works that needed to be undertaken. It advised that the surveyor assumed that the landlord was responsible for the repairs, however, further investigations might reveal that the source of the leak was the alterations to the shower room which they did not believe had been undertaken or approved by the landlord.
Following this, the evidence provide by the landlord shows that it created a schedule of works based on the surveyor’s report and asked that this was sent to the resident’s solicitor on 25 August 2022. Its records from 8 September 2022 show that it had not received a response from the resident’s solicitors. The landlord’s records show that the matter was passed back from its internal disrepair team to its responsive repairs team to manage on 26 September 2022, following advice from its own solicitors.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 5 October 2022. She explained that she had met with 3 building contractors since the flood that caused damage to her property on 3 August 2021. It had been months and she had not received any communication from the landlord. She noted that it had been over a year and her home was rotting with cobwebs and spiders and no work had begun. She added that her carpets and flooring were covered in dust and mould, and these had cost her £1,000 in total. She wanted the disrepair resolved, compensation for the damage caused, access to her rent account and home–swapper, and for her surname to be spelt correctly on the landlord’s system.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 October 2022 and said it aimed to respond by 20 October 2022. A holding response was sent to the resident on 20 October 2022 as the landlord advised that it needed more time to gather information. The landlord advised that it aimed to respond by 3 November 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 November 2022 and explained the following:
1. It apologised for the delay in providing its response. It understood that the resident had been decanted from the property due to the repair issues. It noted that she was dissatisfied with the time taken for work to be completed.
2. It had asked its teams to organise a survey to establish the extent of the damage caused but this had not been completed as the resident had not provided full access to some areas of the property. It asked her to make contact to allow access to all areas of the property. It and its contractors would work with the resident to ensure it had a full understanding of the repairs needed. It confirmed that the resident could contact its surveyor directly.
3. It had organised an independent inspection of the property to inspect the damage and complete a preliminary assessment of the cause of the flood. This took place on 5 August 2022 and the surveyor advised that there was an active leak from the first-floor shower room which caused severe damage to the kitchen below. The report indicated that this was likely caused by unauthorised works done in the shower room and to the plumbing. Access was not provided to all rooms so a full assessment could not be completed.
4. It had drawn up a plan to address the repairs, but this was limited to the areas it had access to. It needed full access in order to understand the full repairs needed. As per the tenancy agreement, the resident was required to give full access to allow repairs.
5. Its records showed that no permission to make alterations had been sought or agreed by it. The damage done by the flooding had been due to unauthorised works, which the resident was responsible for. It noted that the amount it needed to pay out to put the property back to its original condition could be billed to the resident. Its legal team would be in touch once it had inspected every room and fully identified all of the changes made by her.
6. It concluded that the resident was the reason the repairs had not gone ahead and did not accept that it had failed in its service. It confirmed the resident could escalate to stage 2 if she remained dissatisfied with its response.
On 8 November 2022, the resident advised that she would call the landlord in relation to its response when she had credit, but she had been unwell. The landlord responded via email and advised that the resident could email it with dates and times she was able to meet it at the property.
The landlord’s records suggest that the resident had sought an update from it around 17 November 2022. Its records from the same date show that it asked internally for an update. Its surveyor responded and confirmed that the resident had not yet provided the key to the property.
The landlord’s records show that the resident emailed it on 5 December 2022 and asked for the complaint to be escalated. She had not been able to get back to the landlord previously due to illness. She maintained that she was not to blame for the flood as her neighbour’s houses were also having issues with water damage to their kitchen ceilings. She said she had not made any adjustments to the bathroom or toilet and any adjustments to the shower had already been through court. She said that the changes to the shower were made because the old shower needed replacing and the landlord had failed to complete the work. She maintained that the flood came from the bathroom toilet, and she did not accept liability. She had heard water coming from the toilet and had not been using any other water source at the time. She wanted the damage to be repaired and to be compensated for the cost of the damage to the carpet and flooring.
The landlord’s records from 14 December 2022 show that it had yet to receive keys for the property and without the keys it was unable to arrange a plumber to attend. The landlord’s records from 3 January 2023 show that it was waiting for the resident to drop the keys off for the property so that it could gain access and complete a further survey. The evidence provided suggests that the keys were received around 13 January 2023.
