Hounslow Council (202008895)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008895

Hounslow Council

15 April 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

The resident has complained about:
1. The landlord’s handling of her reports of leaks in the bathroom and the kitchen of the property, and the level of compensation offered to her.
2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred (in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme). As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
In accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme this investigation has not considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks prior to November 2019, 6 months before the formal complaint of May 2019. However, the earlier reports have been mentioned to provide the background context to the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident’s property is a flat in a high-rise block. Directly above her flat is a flat owned by a leaseholder.
On 6 March 2019 there was a leak to the resident’s property. The landlord’s contractor on inspecting the leaseholder’s property above ascertained that a bathroom tap was leaking, and the leaseholder agreed to carry out the repair the following day. There is no evidence that the landlord subsequently confirmed that the leaseholder carried out the works, though.
On 14 May 2020 the resident reported a leak in her bathroom to the landlord and advised that a plumber sent by the leaseholder of the above property had advised her that it was not coming from that property. The landlord’s contractor according to the landlord’s repair records attended both properties and found a leak on a pipe under the concrete floor which may have corroded over time. The contractor noted that it would be a “very big job to replace all of the pipework” and was unsure about which party should take responsibility, therefore arranged for a further inspection.
On 20 May 2020 the resident emailed the landlord advising that she wanted to make a complaint. She reiterated that the leaseholder had advised her that the leak had come from a pipe in the wall and was therefore the landlord’s responsibility. The resident requested that the landlord make good a water stain and inspect to ascertain the cause and effect of the leak, including whether her light fittings were safe. The landlord advised it would deal with her email as a service request. It stated that it would raise a job order for remedial works, assess what works needed to be completed and the urgency, and advise on the timeframe taking into account changes in working practices caused by the coronavirus pandemic. On 26 May 2020 the resident emailed the landlord, after office hours, stating that she wanted the matter investigated as a formal complaint as there had been a delay in resolving the matter permanently for several years. The landlord subsequently registered a complaint.
In the interim the landlord inspected on 22 May 2020 and identified a potential slight leak on a heating riser, so arranged for its heating contractor to inspect and resolve the matter if it could.
On 15 June 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it had made safe the leak in the flat above and that it wanted to inspect the damage in her property. It subsequently agreed a date of 22 June 2020.
On 16 June 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint by post. The landlord noted that there had been leaks to the resident’s property on 25 June 2017, April 2016, 5 October 2017, 21 September 2018, 6 March 2019, 6 January 2020 and 14 May 2020. The landlord noted that there had been several reports of leaks although there were minimal notes to explain the cause of the leaks until 2019. The landlord also advised that it could not locate communication regarding ongoing issues with the leak until 14 May 2020.
The landlord noted that the leak in March 2019 was from the flat above which was a leasehold property, therefore the leaseholder had responsibility to repair the leak. The landlord accepted that the plumber in attendance should have given clear notification and the leaseholder should have been contacted and completion of the repair followed up. The landlord stated that it could not determine whether the current leak arose from the same issue as the leak of March 2019; however, it accepted that the correct procedure should have been followed in 2019, therefore it was upholding the complaint.
The landlord noted that its contractor had made safe the leak and it had emailed the resident asking her to arrange an inspection to identify necessary remedial works. The landlord advised the resident on 17 June 2020 in an email that the Stage 1 complaint response had been posted the previous day.
On 24 and 25 June 2020 the landlord installed a new heating system in resident’s flat. On Saturday 27 June 2020 the resident phoned the landlord’s Out of Hours repairs service to report a leak in her kitchen which she believed may have been related to the recent removal of her water heater. The resident has stated that she was advised that a contractor would come within 24 hours but when no-one attended within this timeframe her daughter called the following day and the call handler sent an email. It is understood no contractor attended and that the resident ultimately carried out the repair herself.
On 2 July 2020, the landlord logged a Stage 2 complaint after the resident had emailed on 30 June 2020. The resident had complained that there had been two inspections but no works had been arranged; there had been a missed inspection appointment on 22 June 2020; no compensation had been offered; she had not been provided the public liability claim details as requested on 20 May 2020; there was a delay in receiving the Stage 1 response; she would like to know the work carried out in the flat above and she had reported a leak under the kitchen sink on 27 June 2020 after the installation of the new heating system but no-one had attended within 24 hours as she was advised.
On 2 July 2020 the landlord’s contractor apologised for the missed appointment of 22 June 2020 which it attributed to a miscommunication, and subsequently rearranged for 7 July 2020. At the appointment the landlord agreed that there should be patch works and electrical check.
The resident reported a new leak on 9 July 2020 coming through the riser cupboard and light fittings into the bathroom. The landlord’s heating contractor attended on an emergency basis and resolved the leak which came from the heating pipes in a property several floors higher. An electrician also checked the resident’s fuse box and bathroom light. The landlord then arranged to inspect the resident’s property on 14 July 2020 for new damage caused by the leak of 9 July 2020. It noted water marks had been left and agreed for redecoration works to be carried out.
On 15 July 2020 the resident reported a leak from the old boiler cupboard which the landlord responded to as an emergency. According to an update later emailed to the resident, the landlord’s plumber had found water on the heating pipes in the riser and the heating contactor attended and found a leak from a blocked stack. Subsequently, the landlord’s drainage contractor attended and cleared a blockage on the drainpipes, which had been caused by residents pouring oil/fat down the sink.
On 20 July 2020, the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to the complaint. The landlord accepted that there was a delay in carrying out repairs and as redress it had asked the contractor to redecorate another room, outside the original specification. The landlord provided details of how an insurance claim could be made against it and stated that it had arranged for an electrician to check electrical circuits and light fittings during the remedial works.
The landlord advised that the source of the leak was a concealed pipe which had been repaired, but it could not guarantee that there would not be further leaks as the flat was in a high-rise block and leaks could occur in other flats which may affect the resident’s property. In response to the complaint that the resident did not receive the Stage 1 response within the agreed timescale, the landlord noted that it acknowledged the complaint on the day that it was received, on 27 May 2020, advising that it would respond by 17 June 2020. The response was posted on 16 June 2020, within the agreed timescale, but sent 2nd class so the earliest it would arrive would be 18 June 2020. It advised there was no service failure but accepted that the response could have been emailed.
With regards to a complaint about its handling of a leak in the kitchen and space left by the removal of the old water heater, the landlord stated that it received a report about this on 27 June 2020, but when it called back, there was no answer. As it was not confirmed that someone was in attendance it did not send an operative, and it received no further calls that weekend. The landlord further stated that service pipes were left exposed during the installation process to allow for testing, and once all units had been installed in the block, new access panels would be fitted to conceal the pipework. The landlord confirmed that the resident had completed its complaints procedure.

