Jigsaw Homes Tameside (202000469)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000469

Jigsaw Homes Tameside

24 June 2021

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 the resident’s report of a repair to the floor of his property.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a three-bedroomed house. He commenced his tenancy at the property on 3 May 2004.
3. On 27 November 2019, the resident called the landlord to request new flooring in his kitchen. After it informed him that it did not replace floor coverings, he explained that he had removed his own laminate flooring to find that the pre-existing asbestos tiling underneath showed signs of damage. The landlord made arrangements the next day for an asbestos survey.
4. The landlord’s records on 28 November 2019 noted that the resident had informed it that there was damage to the floorboards under the asbestos floor tiles. It deemed this repair as not urgent as it attributed the damage to his removal of his floor covering.
5. The resident called the landlord on 29 November 2019 to express his dissatisfaction that the floor repair would not be completed until an asbestos survey had been carried out. It gave him advice on how to minimise any risk to himself and advised him that the damage was considered low risk. The landlord recorded that the resident was not satisfied with this information.
6. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 11 December 2019 to inspect the floor. When he called it later that day, it advised him that photographs taken on the visit would need to be reviewed and a survey would need to be carried out.
7. The resident called the landlord on 12 December 2019 to seek an update on the appointment for the survey. It promised him a call back that day to update him, however there was no evidence that it did so.  On 16 December 2019, the resident called again to request an update.
8. On 18 December 2019, the resident reported to the landlord that he had tripped on the damaged floor tiles. It advised him later that day that it would arrange for an asbestos trained joiner to make the tile safe.
9. The resident informed the landlord on 19 December 2019 that the issue had gotten worse as there was a deep hole which was a hazard to his children. It advised him that it was awaiting the results from the asbestos test and could offer no updates until this was received. The landlord suggested temporary measures the resident could take to minimise the hazard, such as restricting children’s access to the kitchen and accessing the kitchen from the back door to avoid the affected area. The resident insisted that he would hold the landlord liable for any ensuing injury.
10. The asbestos testing report was issued on 20 December 2019 which noted that the sample was received on 19 December 2019 and confirmed that there was no asbestos detected in the kitchen floor tiles.
11. The resident called the landlord on 23 December 2019 to express his dissatisfaction with waiting “3 weeks” for a surveyor to inspect his floor and said that he had awaited a telephone call which he did not receive. It agreed to investigate the handling of his telephone enquiries.
12. The resident called the landlord on 13 January 2020 to report that the floorboards in the kitchen were rotting. He stated that he did not want it to board over the rotten floorboards. The landlord assured him it would not do this and would update its contractors about this issue.
13. The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 January 2020, in response to an earlier telephone conversation he had with it, about the “initial diagnosis” of the kitchen floor. It acknowledged that it had originally “misdiagnosed” the nature of the repair required to the kitchen floor when the issue was first reported and apologised for any distress or misunderstanding this had caused.
14. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 31 January 2020.  It attended his property that day and noted that its joiner had left some mess, which it offered to clean. The resident declined this and said he would clean this himself. 
15. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 4 February 2020. It noted that his points of complaint were that:
    1. He had been caused distress and inconvenience from the misdiagnosis of his flooring repair and wanted an apology from the landlord and compensation for this.
    2. He had sustained an injury from slipping on the floor which had exacerbated an underlying condition. The resident said he now required a medical procedure for which he sought compensation and he was considering making a personal injury claim for this.
16. The landlord acknowledged that it had initially misdiagnosed the repair required to the resident’s floor and noted that it had already issued a written apology to him for this. It advised that its compensation policy specified that compensation was only payable where an identifiable financial loss had been caused by its service failure. The landlord explained that, as the resident had not provided evidence of any financial loss arising from its misdiagnosis of the floor repair, it would not provide compensation.
17. The landlord provided to the resident an insurance claim form to enable him to make a personal injury claim and confirmed that it did not deal with insurance claims through its complaints procedure. It apologised again for the misdiagnosis of the kitchen floor repair and advised that the work was now scheduled to take place on 6 February 2020.
18. On 6 February 2020, the contractor attended and carried out the repair work to the flooring.
19. On 7 February 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that, following the attendance of its joiner earlier that day, he was unhappy with the standard of work it had completed. It advised him that the appropriate staff member would call him back within 48 hours. The landlord called the resident later that day where he expressed dissatisfaction with the standard of the floor repair and requested that it provide new fencing for him as part of compensation for the “stress” this had caused him.
20. The resident called the landlord on 10 February 2020 to advise of his continued dissatisfaction with the outcome of his complaint and sought information on how to escalate this. The landlord called him back to the following day to record his reasons for escalating his complaint.
21. The landlord issued a final stage complaint response to the resident on 17 February 2020 in which it listed his outstanding points of complaint as:
    1. Experiencing distress for five months due to the kitchen flooring.
    2. Having to move kitchen appliances three times for the flooring work to be completed.
    3. That the apology he received from the landlord should have come directly from the staff member concerned.
    4. He wanted compensation for the five days of disruption and “mess” left by its contractor.
22. The landlord explained that it felt that it could resolve the complaint without carrying out a full review. It said that it was satisfied that the apology letter sent to the resident on 29 January 2020 was appropriate to acknowledge the “errors” it had made in handling his repair. The landlord acknowledged that it had fitted the flooring incorrectly, which it had arranged to be rectified. For carrying out the works incorrectly, the landlord offered him compensation of £50 for the inconvenience. It confirmed that this was its final response to the complaint.
23. The landlord advised this Service that its original repair to the floor was delayed due to the Christmas closure period and that its subsequent efforts to rectify the floor repair had been unsuccessful as the resident objected to moving his appliances for this to take place. It offered him help with this, but he asked it to sign a disclaimer to take responsibility for any damage caused which it declined to do so. At the time that this complaint was duly made, the rectification of the floor repair was yet to be completed.
24. The resident raised a subsequent complaint to the landlord on 24 February 2020 in which, amongst other things, he raised the issue of its contractor leaving a “mess” when attending to the kitchen floor repair. It responded to this complaint on 11 March 2020, noting that this issue had not been addressed in its previous response. The landlord advised that it had spoken to the staff member concerned about the “mess” left when work was completed and noted that the resident was offered support to clean this which he declined. It asserted that this was a reasonable offer and, as he declined this, there was nothing further it could offer in respect of this.