A preliminary inspection took place on 17 January 2023 to assess the works required and the extent of the damage. On 18 January 2023, the landlord asked that a full electrical safety test was completed and a plumber attended to check the toilet, bathroom and shower room to trace and remedy the leak. An environmental clean of the property was required and took place on 20 January 2023. The landlord’s internal records form this period note that it was seeking to gain a quote for the work. It attended the property with its contractors on 7 February 2023 who provided a quote. In February 2023, its internal records show that it was seeking to carry out a further electrical inspection and was waiting for a date for the energy supplier to attend to check the heating interface unit and boiler. The landlord has provided an estimate quotation from the time which listed over 80 elements of work. This included significant repairs required to the electrics, external doors, the garden (which was overgrown), the kitchen, ground floor toilet, lounge, bedrooms, shower room, bathroom, and landings.
On 16 February 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it had carried out several site meetings and was working to provide a schedule of works and arrange for quotations. It said it did not have a timeframe for the works at that stage but would provide an update once it had a programme of works. On 20 February 2023, the resident advised the landlord that she remained dissatisfied as she was yet to be provided with a date for the works to be completed. She also raised concern about a sewage smell at the decant property and the location of the decant property.
The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that it provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 21 February 2023 – the response submitted to this Service is undated. Its response detailed the following:
1. It acknowledged that the resident had said that she had not made alterations and that the flood had come from the toilet not her shower. She had maintained that she was not at fault.
2. The landlord explained that it would not be changing its decision as it had previously responded to the points she had raised, and no new evidence had been provided. It confirmed that investigations were ongoing into what may have caused the leak. It was correct to state that a shower had been installed in the resident’s home but not by one of its contractors. The resident had not sought permission for this work to be carried out, nor did she share the details with it. It noted that the resident had been decanted whilst works were ongoing and this included the investigation into what caused the leak. It confirmed that this was its final complaint response and that she could contact the Ombudsman.

Events following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

The landlord’s records show that the electrics in the property were attended to on 21 February 2023. The building had no power at the time so it could not test the electrics.
The resident approached the Ombudsman in February and March 2023 as she was dissatisfied with her temporary accommodation and had not yet been provided with a date as to when the floor damage would be repaired. She was also dissatisfied that the landlord had blamed her for the flood when neighbours had similar issues. She added concern that the landlord did not want to accept responsibility or temporarily rehouse her at first. She raised additional concerns that the landlord had opened 2 accounts in her name and tried to seek possession of the property rather than complete repairs. She had not been provided with records of the accounts. She wanted the landlord to repair the damage and compensate her for damage to her carpet and kitchen appliances. She noted that she had received compensation agreed by both parties’ solicitors, however, it remains unclear as to what this relates to.
The resident requested an update from the landlord on 29 March 2023. In response, the landlord advised that it had received a quotation and further investigations were being carried out. It confirmed it would contact the resident once it had dates for works.
The landlord instructed a leak detection company to complete a survey, which took place on 5 May 2023, to determine the cause of the water damage. The leak detection report stated that the operative had been unable to conclusively eliminate the possibility of a leak from the shower pipework supply, waste pipework or seals due to there being no power supply and no waste pipe connected to the shower cubicle at the time of the visit. An escape of water from the wash hand basin waste connector within the shower room was contributing to the water damage to the affected area as the water pooled on the floor tiles. The use of the shower over the bath in the bathroom with only a shower curtain would have also caused water spillage onto the floor which had contributed to the water damage to the floor and ceiling below. The report recommended that the shower cubicle waste pipe and power to the property were connected correctly and tested (to identify any cause of water damage), the basin connection repaired and tested, affected building materials removed and then repaired or reinstated.
A work order was then raised on 17 May 2023 for reinstatement works and the landlord’s records show that the internal works to the property were completed on 17 October 2023. It asked the energy supplier to arrange a date for the heating interface unit to be installed. This was booked for 3 November 2023. The landlord asked the removal company to arrange to move the resident back to the property on 8 November 2023. There was difficulty in contacting the resident and removals were then booked for 24 November 2023.
The landlord’s records show that it issued a follow-on complaint response to the resident on 20 November 2023. It acknowledged that there was a delay in contacting the resident for 3 months after her request to escalate the complaint. It also identified a delay in installing the heat interface unit in the property for which it apologised. It offered the resident £650 compensation, comprised of £300 for its complaint handling failures, £200 for the delay in progressing the repair and £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident has informed the Ombudsman that she is still experiencing damp and mould and that the landlord had refused to replace her carpet. Her hall and stairs carpet is particularly affected. She added that holes had been left in several walls, she had needed to pay to reconnect her cooker, and she was dissatisfied with the quality of the paintwork. She has also advised that the sink in the shower room is still leaking and that she has received a significant council tax bill for the period she could not live in the property.
