Woking Borough Council (202304004)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304004

Woking Borough Council

26 April 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her request for compensation for damage caused by leaks in her heating system.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident’s tenancy began in July 2020. The resident moved to her property through a mutual exchange, and laminate flooring was gifted to her by the previous resident as part of this process.
The resident and landlord have both noted the resident’s age in relation to this case. She is currently in her early 70s.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will attend emergency and out of hours repairs within four hours, and make them safe within a further four hours. It will complete urgent repairs within 24 hours, and routine repairs within 10 working days.
The landlord classifies uncontainable leaks as emergency repairs.
The landlord’s guide to repairs (for its residents) “strongly” recommends that residents take out “home insurance to insure… personal belongings, furnishings and decorations”.
The landlord’s complaints policy, put in place in November 2022, sets out that it will provide a stage 1 complaint response within ten working days of it being logged, and provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of it being acknowledged.

Summary of Events

In October 2022 the resident asked for a repair to her kitchen radiator. The landlord’s contractor attended on 19 October 2022, and in the process of the repair, its operative scalded themself and left to go to hospital. The resident has explained that the contractor had caused a leak, which had damaged her laminate flooring by the time another operative attended roughly three hours later.
The resident later told the landlord that the contractor said it would drop off a dehumidifier and heaters, but she had to chase this.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 October 2022, and asked it for compensation for the damaged flooring. The landlord noted that its contractor had by then attended four times in relation to the radiator repair.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 December 2022. She advised it that she had spoken with its contractor, and its supervisor had visited her home on 24 November 2022. She told the landlord the supervisor had agreed that the contractor was liable for the damage to the flooring, which the resident described as “a trip hazard”, having “lifted and bubbled”. She also explained that about a week after the first repair to the radiator, she had adjusted the thermostat and water “blew in her face”, and flooded her home for two hours until it was made safe by an emergency plumber. The resident explained she had not heard anything further from the contractor since its visit in November, and asked the landlord to confirm how the matter of the damaged flooring could be “moved on and dealt with”.
The landlord appears to have logged a stage 1 complaint at this point.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 December 2022 to chase an update. She told it that she had been “promised verbally that the flooring would be replaced by Christmas”. The resident reiterated the “danger” that the flooring presented, and asked it to replace a toy box which had also been damaged.
The landlord contacted the resident on 2 February 2023, and apologised for the delay in issuing its stage 1 complaint response (which it told her had been due on 2 January 2023). It advised her it was waiting for “further information” from its contractor.
On 27 February 2023 the resident asked the landlord to take the complaint “to the next stage”, as it had not provided an update.
The landlord’s contractor subsequently offered the resident £150 compensation. On 1 March 2023 she told it she did not accept the offer, and reiterated that her desired resolution was for it to replace the laminate flooring.
