Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202301389)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301389

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

17 February 2025

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. Works to make good the resident’s property following a burst water pipe.
2. The resident’s temporary accommodation.
3. Arrangements to organise storage for the resident’s personal belongings.
4. The resident’s request for reimbursement of the costs she incurred as a result of the burst water pipe, including damage to her personal belongings.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the assessment.

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The property is a 2 bedroom semi-detached house. The resident lives in the property with her husband and her adult daughter.
The resident has confirmed to this Service that she is disabled.
The resident’s representative made the complaint on her behalf. For ease of reference the representative’s actions will be referred to as the resident’s throughout this report.
On 15 February 2023 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord about the service it had provided following a flood in the property. In summary the resident said:
1. The property flooded on 24 January 2023 while she was away with her family.
2. The flood had caused “very severe” damage to the property and her personal belongings.
3. The landlord had arranged temporary accommodation for her and her family in a hotel immediately following the flood however its communication regarding on-going accommodation had been poor. The landlord had failed to provide her with notice or clear information regarding changes in hotels or reassurances that it would continue to provide accommodation until she could return to the property. This had been very distressing.
4. The landlord had ignored her repeated attempts to speak with it to get updates on the situation.
5. Despite the landlord providing reassurances that it would arrange for her personal belongings to be placed into storage while the property was made good, it had not done so. While her belongings remained in the property they were deteriorating.
6. The property was not secure as there was “no lock on the door”. The property could be “accessed by kicking the door”.
7. Work to make good the property had not started, and no information had been provided detailing a start date.
8. She was due compensation “in recognition of the exceptionally poor service [she had] received… and the very severe difficulties [she had] suffered”.
On 24 February 2023 the landlord provided confirmation to the resident that it would cover the costs for storage for her personal belongings, including removals.
On 27 February 2023 the resident submitted an addendum to the complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. It was unacceptable that the landlord had failed to arrange long term temporary accommodation for her and her family while the property was uninhabitable due to the flood. She had stayed in “four hotels” since the flood; one hotel room had no windows.
2. It was unacceptable that the landlord had still not arranged to have her personal belongings removed from the property.
3. Her health was deteriorating significantly due to the situation.
On 28 February 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. In summary the landlord said:
1. On 24 January 2023 the fire brigade attended the property as an emergency following a report of a flood. The fire brigade forced entry into the property to stop the flood as the resident was not home. It had attempted to contact the resident on 24 January 2023 however it was not successful.
2. Despite requesting for an operative to attend the property on 24 January 2023, to make it secure after the forced entry, this did not happen.
3. On 25 January 2023 the resident attended its office and it “immediately began making plans for a decant”. A hotel was booked until 3 February 2023. It also explained that it was in the process of arranging for its surveyor to inspect the property to determine what works were required to make good.
4. On 31 January 2023 the resident contacted it to raise concerns that the property was not secure and therefore her belongings were not safe.
5. On 3 February 2023 it extended the resident’s stay at the hotel for “another week”. This had been extended again until 3 March 2023.
6. On 5 February 2023 its surveyor confirmed that the property was saturated due to a burst pipe in the loft and therefore major works were required. The surveyor reported that “water was still dripping from the hall and living room ceilings” and the property was therefore unhabitable. The surveyor estimated that the make good works would take between “two and three months to complete”. This timeframe however did not include the time needed by the insurance company to assess the property itself.
7. On 9 February 2023 full details of the flood were sent to its insurance company for action.
8. On 21 February 2023 its surveyor and its insurer met with the resident at the property. The insurer noted that:
  1. The front entry door did not close.
  2. Some of the resident’s belongings were salvageable and should be moved into storage.
  3. It, the insurer, verbally agreed to complete clearance of the property.
  4. The following works were required – “all ceilings apart from the kitchen and bathroom to be renewed; the property be allowed to dry completely; assessment of plaster to all walls and floorboards thereafter; front entry door, rear exit door and all internal doors to be renewed; full electrical testing and inspection and any follow on works; gas boiler checked/renewed; new kitchen installation; the renewal of the bathroom flooring; complete decorations to the whole property, and renew cupboard”.
  5. The timescale to complete the works was “around four months”.
9. On 24 February 2023 it approved storage costs for the resident’s personal belongings. The resident was informed that she would be reimbursed the costs incurred.
