The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Newham Council (202003618)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003618

Newham Council

7 May 2021


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The level of compensation offered following the resident’s Public Liability Contents’ claim to the landlord’s insurer.
    2. The landlord’s handling of a repair to a leak reported in 2019 which affected the resident’s property.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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.
  2. Following a leak into the property in June 2019, the resident made a claim to the landlord’s insurers in respect to the damage caused to the property and their possessions. The resident was dissatisfied with the level of compensation subsequently offered by landlord’s insurer and contacted the Ombudsman about this in July 2020.
  3. Paragraph 4 of the Scheme states that all bodies, other than Local Housing Authorities, which are, or at any time have been, social landlords must be members of the Scheme (which is the only scheme currently approved by the Secretary of State) in respect of all their housing activities. Further, Paragraph 5 of the Scheme states that Local Housing Authorities in England which are registered providers of social housing are social landlords and must be members of the 5 Scheme in connection with their housing activities in so far as they relate to the provision or management of social housing. In addition, those Local Housing Authorities must be members of the Scheme in connection with the management of dwellings which they own and let on a long lease.
  4. As the complaint is about the outcome of the insurance claim, this concerns a decision made by an organisation that it not a member of the Scheme. Therefore, after carefully considering all the evidence, on this basis and in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The level of compensation offered following the resident’s Public Liability Contents’ claim to the landlord’s insurer.
  5. Furthermore, it is noted that the resident has provided documentation to the Ombudsman regarding a leak into the property which happened in May 2015.
  6. Paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  7. There is no evidence of a complaint about the landlord’s handling of a leak in 2015 being escalated through its complaint’s procedure. Therefore, after carefully considering all the evidence and in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, this aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a one-bedroom second floor flat of multi-story building. 

Summary of events

  1. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that it was first made aware of the leak on 12 June 2019 when it raised an out of hours response after it received the leak report. The landlord has said that it was reported that water was leaking into the flat below however it does not have any notes detailing what was done in response.
  2. On 18 June 2019, the landlord received a request from the London Fire Brigade to investigate water penetration into the property from the third and fourth floor flat(s) above the property. The landlord has told the Ombudsman that it does not have any further information about this request. However, the landlord has confirmed that it visited the building on 18 June 2019 and fixed the leak. The source of the leak was a flat above the resident, which was occupied by one of the landlord’s tenants.
  3. The resident subsequently made a claim to the landlord’s insurers in respect of damage caused to their property and possessions.
  4. The landlord’s Technical Team carried out an inspection of the damage at the property in July 2019. The landlord’s notes of the visit state: “No works required, long crack on ceiling which was due to leak above, leaseholder to contact insurance to have repairs carried out crack also along bedroom ceiling”. 
  5. On 27 September 2019, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about her request for compensation via the insurance claim. She said the flood had happened on 17 June 2019 and caused “huge problems” in the property. The resident stated that she submitted the necessary compensation forms to the landlord and its insurers concerning the incident and still nothing had been addressed concerning her claim. The resident requested that compensation was provided so she could address the problem of damp and mould in the property caused by flooding. She said if she did not receive a response within 14 days, she would refer it to the insurance ombudsman for investigation due to the length of time it had taken the landlord and its insurers to settle the claim.
  6. The landlord responded to the complaint on 18 October 2019 stating it had contacted its Insurance team. It advised the Insurance team had confirmed that they had now received a Public liability Contents claim from the resident which had been set up and they were dealing with this. However, this was only received at the end of September 2019 and it would be passed to its insurance handlers who would be in contact in due course. It also advised that as a leaseholder, this claim would not be handled by the landlord and remained with the Insurers and the resident should contact them directly if she had any concerns about delays. It provided contact details.
  7. On 13 July 2020, the landlord’s Insurance handlers wrote to the resident offering £3000 in full and final settlement of the claim. It stated it noted that the resident had been unable to supply purchase receipts for the damaged items but that she had supplied photographs and instruction manuals. It advised that it required the resident’s written acceptance to process the settlement cheque.
  8. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 27 July 2020 to advise she was unhappy with the amount offered by the landlord’s insurers as it did not cover the cost of the damage caused to the ceilings and bath, and also to personal belongings, some of which were sentimental and irreplaceable. She said she was also unhappy about the damp caused by the flood and delays by the landlord.
  9. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 11 September 2020. It acknowledged that its Insurance team made an offer to her in July 2020 and that she had contacted the Ombudsman to challenge the offer. It advised that unfortunately, it could not intervene in this matter and advised her to seek legal advice if she disputed the level of compensation. It advised that in regards to her concerns about damp, if this matter had not already been addressed by the offer made by its insurers, she could report it to its Housing Repairs Team who would advise whether or not a visit could be arranged, to inspect the property.
  10. On 11 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord asking it to call her in relation to her complaint made to the Ombudsman.
  11. In a further response dated 11 September 2020, the landlord said it was sorry to hear the resident was unhappy with the response to her complaint but this was the advice received from its Insurance team. They advised they could not call her as they did not have access to a work phone but advised the resident to refer the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman if she wished to pursue the complaint. The landlord also asked her to confirm availability for an inspection on 23 September 2020 in respect to any repairs needed in her property.
  12. In her reply of the same date, the resident said that the landlord and its housing repair team had previously inspected the damage in 2019 when the incident happened and were shocked at the damage. The resident stated she did not want another visit as their workmanship was “extremely negligent” and “shoddy”.
  13. On 18 January 2021, the Ombudsman advised the landlord that it intended to formally investigate the complaint raised regarding its handling of the repair to the leak reported in 2019.
  14. Between 11 February 2021 and 8 March 2021, the parties, via the Ombudsman, attempted to negotiate a resolution to the resident’s complaint via mediation. The landlord offered:
    1. a £400 payment for the delay and not dealing with the repairs on time;
    2. to arrange a Zoom meeting with the resident to discuss and come to a resolution about the outstanding repairs.
  15. The resident advised she wished to decline the landlord’s offers.