After the Complaints Procedure

The landlord’s repair records indicate that it attended the resident’s property on 30 July 2020 to mould wash and paint the bathroom and make good the hallway cupboard but did not gain access. It rearranged the works for 11 August 2020 and completed the works on this date. An electrician confirmed that all fittings were safe on 24 August 2020.
On 24 August 2020, the resident referred her complaint to this Service stating that the Stage 2 reply should have upheld her complaints about the late receipt of the Stage 1 response and the leak in the kitchen and space left by the removal of the old water heater. She also complained that the landlord refused compensation and did not respond to her request for a RTB discount. She stated that the landlord’s offer to redecorate 1 room was inadequate and did not include remedial works to the bathroom.
On 16 October 2020 the resident reported a leak in the bathroom cupboard and the landlord’s repair records indicate that it inspected several flats to diagnose the source, a blocked basin tap.
According to the correspondence on the case, on or around 29 October 2020 there was another leak to the resident’s property causing a stain on the bathroom wall and water marks in the toilet. The resident advised the landlord that the leaseholder of the flat above told her that the issue may be the responsibility of the landlord. The landlord inspected on 2 November 2020 noting damage to plaster in the bathroom and toilet. The landlord also sought to inspect both properties although this was subject to the leaseholder of the flat above agreeing access. After the leaseholder confirmed access, an appointment was made for 11 November 2020.
On 11 November 2020 the landlord’s plumber inspected the resident’s property and identified the replacement of three stacks to remedy the leak. On 18 November 2020 it returned to carry out works to the resident’s property. The resident queried why the works carried out that summer had not prevented another leak with the landlord responding that the latest leak appeared to come from a new source, the stack.
On 20 November 2020 the resident advised the landlord that the works completed still did not resolve the issue, as there was a puddle on the toilet floor where the pipes were, further damage to the walls in that area and a copper pipe in the riser cupboard was wet. The resident also advised of a stain on the bathroom ceiling and a smell in the bathroom. The landlord arranged an inspection for 26 November 2011 and subsequently advised the tenant that remedial works to the bathroom could begin after 2 weeks when residual water should had dried out.
In response to the landlord asking whether the leak had stopped and dried out so that it could carry out remedial works, on 14 December 2020 the resident advised that the bathroom appeared dry with no water marks or wet patches. The landlord subsequently arranged for plastering works to be completed on 9 February 2021 then decorative works on 16 February 2021. The landlord also agreed for an electrician to check and repair if necessary electrical circuits and light fittings on the latter date. The landlord’s repair records confirm all works were completed.