10. On 1 March 2023 it would extend the resident’s hotel stay until 20 March 2023. It would contact the hotel on 13 March 2023 for an extension if one was needed beyond 20 March 2023.
11. It had received the resident’s food receipts which would be refunded.
12. It understood that the resident was “content with staying in the hotel for the duration of the work completed”.
13. It acknowledged that the resident was unhappy that it had delayed in extending her hotel stays and delayed in securing the property. It could have handled these matters better and it therefore apologised.
14. It understood that the resident was in “an unbelievably stressful situation” and therefore awarded her £150 compensation comprising:
  1. £100 for the delay in ensuring the property was secure.
  2. £50 for the time she had taken to chase hotel extensions.
On 15 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to explain why it could not arrange the storage for her personal belongings on her behalf. It set out that the storage company required “a physical presence… where the contract must be signed by the customer”.
On 4 April 2023 the resident replied to the landlord’s stage 1 response. In summary the resident said:
1. She continued to experience difficulties in contacting the landlord about her temporary accommodation, the make good works to the property and her personal belongings. The landlord promised to call her, but this did not happen.
2. The landlord had inaccurately reported that she was content staying in a hotel for the duration of the works to make good the property. It was “a major problem having no kitchen facilities” as she had diabetes and a “sensitive stomach”. “Ramadan [had] been a nightmare” as she had nowhere to prepare food.
3. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord was still booking temporary accommodation “a week or two at a time” and only extending her stays at the last minute. Long term temporary accommodation should be provided due to the length of time the works were anticipated to take.
4. Despite being informed that the landlord would be responsible for arranging for her personal belongings to go into storage it had not done so.
5. Despite sending in receipts for reimbursement she has not received all payments. She “[lived] on disability and means-tested benefits” so it was very important that costs were reimbursed promptly and in full.
6. She was concerned that no proper plan was in place to make good the property.
The landlord’s records show that on 12 April 2023 the resident arranged storage for her personal belongings.
On 14 April 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reply to its stage 1 response and confirmed that it would escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its complaint procedure.
On 15 May 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2, final, response following a telephone call with the resident. In summary the landlord said:
1. Storage was booked for the resident’s personal belongings.
2. Hotel accommodation was booked until 25 May 2023.
3. It had sent a quote from its contractor to its insurer for the works needed to be completed in the property. Once the insurer had approved the quote it could arrange a date for the works to start.
The landlord concluded by reiterating its offer of compensation.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it stated “whilst [it could] see that [it] attended to some of the initial repairs highlighted in [the resident’s] stage 1 complaint [it could] see that the remaining repairs [had] been delayed…” The Ombudsman believes that this statement was included in error as it does not appear to be relevant to the circumstances of the case.
In mid to late April 2023, exact date not known, the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) wrote to the resident’s councillor regarding the situation as the resident had been in contact with them. The CEO stated that it was “not acceptable that [the resident had] been placed in temporary hotel accommodation for over 3 months without clarity on what the short and long-term solution [would] be regarding their future housing”.
On 2 May 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident about her temporary accommodation. The landlord confirmed that it would now seek to find long term temporary accommodation while works to the property were completed as it was “not sustainable” for the resident to continue to reside in a hotel.
On 15 May 2023 the resident chased the landlord for information regarding the long term temporary accommodation which had been offered to her.
On 19 May 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the long term temporary accommodation which it had identified would be ready “next week”.
On 25 May 2023 the resident replied to the landlord’s stage 2 response. In summary the resident said:
1. The landlord’s response was vague, failed to address all issues raised and did not acknowledge the seriousness of her situation.
2. Despite the landlord’s CEO acknowledging failures in its handling of her case things had not improved.
3. She was still living in a hotel.
4. The landlord’s management of her temporary accommodation had not improved. The landlord was only informing her of extensions to her accommodation last minute and since the flood she had stayed in multiple hotels.
5. While the landlord had recently made an offer of long term temporary accommodation (property X), which she had accepted, its communication about property X and the move had been poor. She had not been permitted to view property X prior to accepting it. The landlord had also not provided a move date or confirmed whether property X would be furnished.