Assessment and findings

Policies

25. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it will maintain the internal structure of the property, including the floors.
26. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two stage formal complaints procedure with written responses at the first “investigate it” stage to be provided within ten working days. A complaint may be escalated to the final “review it” stage if it has not been fully responded to or investigated or agreed actions from the first stage have not been completed satisfactorily, or if the complaint was not responded to within its timescale. At this stage, a review meeting is held within one month of the review request being accepted and a written response is to be provided with ten working days of the review meeting. This policy confirms that the landlord will not consider insurance claims within the scope of its complaints process; these are to be handled separately by its insurance team.
27. The landlord’s repair responsibilities webpage confirms that it is responsible for repairs to floor joists, chipboard flooring and timber floorboards. This also confirms that the resident is responsible for floor coverings, including carpet, vinyl and laminate.
28. The landlord’s “reporting repairs” webpage lists three categories of repairs. Emergency repairs, where there is immediate danger an immediate danger to the health and safety of the resident or to the structure of the building should be attended within 24 hours. Urgent repairs are those which cause discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance to the resident and may lead to further deterioration; these are to be attended to within five working days. Routine repairs are to be completed within six weeks of being reported.
29. The landlord’s compensation policy provides for discretionary compensation to be paid to the resident where its failure has caused loss or financial cost to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a repair to the floor of his property

30. It is noted that the resident reported sustaining an injury from slipping on the floor which he attributed to the damage. This would be a matter for the courts to consider as it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine if any injury or damage directly resulted from the landlord’s actions or lack thereof. The resident may wish to consider seeking independent advice regarding the making of a personal injury insurance claim if he wishes to pursue this matter.
31. When the landlord received the resident’s report on 27 November 2020 that there was damage to the asbestos tiles underneath his flooring, it arranged the following day for an asbestos survey to be carried out. It attended his property on 11 December 2019 to inspect the damage and again on 18 December 2019 in response to his report of tripping on the tiles. These were reasonable actions and were carried out within a reasonable timeframe, given that it had identified on 29 November 2019 that the damage was “low risk” which would have required the work to be completed within six weeks as a routine repair, as per the landlord’s “reporting repairs” webpage.
32. However, it is unclear why, after the landlord received confirmation on 20 December 2019 that there was no asbestos present in the floor tiles, that the work to the floor was not carried out until 7 February 2020. This was approximately nine weeks after the resident’s report on 27 November 2019 and three weeks in excess of the landlord’s timeframe for a routine repair, as specified on its “reporting repairs” webpage. This was therefore a failure on its part to complete the repair in accordance with its policy.
33. The resident voiced dissatisfaction in his final stage complaint with the “mess” left by the landlord’s joiner when carrying out work on the floor. However, it is noted that the landlord offered to clean this on 31 January 2020, when it was originally identified, but he declined this. Therefore, there was no evidence of a failure in this regard. 
34. The landlord acknowledged that it had “misdiagnosed” the repair when the resident originally reported it on 27 November 2019, when it informed him that the floor repair was his responsibility. While this was a failure on its part to take responsibility for the repair, this error was recognised promptly and work was arranged to address the repair. Therefore, the failure on the part of the landlord had a minimal impact and it has since provided a written apology to the resident on 29 January 2020 which was a reasonable response to remedy this.  
35. The landlord acknowledged in its final response on 17 February 2020 that its initial floor repair on 7 February 2020 had not been completed correctly and offered £50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience. This offer was reasonable despite there being no identified loss or financial cost to the resident, which the landlord’s compensation policy stipulates as a condition for compensation to be payable, above at point 28. This offer was in accordance with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance for cases where there has been a “failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant”.
36. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in attending the property to carry out the floor repair initially, which took place on 7 February 2020, three weeks in excess of its specified timeframe for a routine repair. Therefore, an additional amount of £50 compensation should be paid to him to recognise the likely inconvenience caused to him by this delay.

Determination (decision)

37. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of a repair to the floor of his property.

Reasons

38. The landlord carried out reasonable actions in response to the resident’s reports, however, it delayed in carrying out the repair to his floor, which it did not acknowledge in its complaint response to him.

Orders

39. Within 28 days, the landlord is to pay £100 in compensation to the resident, inclusive of the £50 previously offered to him, for its delay in carrying out the repair work to his floor.