The landlord’s records show that its contractor told it in the evening of 1 March 2023 that it disputed that it had caused the damage to the resident’s flooring, instead identifying that it had been caused by a faulty part. The contractor explained that it expected residents to have insurance in place “for such eventualities”, and said it would “reach out” to the resident, and “would be willing to consider” what the resident’s insurance excess was, if it exceeded its offered “gesture of goodwill” (understood to mean that it would consider covering the cost of an excess if the resident submitted an insurance claim through her home insurance).
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response letter to the resident on 3 March 2023. It:
1. Apologised for the “late reply” to her complaint, and confirmed this was “due to awaiting information” from its contractor;
2. Included the text of the resident’s complaint;
3. Confirmed its understanding of the timeline of her complaint. The resident had reported that two of her radiators were not working on 12 October 2022. Its contractor had attended on 19 October 2022, and the engineer had to go to hospital “due to a scalding”. Its contractor had attended later that day to repair the radiators;
4. Said the resident had “worried” about the engineer’s burns, and the contractor had provided her with an update on their injury;
5. Explained that the contractor had attended on 20 October 2022 to repair the communal boiler, and on 23 October 2022 it returned to carry out a further repair to the resident’s radiators. It identified that one of the radiators was missing an olive (used to create a seal), which indicated that the previous repair “was not done properly”;
6. Said the contractor had “cleaned up as much as possible”, and left the resident with temporary heaters and “subsequently” a dehumidifier;
7. Advised that the contractor had inspected the resident’s property to “ensure” it was dry on 6 February 2023, and it apologised for not doing this sooner. Its supervisor would “make his recommendations on how [the contractor could] make good any water damage”;
8. Advised that the member of staff who had been managing the resident’s case no longer worked for the contractor, and the contractor “accept[ed] that this delay is a result of poor management”;
9. Confirmed that it fully upheld the resident’s complaint, and advised her of how to escalate it to stage 2 if she remained dissatisfied.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response letter to the resident on 2 May 2023. It:
1. Summarised its understanding of the resident’s complaint and apologised for the “delay in responding” to it;
2. Recognised that the resident felt she had been “left stuck in the middle” of the landlord and the contractor, “with neither party taking responsibility for the alleged damage”. It said this was not its “intention”;
3. Explained that its contractor had “conducted a full investigation and found no evidence to suggest that the leak was caused by negligence”;
4. Acknowledged that it would have been “good practice” for the contractor to have identified the “under-sized olive” during the repair works;
5. Explained that the contractor’s manager had visited the resident to apologise “in person”, and the contractor had offered £150 compensation “towards the excess” of her “household insurance”, and said that “this was articulated as being negotiable should your excess be higher”;
6. Advised that a “full and final gesture of goodwill” of £250 had been “authorised” by its contractor, and asked the resident to confirm in writing if she accepted the offer;
7. Apologised for “any undue distress and inconvenience” the repair had caused;
8. Signposted the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
On 10 May 2023 the resident told the landlord she had not received a hard copy of its stage 2 response letter, and advised it that she did not accept the offer of compensation from its contractor.
The Ombudsman has been provided with photos of the laminate flooring, and we have viewed these as part of our investigation.