6. Despite sending receipts she had not received reimbursement for all expenses.
7. She understood that the property had “fallen into a worse state [of repair]” as no works had yet started to make good following the flood.
8. Both her mental and physical health had deteriorated because of the landlord’s handling of the situation. She had shared a letter from her GP with the landlord detailing her health.
On 12 June 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord to provide a list of items which were damaged by the flood. This included furniture, bedding and electrical goods. The resident noted that she had also “lost other items” but “hadn’t added them to the list”.
On 14 June 2023 an internal email by the landlord noted that it had “missed opportunities” to move the resident into long term temporary accommodation at an earlier time and to provide them with appropriate support. It confirmed that it would therefore offer the resident a goodwill gesture payment of £1,500 so that she could “start the process of purchasing essential items, clothing and bedding to move into their new home”. Within the email the landlord noted that the flood was “an unfortunate event” and not due to any negligence on its part.
On 20 June 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord to request an update on the works to make good the property and stated that she had “no updates whatsoever”. On the same day the landlord replied confirming that it was still waiting on the insurer to agree the schedule of works before the make good works could begin at the property.
On 23 June 2023 the resident moved into property X.
On 3 August 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord detailing issues with property X. The resident later referred these concerns to the Ombudsman. Within her correspondence the resident reiterated that it was concerning that no work had started on the property and detailed the continuing impact the situation was having on her health. The resident also noted that she had accepted the landlord’s £1,500 goodwill payment.
On 4 September 2023 the landlord’s internal record documented that approval had been given by the insurers to start the make good works on the property.
On 8 September 2023 the landlord replied to the resident’s correspondence dated 3 August 2023. Within its response the landlord set out that “at present [it had] no timeframe for the completion of works” at the property but it expected the work to “take some time”. The landlord also advised that it was sorry to hear how the situation had affected the resident’s health, confirming that it could explore offering additional support if necessary.
On 16 April 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that it was unsatisfactory that she had not been able to return to the property. Within her correspondence she raised concerns regarding the make good works which were ongoing. In summary the resident said:
1. It was unacceptable that she had to “battle” with the landlord to agree to replace the external doors as it initially denied that they had been damaged by the flood.
2. The roof insulation had been removed during the works and had not been replaced.
3. There was a damp smell from the understairs cupboard which had not been addressed.
4. The toilet had not been fitted properly.
5. The cooker was not connected
6. The contractors had left rubbish in the garden.
The resident also confirmed that she had started a list detailing her personal belongings which had been damaged or destroyed by the flood, however she had not been able to finish it due to being in poor health. She added that she had used savings “to buy things to make it possible for [her] to manage in [property X]”. She concluded by confirming that she was due a “substantial offer of compensation”.
The resident returned to the property sometime between mid-March 2024 and the end of April 2024 – exact date not known.
On 29 April 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that the “large credit” which was on her gas and electricity meter had been used during the make good works. She therefore asked the landlord to remedy the situation.
On 15 and 22 May 2024 the resident chased the landlord for a response to her correspondence dated 16 April 2024 as she had not received a reply. The Ombudsman cannot see that a reply was provided by the landlord.
While the complaint was live the resident raised concerns with the landlord on multiple occasions that it failed to include her representative within its complaint responses and other correspondence related to the situation.
In an update to this Service on 21 January 2025 the resident confirmed that on returning to the property there were lots of problems and the work was not completed to standard. She confirmed that this included problems with the plumbing and electrics.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of works to make good the resident’s property following a burst water pipe

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house, the property. On notification of the burst pipe and the consequent damage to the structure of the property the landlord was obliged to investigate and to make good any issues identified and which were its responsibility.
The landlord has provided its contemporaneous records for the property to demonstrate its response to the burst pipe and make good works.
The evidence shows that the landlord proactively responded to the report of a burst pipe in the property on 24 January 2023 as it immediately took steps to gain access in order to stop the water. This included calling the resident to request access and then requesting assistance from the fire brigade when the resident could not be contacted. This was in line with the landlord’s repair policy which sets out that it will “enter a residence without permission in extenuating circumstances” which includes “significant flooding”.