Assessment and findings

Once made aware of a leak, the landlord was required to make safe and carry out the works it was responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case. In this case, the landlord has 4 repair categories:
1. Emergency (2-hour response to make safe and prevent danger)
2. Priority One (complete within 24 hrs)
3. Priority Two Urgent (3 working days)
4. Priority Three Routine (20 working days).
Emergency repairs include “a water leak that cannot be contained”. Priority two repairs include minor leaks and blocked drains and pipes”. A leak occurring in the first instance does not in itself constitute a service failure by the landlord when the leak is unforeseen; rather, it is the landlord’s response once being made aware of a leak that needs to be considered. The landlord is also not responsible carrying out repairs to leaks that occurred within the demise of the upstairs leaseholder’s property.
The leak of March 2019 fell to the leaseholder upstairs to repair and having identified the cause of the leak it was appropriate that the landlord asked the leaseholder to arrange a repair. However, as the landlord accepted in the Stage 1 response, it failed to confirm that the repair was completed. This was required as even though the repair was the leaseholder’s responsibility, the leak impacted the resident. Moreover, the landlord had a wider responsibility to ensure the structure and fabric of the building remained in good condition and an unrepaired leak, even if not immediately visible, can cause significant damage over time.
The Stage 1 response confirmed that the leak of 6 January 2020 again came from the flat above with water coming through the bedroom light ceiling, and therefore the responsibility of the leaseholder to resolve. However, again there is no evidence that the landlord satisfied itself that the leaseholder carried out the repair.
The landlord’s repair records confirm that a plumber attended to the leak of 14 May 2020 that day, within the timeframe for Priority One repairs, and sought to identify the cause. The plumber arranged for a further inspection on 22 May 2020 which in turn led to another inspection by the landlord’s heating and hot water contractor. This was reasonable as it is not always possible for an issue to be identified and resolved at first inspection; sometimes there needs to be further investigation of the issues, particularly in the cases of leaks which can be intermittent, arise from different sources, not always be straightforward to trace and change its course. It is therefore reasonable that in some circumstances, issues will take longer to resolve and inevitably create a degree of inconvenience. This is recognised by the landlord’s Repairs Policy which states that “any reported repairs not capable of being clearly identified from the details initially supplied may be referred for investigation. These repairs will require pre-inspections and an appointment will be offered for this.”
It is not clear when the landlord’s heating and contractor attended but the landlord’s email of 15 June 2020 confirms the leak had been by then made safe. The landlord agreed to carry out remedial works, first inspecting the resident’s flat on 7 July 2020 for damage then carrying out identified works on 11 August 2020. Together with the electrical testing that was carried out, the landlord thereby took steps to ensure that the resident’s property remained in good repair and that she was in the position she was in before the leak.
In the interim, there were two further leaks on 9 July 2020 and 15 July 2020. Regarding the handling of these two leaks, the landlord responded within the target timeframe of 24 hours and resolved the leaks therefore meeting its repair responsibility. It also informed the resident of the causes of the leak and the action taken, therefore taking steps to reassure her that it had taken the action it considered necessary to resolve the leaks experienced at that time.
After the complaints procedure there were further leaks on 16 October 2020 and on or around 29 October 2020. The landlord again responded to the reports of both leaks in line with its repair obligation, attending to ascertain the cause of the leaks and carrying out repairs. It also carried out further remedial and decorative works that were required in the bathroom after the leaks. It therefore took the necessary steps to ensure that, despite the occurrence of further leaks, the resident’s property continued to remain in a good state of repair.
Given the number of leaks, it is understandable that resident wanted reassurance that there would be no further leaks. However, landlords have a responsibility to manage the expectations of residents. Landlords cannot state with absolute certainty that leaks will never take place, in particular because there are many reasons for a leak and factors affecting how a leak will manifest itself, especially in high rise blocks. Indeed, in this case, it would appear that there were different causes for the leaks. The landlord also cannot control the actions of other residents or predict the wear and tear or other disrepair to parts, which may be causal factors to a leak. Nonetheless, the landlord may wish to consider the feasibility of surveying the building for leaks and water ingress and carrying out any works identified to reduce the likelihood of leaks occurring.
Whilst the landlord has responded to the resident’s reports of leaks and carried out works when necessary, it accepted that, taken altogether, it delayed in carrying out repairs. As redress it offered to redecorate an extra room. The landlord does not have a Compensation Policy and has advised this Service that it is its practice to compensate via offering additional free of charge repair work when accepting fault for extended repair delays. Insofar as it is the resident’s responsibility to decorate her property the landlord’s offer was potentially to her benefit and therefore could provide redress. In this case the landlord’s offer was reasonable as there were no significant failings in its handling of the reports of leaks other than not following up on the leaseholder repairs; however, the offer recognised that the resident was distressed and inconvenienced by the leaks and the time taken to complete inspections and repairs.
However, more generally, the landlord’s practice to only complete works for extended repair delays fetters the discretion it has to provide redress. This is because the cost of works is not necessarily commensurate with the service failure. It is also the case that a resident may not want or prefer redecoration works when other forms of redress are possible.