Assessment and findings

We expect landlords to issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged, and the landlord’s policy reflects this.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued to the resident 52 working days after it logged her complaint, which was itself 36 working days after she asked it for compensation. This meant the resident waited over four months for a formal response to her written request for compensation, which is an unreasonable length of time to have left her in an uncertain position regarding the replacement of her flooring. The landlord should have considered offering compensation to the resident for this delay.
The main issue at dispute in this case is who is liable (responsible) for the cost of replacing the damaged flooring. The resident considers that the landlord is liable, as the damage was caused after its contractor had attended to carry out a repair on its behalf. The landlord asked its contractor to decide whether the contractor itself was liable for the damage and associated compensation due to any mistakes that might have been made during the repairs visits, and decided that any arrangements made regarding compensation should be fulfilled by the contractor directly. The contractor decided that the resident herself was liable for any costs resulting from the damage that had occurred, and argued that the cause of the leak was a faulty part already in place and that could have failed at any time.
The evidence provided by the landlord showed that it relied too heavily on its contractor to make a decision regarding the damage that had been caused. The resident at one point described feeling “stuck in the middle” of the two organisations. Ultimately, the resident’s tenancy is with the landlord, and it was responsible for ensuring its obligations to her were met in a satisfactory way.
We were concerned to note that the contractor at one point advised the landlord that “damage to properties is sadly part and parcel of reactive repairs and residents should have appropriate insurance for such eventualities”. The landlord should ensure that it challenges this statement if it has not already, as this is not a reasonable approach to issues residents may encounter due to repairs carried out on the landlord’s behalf, and calls into question the contractor’s commitment to delivering an appropriately careful service.
The resident has explained to us that she did not wish to claim for the damage through her home insurance, as she believed it to be a direct result of the repair the contractor carried out. The contractor’s offer of compensation was not clearly set out to the resident, but appeared at times to be contingent on her first making a claim. This was not a reasonable position for the landlord to accept and to confirm through its complaints process.
The contractor advised the landlord that it had identified a faulty radiator olive that was too small as the underlying cause of the leak, and did accept that it had not identified this as quickly as it should have. The contractor has made two offers to pay a goodwill gesture to the resident, which suggests that it recognises it had some part in the damage that was caused to her belongings. However, it has repeatedly declined to accept responsibility in its communications with the resident and the landlord, and has expected the bulk of the cost of replacing the flooring to fall to the resident to fund.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have treated the resident’s request for compensation or replacement flooring at the end of October 2022 to be a claim to be handled through its own public liability insurance policy. It could then have decided whether to pursue compensation or other contract management sanctions with its contractor, should it be found to be responsible for any of the damage.
This would have significantly reduced the time and trouble caused to the resident, and enabled her request to be addressed in a clearer, fairer, and overall more satisfactory way.
Once it received the complaint from the resident, the landlord did not make appropriate use of the process to resolve the situation, and by asking its contractor to contact the resident it missed opportunities to ensure that the relevant discussions about putting things right were recorded. This has meant it has not been possible to confirm the veracity of the resident’s reports that the contractor offered to replace her flooring. The landlord should have addressed this discrepancy in its complaint responses to the resident, as it was at the core of her complaint.
The landlord recognised in its stage 2 response that the contractor could have delivered a better service to the resident, but did not identify any steps it would take to ensure this learning was implemented.
The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns that the flooring represented a trip risk, and did not record having assessed the specific impact of the damage to her given her circumstances, even after she raised this. It could not therefore offer reassurance that it had taken appropriate measures to identify and mitigate any potential risks.
Taking the delays, inappropriate delegation of responsibility to its contractor, and failure to consider a liability claim from the resident, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damage caused by leaks in her heating system.

Reasons

The landlord insisted the resident claim through her own home insurance, where it was clear that she was making a claim based on her belief that the damage had been caused by the actions of its contractor. It should have been aware that the resident would likely have been directed back to it should she have presented this claim to her insurers.
The resident could have been saved significant time and trouble if it had directed the resident to submit an insurance claim through its own liability policy in October 2022.
The landlord did not make appropriate use of its complaints process to identify an appropriate resolution, and to ensure that learning was implemented to prevent a recurrence in future.
The landlord delegated responsibility for communication to its contractor, and appeared to be overly reliant on it to investigate and inform the decisions. This represented a poor approach to complaint handling on the part of the landlord.
The landlord took far too long to issue its stage 1 complaint response. It then did not clearly explain why it had identified £250 as being an appropriate level of compensation in its stage 2 response.
The landlord did not take into account or address the resident’s concerns that the flooring was dangerous.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failings in the handling of her request for compensation, and must provide us with a copy once completed.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must directly pay the resident £100 for the effect of its delays in responding to her request for compensation and subsequent complaint to the same effect. It should ensure that it has paid her the £250 it had previously offered, and confirm to us when the total of £350 compensation has been paid to the resident.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, and taking into account the findings of our investigation, the landlord should consider whether it would be reasonable to offer to replace (or pay for the replacement of) the resident’s damaged flooring, and to compensate her for the damaged toy box. It must advise the resident of its decision within this period. It must confirm to us when this is complete, and explain its decision-making process to us.
Within five weeks of the date of this report, and if still relevant after it has considered using its discretion to compensate the resident, the landlord must advise the resident of how to submit a public liability claim to its insurers for the damage. It should appoint a point of contact who will keep her updated of progress until the claim is resolved. It must confirm to us the action it has taken in relation to this order.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord review whether it should provide further feedback or take performance management steps with its contractor, given the findings of this investigation.
We recommend the landlord consider whether it should provide further guidance for its relevant staff, to ensure they understand the circumstances in which they should direct residents to submit a claim through its insurance policy.