The landlord’s repair log documents that following the forced entry by the fire brigade on 24 January 2023 the property was secured on 16 February 2023. The work order confirmed that the front and back door were made safe. The evidence shows that the resident pursued the landlord in order for it to take this action; this included on 7 February 2023. It is unsatisfactory that the property was not immediately secured following the forced entry in order to safeguard the property and the resident’s belongings. While the property was not secure the resident would have experienced uncertainty and distress.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it acknowledged that it delayed in securing the property and therefore awarded £100 compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that where a “customer has had a poor experience…. [it] may offer them a good will gesture”. As the landlord identified that a service failure had occurred it was appropriate that it engaged its policy. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer was proportionate to the failing and the impact on the resident.
The evidence shows that on 26 January 2023 the landlord inspected the property. This was an appropriate course of action to allow the landlord to establish the cause of the burst pipe, the condition of the property and then to plan any works identified. The record of the inspection documented that the property was “saturated”, required “major works” and was uninhabitable following a burst water pipe in the loft.
Where damage to a property occurs unintentionally and is caused by a non-deliberate incident it is reasonable and usual practice for a landlord to make a claim on its insurance policy for the make good works. As the inspection identified that the cause of the burst pipe was an accident and had occurred suddenly, it was reasonable for the landlord to make an insurance claim for the works required to return the property to a habitable condition.
The evidence shows that it was not until 9 February 2023 that the landlord contacted its insurer to start the claim process to make good the property. This was a period of approximately 10 working days from the inspection. It is not clear why the landlord did not submit a claim to its insurer immediately following the inspection. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this would have been best practice in order to ensure that the claim was progressed as quickly as possible for the benefit of the resident.
The landlord’s records show the insurer approved the landlord’s claim to make good the property following the burst water pipe at the start of September 2023. This was a period of approximately 8 months. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is a significantly protracted period of time, we also acknowledge that the insurer is independent of the landlord and the landlord would therefore have had no control of the insurer’s decision making process and timescales.
During the period February 2023 to September 2023 the Ombudsman has not identified any evidence which demonstrates that the resident was provided with information or regular updates from the landlord regarding the insurance claim process. This is unsatisfactory. The lack of communication from the landlord will have left the resident in a position where she did not know if or when the make good works would start.
The evidence shows that on 8 September 2023 the landlord received confirmation from the insurer regarding the make good works that had been approved. The Ombudsman notes that the works were extensive and included replacements of ceilings, plastering, painting, new bathroom, new kitchen, electrics and gas works.
Following approval of the make good works by the insurer it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided the resident with a schedule of works, or similar. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord did this. This would have been appropriate in order to manage the resident’s expectations and to keep her informed regarding timescales. In not doing so the resident would have experienced uncertainty and distress, in addition to feeling that her situation was not being taken seriously.
The resident returned to the property in early spring 2024. This means that make good works took a period of approximately 7 months. While the Ombudsman notes that the works required to make the property habitable were extensive, we find this to be a significant length of time. The Ombudsman considers that the work could have been completed within a shorter timeframe and has not identified an explanation for the protracted timescale.
Where significant works are completed in a property the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to complete a post inspection in order to satisfy itself that works has been completed to a safe and satisfactory standard. There is no evidence the landlord did so in this case. This is unsatisfactory. As a result, the Ombudsman cannot confirm with confidence that all make good works were completed or had been completed to a satisfactory standard. This is because the resident reported issues and concerns on her return to the property.
Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its actions to make good the property following a burst water pipe. This is because:
1. The landlord failed to appropriately communicate with the resident regarding the make good works. This included the insurance process, schedule of works and anticipated timescales.
2. The works to make good the property, once approved, took a significantly protracted period of time to complete.
3. The landlord was unable to demonstrate that the make good works had been completed to a satisfactory standard.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary accommodation

The landlord has provided its contemporaneous records in relation to the resident’s temporary accommodation. The evidence shows that the resident was in temporary accommodation for a period of approximately 14 months; between the end of January 2023 and spring 2024. As the landlord identified that the property was not habitable following the burst pipe and the make good works could not be undertaken with the resident in situ, it was appropriate that the resident was placed in temporary accommodation.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable that the landlord’s offer of temporary accommodation on 25 January 2023 was a hotel. This is because the accommodation was needed on short notice. It was also in line with the landlord’s policy on temporary moves, which sets out that a hotel may be used where alternative accommodation is required for one of its residents.
