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

Newlon Housing Trust (202001604)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001604

Newlon Housing Trust

4 February 2021


Our approach

  1. 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.
  2. 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 decision not to reimburse the resident for water costs she says she incurred as a result of its delaying in repairing the toilet water flush mechanism and then later paying compensation into her rent account rather than directly to her water company or to her, as well as not compensating her further.
  2. The complaint is also about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

  1. The resident has been an tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 17 December 2012.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will undertake urgent and routine repair works within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord has adopted a two-stage complaints procedure whereby it aims to respond to a complaint at stage one within 10 working days and within 30 days at stage two of the process. The same policy states that where the resident is complaining about an issue that is more than 12 months old, this will be logged as a stage one complaint if it has not previously been reviewed, but cannot be escalated to stage two of the process.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states that “where a tenant has incurred a cost (spent money) already for loss/damage payable under this policy, then this payment should not be credited to the rent account”.

 

  1. On 4 August 2017, the resident reported an issue with the toilet flush, which led to excess water being used for a period of around a month, calculated at around £104.

 

  1. On 8 August 2017, the landlord responded, advising that it had arranged inspection and repair on 15 August 2017.

 

  1. On 24 August 2017, the resident reported that the issue had gotten worse, following the attendance of an operative.  A further appointment was scheduled for 29 August 2017, where repair was carried out.  The repair and resolution notes state “toilet keep overflowing, turned off water supply, took out old float valve which was unrepaired, fitted a new float valve, turned water back on and checked for any leaks”.

Summary of events

  1. Ten months later, on 13 June 2018 the resident emailed the landlord regarding an issue with the toilet flush mechanism again.

 

  1. On 26 June 2018, the landlord responded, stating that it had reactivated the historical repair.  The landlord also raised the matter as a formal complaint as it was the second time the issue had been raised.

 

  1. On 9 July 2018, the resident complained about the delay to repairing the toilet, referring to previous “shoddy workmanship” having left it defective. She stated that this would have an impact on her water charges which she would not be responsible for.

 

  1. On 10 July 2018 the landlord responded, apologising for the delay and stating that it had arranged an appointment for 19 July 2020.

 

  1. In response, the resident asked for the appointment to be rescheduled for 20-31 July 2018.  The landlord therefore changed the appointment to 31 July 2018, which it confirmed on 18 July, following a chaser from the resident the day before.

 

  1. On 31 July 2018 the appointment did not go ahead and was rescheduled to 17 August 2018 on 8 August 2018, following the resident chasing the issue on 1 and 4 August 2018.

 

  1. On 17 August 2018 the resident called to enquire as to where the operative was as they had not arrived.  The operative ultimately did not arrive despite assurances from the landlord that they would. The resident complained about this and the amount of time the repair was taking.

 

  1. On 20 August 2018, the appointment was re-booked for 21 August 2018. On the same date, the landlord telephoned the resident, apologising for the service failure, recognising that what had happened was “not acceptable” and explained that the appointment on 17 August 2018 did not go ahead because the contractor was running over time.  It advised that its repairs contractor had been asked to look into the issues and why the missed appointments had occurred. 

 

  1. On 21 August 2018 the works were completed.  The landlord contacted the resident later that day to confirm that works had been completed to her satisfaction, which she confirmed and the complaint was closed.

 

  1. On 13 September 2018, the resident requested that the landlord pay her water bill in respect of the increased water usage the toilet leak had caused.

 

  1. On 1 October 2018, the landlord offered (via its repairs contractor) £45 compensation; £20 for delay and £25 for two missed appointments.  The resident has said that she never received this compensation.

 

  1. Almost a year later, on 6 September 2019, the resident’s representative wrote to the landlord to set out the cost increase of the water, due to the leak and requested reimbursement of £464.51.

 

  1. On 9 September 2019 the landlord responded, advising that it would not reimburse the amount referred to, stating that its records did not support this; the issue had been reported on 10 July 2018 and responded to and resolved on 21 August 2018.