Following a request for additional information, the landlord confirmed in February 2024 that the works were still ongoing, and it would not have any further information about the total cost of the works until they concluded.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property as well as inside walls, floors and ceilings and installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity, heating and sanitation, such as baths, showers, basins and toilets.
The agreement further states that the resident must allow the landlord, and its staff or contractors, to enter the property to inspect or carry out works needed. It would normally provide 24 hours notice unless it was an emergency. The resident is responsible for repairs to fuses and lightbulbs, minor fixtures and fittings, repairs due to misuse, neglect, or damage, and unblocking sinks, baths or toilets. The resident must not make improvements, alterations, or additions to the property without the landlord’s written permission.
The landlord’s repair policy states that emergency repairs would be made safe within 24 hours. No appointment would be made for these repairs. Follow-on works would be completed as an anytime repair. Anytime repairs should be carried out within 20 working days. Major repairs or complex work may take a longer timeframe. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to communicate the reason for any delays and provide updates on the steps it was taking. The policy states that where the responsibility for a repair is unclear, the matter would be passed to the landlord’s property services team to conduct an investigation to determine whose responsibility the repair is.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the delay in progressing repairs to the property following a flood and its related communication

In this case, it is evident that there were significant delays in assessing and putting right the damage caused to the resident’s property following a flood on 3 August 2021. Works had not begun at the time of the resident’s complaint between October 2022 and February 2023.
Following an initial appointment that took place on 4 August 2021 to make safe the electrics, the water supply to the property was turned off. This was within a reasonable timescale; however, it is noted that further work to identify the cause of the leak was required. There was then a delay in inspecting the property until 1 October 2021. The evidence shows that the landlord had attempted to access the property on 3 occasions, but the resident had not been present to allow access. This delay was outside of the landlord’s control as it would be the resident’s responsibility (in line with her tenancy agreement) to allow access to the property.
The inspection on 1 October 2021 found that there was significant damage to the property and established that extensive works would be required. The Ombudsman has not seen further evidence to demonstrate how the landlord attempted to progress works until 31 March 2022. While it is noted that the landlord’s solicitors were likely in contact with the resident’s solicitors in view of the ongoing possession proceedings at the time, it is of concern that there is no evidence that attempts to attend the property were made, despite the resident’s solicitor initiating the pre-action protocol for housing condition claims on 11 October 2021. This delay, of approximately 6 months, was not explained further by the landlord within its complaint responses to the resident, and the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the delay at this stage was outside of the landlord’s control, avoidable, or reasonable.
The landlord’s records show that there were further failed appointments due to the resident not being available to provide access on 31 March 2022, 12 April 2022 and 13 May 2022. There were continued issues in arranging access to complete a full survey following this, with multiple appointments rearranged by the resident due to being unwell. The delay at this stage was outside of the landlord’s control as it was ultimately the resident’s responsibility to provide access in line with her tenancy agreement.
Following the survey on 5 August 2022, which advised that there was an active water leak, there was a subsequent delay in attending the property. The resident raised her complaint on 5 October 2022 which specifically related to the delay in progressing works and a lack of communication.
It is of concern that the landlord, in its stage 1 complaint response on 4 November 2022, advised that the resident was the reason the repairs had not progressed as she had prevented access to some of the rooms in the property and a full inspection could not take place as a result. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to suggest that the landlord had communicated with the resident regarding access to all areas to the property or asked her to provide full access at any stage following the inspection on 5 August 2022 (once it was aware that full access had not been provided).
The complaint response also failed to consider the entirety of the delay or explain the landlord’s position in relation to the unexplained delay between October 2021 and March 2022. It was not reasonable for the landlord to attribute fault for the entirety of the delay onto the resident and its failure to demonstrate it had communicated clearly amounts to a service failure.
This failure continued beyond its stage 1 complaint response and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord had proactively asked the resident to provide the keys for the property in order to progress works, despite its internal records showing that it was limited in the actions it could take as it had not received these. While the keys were eventually provided in January 2023, at which point the landlord progressed its assessment of the damage, it would have been expected to provide evidence to show that it proactively communicated with the resident given that the previous survey in August 2022 stated that there was an active leak which may have been causing continued damage to the property.
In addition, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response gave conflicting information about the nature of the leak and the findings of the surveyor’s inspection from 5 August 2022. The response stated that the surveyor had found that there was an active leak from the shower room which had caused severe damage, and that the damage was caused by unauthorised works the resident had completed to the shower room. However, the report provided to the landlord by the surveyor stated that the water damage was the result of a leak from either the shower room (and possibly alterations by the resident), or the adjacent bathroom which were both above the kitchen. The surveyor specified that further investigations were required to establish the cause of the leak.