The evidence shows that the resident’s temporary accommodation up until 22 June 2023 was in several different hotels. The evidence further shows that that the landlord’s administration and communication with the resident regarding the arrangements was unsatisfactory. This includes not extending hotel stays in a timely manner or communicating with the resident regarding on-going arrangements. For example, on 2 February 2023 and 27 March 2023 the resident chased the landlord to request information on her current hotel placements which were due to end within a few days. This was unacceptable and will have resulted in distress and uncertainty to the resident. It was inappropriate that the landlord was not able to offer the resident some reassurance in an already unsettling period of time.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it acknowledged that its handling and administration of the resident’s hotel accommodation had not been satisfactory and therefore awarded £50 compensation. While it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its service failure, in the Ombudsman’s opinion its offer was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case and the cumulative impact on the resident. Further it is unsatisfactory that, despite the landlord’s acknowledgement, its service did not improve, and the resident continued to experience poor communication thereafter.
The evidence documents that it was not until the end of April 2023 that the landlord sort to identify long term temporary accommodation for the resident which was not a hotel placement. The evidence further suggests the search was only initiated as a result of the councillor’s contact with the landlord’s CEO. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was unsatisfactory that the landlord failed to recognise at a much earlier time, and without intervention, that hotel accommodation on an ongoing basis would not be suitable in the resident’s case. This takes into account the information which was available to the landlord following the inspection on 26 January 2023, confirming that the make good works were significant, in addition to the resident’s disclosed disabilities.
On or around 14 June 2023 the landlord offered the resident a £1,500 good will gesture to assist with her move to property X. It was appropriate that the landlord made an offer of compensation as it had missed opportunities to arrange long term temporary accommodation at an earlier time which would have resulted in a better outcome for the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer was significant and within the range that the Ombudsman would consider for failings that have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.
While the landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary accommodation was not satisfactory, specifically that it delayed in arranging long term temporary accommodation, it has since identified and acknowledged its service failures and offered appropriate compensation (£1,500) in recognition of this. The landlord has therefore offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this part of the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s handling of arrangements to organise storage for the resident’s personal belongings

The evidence shows that the landlord agreed to cover the removal and storage costs for the resident’s personal belongings on 24 February 2023. While it was appropriate that the landlord agreed to this action, it could have approved the request at an earlier time. This takes into account that the landlord was aware of the need for the resident’s personal belongings to be removed from the property following the surveyor’s inspection and that the resident contacted it on multiple occasions to request assistance in this regard. This included on 31 January 2023, 1, 7, 8, 13 and 21 February 2023.
While the resident suggests that the landlord should have arranged removal and storage for her belongings on her behalf, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable that it did not do so. As they were the resident’s personal belongings that were being placed in storage it was important that she was satisfied with the arrangements to keep them safe for the duration of the containment. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord also explained on 15 March 2023 why it was unable to make the arrangements on her behalf. This was appropriate.
There was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of arrangements to organise storage for the resident’s personal belongings. This is because it delayed in approving the storage and removal costs.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of the costs she incurred as a result of the burst water pipe, including damage to her personal belongings

Residents are usually responsible for purchasing contents insurance to cover damage to their household goods and possessions caused by incidents such as an escape of water. A landlord will only become responsible for any damage caused by the incident where it fails to carry out its repairing obligation within a reasonable time. The Ombudsman understands that the resident did not have any contents insurance.
As the resident had no contents insurance and believed that the landlord was responsible for damage to her personal belongings as a result of the burst pipe, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have advised her to pursue an insurance claim through its own insurers. The Ombudsman cannot see that it did so, this is unsatisfactory. On receipt of a claim the landlord’s insurer could determine whether the landlord was liable for any damage caused to the resident’s personal belongings as a result of the burst water pipe and its handling of the make good works.
As part of her complaint the resident set out that despite providing the landlord with receipts for reimbursements of costs she was entitled to, it had not made all payments. In response to the complaint, the landlord did not fully address the resident’s concerns. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord addressed this matter following the conclusion of the complaint procedure either. In responding to the complaint, the landlord should have taken responsibility for showing that all money due had been paid. It is unsatisfactory that it failed to do so. From the evidence available the Ombudsman has not been able to verify if all monies due to the resident have been paid.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the contractor “obtained the pay as you go cards from [the resident] and topped them up as required” in relation to gas and electricity usage.