 

  1. On 10 September 2019 the resident’s representative responded, disagreeing with the landlord’s findings, stating that the first attempt at repair exacerbated the issue and water leakage and that the landlord had accepted delay in its email of 8 September 2019.

 

  1. The landlord responded, requesting clarification as the representative’s letter referred to a period of a year, yet the landlord had acknowledged that the issue was unresolved between 10 and 21 August 2019.

 

  1. On 21 December 2019 the landlord emailed the resident, advising that the complaint had been escalated, following contact with the Ombudsman, advising it would respond on 2 January 2020 due to the Christmas break.

 

  1. On 2 January 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response to the complaint. It accepted that there had been two missed appointments and offered £50 vouchers in recognition of the “inconvenience” caused and as a “gesture of goodwill”.  It said that it could not reimburse the cost of the water because the issue was unresolved between 10 July and 21 August 2018 only and that there had been no further reports of issues or indications that the matter had been unresolved for over a year.

 

  1. On the same date the resident requested that her complaint be escalated through the complaints process; she felt the amount of compensation was insufficient and said that the landlord’s version of events was inaccurate.  She said she would provide further details by the end of the month and sent further information on 18 March 2020.

 

  1. On 19 May 2020 the landlord emailed the resident, apologising for the delay and advising that the appeal panel would hear her complaint on 22 May 2020 and setting out its guidance to the panel. The advice included reference to the 2017 leak and that this should not be considered, as this was not raised until 2020 and was out of time.

 

  1. On 22 May 2020 the panel considered the case and on 28 May 2020, the landlord sent its decision.  The panel apologised for its repairs handling and decided to offer £345 compensation, which it credited to the resident’s rent account on 13 July 2020. It did not offer compensation for the 2017 repair, due to the lapse in time before it was brought to the landlord as a formal complaint.

Post complaint

  1. On 16 October 2020 following intervention from this Service regarding satisfactory resolution of the complaint, the landlord agreed to pay the entire requested amount of £464.61; it suggested paying the outstanding balance directly to the resident, with the previous amount having been paid directly to her rent account.