Complaints can be resolved in a number of ways. A landlord’s policy shall require that any remedy offered reflects the extent of any and all service failures, and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. These shall include:
1. acknowledging where things have gone wrong.
2. providing an explanation, assistance or reasons.
3. apologising.
4. taking action if there has been a delay.
5. reconsidering or changing a decision.
6. amending a record.
7. providing a financial remedy.
8. changing policies, procedures or practices.
However, there were instances where the landlord failed to attend to appointments. It accepted that it did not attend an appointment of 22 June 2020. The reason given was “miscommunication” which is an error on the part of the landlord and a service failure. Furthermore, the resident reported an emergency leak in her kitchen on 27 June 2020. The landlord advised that it did not attend because a phone call was not answered; however, the landlord’s obligation to attend within 24 hours was not dependent on a return phone call being answered and, in any event, there is no evidence that further calls were made to confirm access. The resident also according to her complaint stated that she was advised, and therefore had a reasonable expectation, that a contractor would attend within 24 hours. The resident also stated that she pursued the emergency repair on 28 June 2020, but the landlord has no record of the phone call. This Service cannot confirm that the further call took place. Regardless, the landlord having taken the emergency call of 27 June 2020 was required to attend or at least make further efforts to check on the repair. That it did not do so constituted a service failure.
Regarding missed appointments, the policy states that “it is not our policy to compensate tenants for missed appointments”. A blanket policy like this does not allow for the particular circumstances of a missed appointment to be taken into account and for proportionate redress to be offered accordingly. The landlord did not offer compensation specifically for the two missed appointments therefore did not take steps to satisfactorily resolve all aspects of the complaint.
Turing to the complaints handling the landlord has a 2 stage internal complaints procedure. The Complaints Procedure states that “On receipt of a complaint, the Customer Relations Team will refer it to the relevant service area for investigation and response within agreed timescales, which for Stage 1 complaints is 15 working days.”
The resident complained that the landlord’s Stage 1 response was late. The complaint was registered on 27 May 2020 when the landlord received it and the response was sent 14 working days later, on 16 May 2020, within the timeframe for sending Stage 1 responses. As the response was sent by post the resident did not receive the response within 15 working days but the landlord emailed her on 16 May 2020 to notify her that the response had been posted, thereby managing her expectations on when she was likely to receive the response.
The resident initially emailed the landlord on 20 May 2020 stating she wanted to make a formal complaint. The email focused on the completion of a repair to the leak of 14 May 2020 and did not cite previous reports made to the landlord. Therefore, it was not unreasonable that the landlord understood the email to be a request for a service. However, when the resident confirmed that she wished to make a formal complaint the landlord acted appropriately in registering a complaint.
The Complaints Procedure states that at Stage 2, “The relevant service area will carry out a review of the complaint at Stage 2 of the process and the Director will send a response detailing the findings and the outcome within 20 working days.” The Stage 2 response of 20 July 2020 was sent within 20 working days of the escalated complaint of 30 June 2020 and therefore within the timeframe set out in the procedure.
The resident as resolution to her complaint asked whether a discount could be applied to her RTB application. The discount must be calculated in accordance with the legislation on RTB in conjunction with the type of property and length of the tenancy. The landlord has no right to change the calculation. The landlord did not respond explicitly to the resident’s request for a RTB discount; however, the lack of an explicit response was a shortcoming in its complaint response, not a service failure, as it had no bearing on the overall outcome of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in the bathroom and the kitchen of the property, and the level of compensation offered to her by.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord had responded to the leaks reported to it in line with its repair obligation, attending to ascertain the cause of the leaks and carrying out repairs. It also carried out further remedial and decorative works in the resident’s property, and electrical tests. This has ensured that the resident’s property remains in a good state of repair and that she is in the position she was in had the leaks not occurred. It has also offered redress for delays by way of redecorating an extra room which was reasonable, and which recognised that the resident was distressed and inconvenienced by the leaks and the time taken to complete inspections and repairs.
However, there were two missed appointments that the landlord did not offer compensation specifically for. It therefore did not take steps to satisfactorily resolve all aspects of the complaint.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with the timeframe set out in its Complaints Procedure.

Orders

The landlord pays the resident £40 compensation for the inconvenience caused by two missed appointments.
If the redecoration of a room outside the specification of works has not completed, the landlord confirms this offer to the resident.

Recommendations

The landlord drafts a Compensation Policy taking into account the points made in paragraph 40 of this report.
The landlord considers the feasibility of surveying the building for leaks and water ingress and carrying out any works identified to reduce the likelihood of leaks occurring.
Where the landlord is aware that a leaseholder should carry out a repair to prevent a leak, the landlord takes steps to satisfy itself that the repair has been carried out and maintains a record of the action taken.