There was service failure by the landlord in respect of the resident’s request for reimbursement of the costs she incurred as a result of the burst water pipe. This is because the landlord:
1. Did not signpost the resident to its own insurer for damage to her personal belongings as a result of the burst water pipe.
2. Failed to demonstrate that all monies due to the resident for out of pocket expenses had been paid.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord provided its stage 1 response within its 10 working day service standard. This was appropriate. The landlord provided its stage 2 response outside of its 20 working day service standard, taking 26 working days. It is unsatisfactory that the landlord delayed in providing its response and did not offer an apology for the delay.
There were a number of shortcomings in terms of the contents of the landlord’s complaint responses. Firstly, the landlord failed to address all points raised within the resident’s escalation request within its stage 2 response. This included its communication regarding her temporary accommodation, its administration of her temporary accommodation, its report that she was “content” staying in a hotel and reimbursements for food allowances. This is unsatisfactory and contrary to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which sets out that a landlord must address all points raised in a complaint. Not responding to all issues suggests that the landlord was not fully focussed on resolving the issues subject of the complaint.
Secondly, and in addition to not responding to all aspects of the resident’s complaint, the landlord failed to properly address or respond to her concerns that the situation was significantly impacting on her health, and her Ramadan experience had been adversely impacted as a result of her living conditions. This would have been best practice. A landlord should carefully consider a resident’s reported circumstances or vulnerabilities when responding to a complaint to determine if any further support or assistance should be offered which it did not do in this case.
Lastly, within the landlord’s stage 2 response it included a paragraph which did not appear to relate to the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman is aware that this has happened in previous complaint responses by this landlord which have been referred to this Service. This is unsatisfactory and demonstrates a lack of care and attention to the individual circumstances of the resident’s own complaint. It will also lead to a lack of confidence from the resident that their concerns have been investigated as thoroughly as they should have been.
As part of the complaint the resident raised concerns that the landlord failed to include her representative in correspondence regarding the complaint. For example, on 25 May 2023 the resident said she “was extremely concerned that [her representative had] yet again been left out of the picture” and not been copied into correspondence. This is unsatisfactory. As the resident had provided the landlord with signed authority for the representative to act on her behalf it should have followed her instructions.
There was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling. This is because the landlord:
1. Did not apologise to the resident for the delay in its stage 2 response.
2. Did not respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint, including addressing her health concerns and the impact of the situation on her during Ramadan.
3. Included a statement in its stage 2 response which appeared not to relate to the resident’s complaint.
4. Did not included the resident’s representative in all correspondence.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of works to make good the resident’s property following a burst water pipe.
2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its arrangements to organise storage for the resident’s personal belongings.
3. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of the costs she incurred as a result of the burst water pipe, including damage to her personal belongings.
4. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of its handling of her temporary accommodation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves this part of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should provide a written apology to the resident in respect of the failings identified within this report.
The landlord should pay the resident a total of £2,850 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. This figure comprises the £1,650 which the landlord offered itself in consideration of the complaint, if it has not already been paid, in addition to an extra £1,200 comprising:
1. £800 in recognition of its response to make good the property following the burst water pipe, including delays, poor communication and protracted timescales which will have caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
2. £100 for the delay in approving the storage and removal costs for the resident’s personal belongings.
3. £50 for not signposting the resident to its insurer for damage to her personal belongings.
4. £50 for not demonstrating that all monies due to the resident had been reimbursed.
5. £200 in recognition of its poor complaint handling and the time, trouble and uncertainty the resident will have experienced as a result.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should arrange an inspection of the property to ensure all make good works have been completed and completed to a satisfactory standard. Within 2 weeks of the inspection the landlord should write to the resident to confirm the outcome of the inspection, providing a schedule of works for any repairs identified as necessary.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should provide the resident with details of its insurer so that she may submit a claim to it for damage to her personal belongings if she wishes to do so.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should contact the resident to request details of the out of pocket expenses she believes she has not been reimbursed for. On receipt of the information the landlord should undertake an exercise to ensure that all monies due to the resident have been reimbursed. The landlord should write to the resident with its findings within a further 2 weeks. Where money is due the landlord should ensure that this is paid to the resident promptly.