Assessment and findings

  1. Once on notice, the landlord was required to carry out the repairs it was responsible for, within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and in law.  The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
  2. In this case, the landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to carry out repairs of this nature within 20 working days. Following the report of the issue in 2017, the landlord appropriately carried out the repair within the timescale set out in its repairs policy; although a second appointment was needed, this sometimes is the case with repairs requiring more than one visit to fully resolve and was ultimately within the overall established target timescale.
  3. Turning to 2018, there was delay to carrying out the repair, which the landlord has appropriately accepted in its response to complaint, although it refers to the repair being raised some time after the issue being reported and time starting from then; that is not the case.  The landlord is responsible for carrying out the repair within a reasonable time from when it is put on notice and not from when the repair is raised thereafter with its repair team or contractor. 
  4. It took approximately 55 working days to repair the issue in 2018; more than double the target timeframe specified in its policy, although around 7 working days were built into the delay following the resident being unable to make the initial appointment and asking for it to be moved. 
  5. In terms of causation, in cases about repairs, it is not the role of this Service to determine the quality of workmanship, but instead, for the Ombudsman to assess what was reported to the landlord and whether its response was in accordance with its policies, procedure and best practice, and appropriate and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
  6. Regarding the complaint itself, this was raised some considerable time after the issue occurred.  The Ombudsman itself does not consider complaints which, in its opinion, were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising – this is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.  When a complaint is made about a historical matter and is not ‘live’, often records no longer exist, personnel have left or moved on and it is difficult to properly investigate, respond and put matters right, in the way that is possible with more recent or current matters.
  7. Similarly, landlords frequently encompass within their policies and guidance that this is the situation, although in this case, the landlord has stated that it will not progress historic complaints (in this case, relating to matters over 12 months old), to stage two of its complaints process and indeed did “reopen” the historic repair, although this time, as a “complaint”.  The matter the did ultimately go to stage two, including the historic matter, which was considered but not upheld.  The complaints process was unclear and not in accordance with the parameters of its policy and a recommendation has been made in this respect.
  8. In terms of the outcome, the landlord eventually decided to reimburse the additional money the resident had spent on water, which she was able to evidence.  The landlord’s response in doing so was reasonable.  This is because the Ombudsman would not normally expect a landlord to consider complaints and compensation requests for historic matters – irrespective of arguments around possible causation, which is ultimately a matter for the courts – for the reasons previously provided. Moreover, although the landlord was responsible for the repair, it was not obliged – however unfortunate the circumstances – to reimburse money for loss of water or anything else.  To do so is at the discretion of the landlord and so the landlord in doing so, reasonably did this. 
  9. With respect to the payment being made to the resident’s rent account, the landlord has said that it did this because the rent account was in arrears.  The resident has disputed this, although this was not the original subject of the complaint and so will not be discussed or assessed more formally here.  The Ombudsman, however, finds it satisfactory for compensation or other payments to be made to residents’ accounts were there are arrears and positively refers to this in its online ‘Guidance on Remedies’. 
  10. The caveat to this, however, is where it would not be fair to do so, for example where a landlord’s service failure resulted in the arrears in the first place, or where the complainant has incurred additional ‘out of pocket’ expenses as a direct result of the landlord’s actions or inactions and indeed, the landlord’s own compensation policy states that it will not credit compensation to a rent account where the resident has incurred additional costs.  In light of both the Ombudsman’s and landlord’s guidance, it was inappropriate for the landlord to have done this, irrespective or any rent arrears or otherwise.
  11. The amount of money offered for the additional water costs, whilst reasonably offered, amounted to reimbursement rather than compensation.  The aspect of delay, inconvenience from missed appointments and the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint were not taken into account in providing redress.  Whilst the landlord appropriately offered an apology this did not go far enough in resolving the complaint.
  12. The earlier offer of compensation in recognition of some of these things did not come to fruition and its later offer of compensation, whilst encompassing these, then seemed to not, as the final offer was full reimbursement. Where something has gone wrong, compensation is not an automatic right, however, the landlord did not do enough to sufficient redress the complaint – reimbursing the water money in itself, left other areas wanting.
  13. Finally, turning to complaints handling, besides the lack of clarity around process, in terms of historical escalation, the landlord’s stage two response was delayed, being provided outside of the timeframe set out in its complaints policy and although it apologised for this, the delay was unwholly unreasonable, amounting to in excess of five months, set against a 30-day timescale.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint about the repair and subsequent reimbursement and consideration of compensation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

 

Reasons

  1. There was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the repair and subsequent reimbursement and compensation, insofar as it paid the money into the resident’s rent account rather than to her directly, which was not in accordance with its policy (or the Ombudsman’s guidance). 
  2. It did not recognise that the reimbursement of water charges, whilst a reasonable offer, did not resolve other aspects of her complaint, including the delay, missed appointments and inconvenience caused.
  3. There was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling insofar as the process was unclear and the landlord delayed significantly in providing a response at stage two of the process.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is to transfer the £464.61 that it paid into the resident’s rent account, to the resident directly. 
  2. The landlord is to pay the resident £150 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £50 for the delay in carrying out the repair in 2018;
    2. £20 for the two missed appointments;
    3. 50 for the service failures identified in its complaints handling, and;
    4. £30 for stress and inconvenience, as well as the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.

 

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to review its policies and procedures in respect of processes between it and its repairs team/contractor, specifically regarding communications and ensuring that works are raised promptly and compensation that is offered and accepted, is paid in a timely manner.
  2. The landlord is recommended to review its complaints policy and procedure, within a view to bringing it in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance around historic complaints, to provide clarity and greater transparency around the process.