It was unreasonable for the landlord to definitively state that the cause of the damage was the result of the alterations to the shower room given, at that point, it did not have sufficient evidence to confirm this was the case. It provided incorrect information to the resident as to the outcome of its surveyor’s report and its response shows that it had decided the resident was at fault despite further investigations being required into the cause of the leak.
In addition, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was issued on 4 November 2022, which was outside of its policy timescales. While it acted reasonably by sending a holding response to the resident and apologising for the delay in the response, it failed to offer suitable redress at the time. The landlord also failed to address the other aspects of the resident’s complaint, including her request to access her rent account or confirm its position regarding her request to have access to home-swapper (for mutual exchange). She had also noted that her surname was spelt incorrectly on the landlord’s system and the landlord provided no clarity about whether this was an issue and whether this had been resolved.
In her escalation request on 5 December 2022, the resident maintained that the leak was from her toilet not the shower and that other neighbouring properties were also experiencing water damage to their kitchen ceilings. The landlord has advised that it issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 February 2023, however the response is undated. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s response times at stage 2 and the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay within its response at the time.
In addition, the response was brief and did not seek to provide further clarity on the actions taken to date, any progress made, or reassurance as to the steps it would be taking to investigate her concern that other properties experienced the same issues or that the leak stemmed from the toilet. While the landlord acted reasonably by advising that the investigations were ongoing, it failed to acknowledge or apologise that it had previously said that the shower alterations were the cause of the damage without having sufficient evidence to confirm this was the case.
Within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord also said that it had responded to all the points raised in its previous response without acknowledging its failure to respond to the resident’s requests regarding her rent account, name spelling, home-swapper access, or compensation for damage caused to her carpet and flooring. The resident’s concerns regarding her rent account and the separate accounts set up while the security of her tenure was in dispute remain outstanding to date. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not demonstrate that it had undertaken a full review of the resident’s complaint and missed the opportunity to identify and put right several failings.
The landlord has subsequently offered £300 compensation in November 2023 for its complaint handling failures, specifically in relation to the 3-month delay in communicating with the resident following her escalation request. The Ombudsman has not considered the landlord’s additional offer of £350 made at this stage as this related to the heating interface unit and not the specific concerns raised by the resident within this complaint.
It remains unclear as to why the offer of £300 compensation was not made as part of the landlord’s internal complaints process or what prompted the landlord to offer this around 9 months following its stage 2 complaint response. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord had the opportunity to offer suitable redress within its complaints process and its failure to do so amounts to a service failure.
Overall, the increased level of compensation for complaint handling did not sufficiently take into consideration the landlord’s failure to communicate effectively with the resident or the lack of clear information provided to her regarding the repairs. These failings were likely to have caused inconvenience and confusion to the resident as to how the repair issues affecting her property would be resolved. Several orders have been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s complaint about the delay in progressing repairs to the property following a flood and its related communication.

Reasons

While some delays were outside of the landlord’s control due to the resident’s failure to provide access to the property, there were several periods where the landlord has not demonstrated that it communicated effectively with the resident or proactively sought to progress works related to a leak. In addition, the landlord’s complaint responses provided inaccurate information and failed to address the resident’s concerns in full. The landlord offered compensation but this was insufficient and it missed the opportunity to identify its failings and offer suitable redress through its internal complaints process.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident and provide:
1. An apology for the service failures identified within this report.
2. The records related to her rent account and an explanation of the 2 accounts she says have been set up.
3. Its position regarding the resident’s request that she is compensated for her damaged flooring and kitchen appliances. It should also provide its liability insurance details should the resident wish to raise a claim.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident an additional £300 in recognition of its poor communication and unexplained delays in progressing works. This should be paid directly to the resident rather than offset to her rent account and is in addition to its previous offer of £300.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to arrange an inspection of the property to determine whether further works are required. It should write to the resident following the inspection to outline its findings and provide a schedule of works with timescales (if further works are required).
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord writes to the resident to confirm whether it intends to recharge her for any of the works completed while she was decanted. If so, it should provide a breakdown of the reasons, costs and its process to her. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s explanation, she may wish to raise a separate complaint with it to have her concerns resolved. She may then approach the Ombudsman once her complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process if she remains dissatisfied with its response.
It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss her concerns regarding her council tax bill for the period she was not residing at the property, confirms its position and offers support.
The landlord is to confirm its intentions in relation to the above recommendations within 4 weeks.