Policies and Procedures.

  1. The resident’s lease states that the lessee is responsible for repairs to the interior of the premises including all of the landlord’s fixtures and fittings therein including interior plasterwork and tiling.
  2. The landlord’s Emergency out-of-hours repairs policy states that the types of problems that should be reported as emergency repairs are: dangerous electrical faults; heating failures for sick or elderly residents; major water leaks. It states it expects to get to the fault within four hours to make it safe. Further, that it will tell the repairs operation centre what work it has done and then it will arrange to do any more work that needs doing at a later date during usual working hours.
  3. In respect to leaseholder claims, it is stated on the landlord’s website under ‘Claims for housing incidents’ that its insurers provide the buildings insurance for all its leaseholders and that it arranges the insurance which the leaseholder is charged for in the service charge.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a repair to a leak reported in 2019 which affected the resident’s property

  1. The landlord’s Emergency out-of-hours repairs policy states it will fix emergency repairs within four hours.
  2. The source of the leak, first reported to the landlord on 12 June 2019, was a flat above the property. The landlord has told the Ombudsman that the report of 12 June 2019 advised that water was leaking into the flat below and that it raised an ‘out of hours’ response but it does not have any notes regarding the order it raised following the report.  The landlord has confirmed that the leak was fixed on 18 June 2019.
  3. It is unclear from the available evidence why it took the landlord a further six days, from when it was first reported by a third party on 12 June 2019, until 18 June 2019, to fix the leak.
  4. Due to the absence of notes/repair records held by the landlord in relation to the order it raised following the out-of-hours leak report of 12 June 2019, it is unclear if the leak constituted a “major water leak” or if the landlord classified the report as an emergency repair requiring repair within four hours in accordance with its repair policy. The landlord’s repair policy does not set out any timescales for non-emergency repairs. However, it is clear a water leak is urgent and it is evident that the landlord delayed in stopping the leak reported on 12 June 2019. Furthermore, it is also evident that the landlord’s records kept in relation to the reported incident, were incomplete.
  5. The resident raised the issue of delay by the landlord in her complaint dated 27 July 2020 made via the Ombudsman. The landlord did not acknowledge this aspect of the complaint in its final response of 11 September 2020, however, the landlord subsequently offered, during mediation via the Ombudsman, to pay the resident compensation of £400 in acknowledgement of delay on its part when dealing with the repair. It is noted that the landlord said this amount was also for “not dealing with repairs on time” – discussed below.
  6. In her formal complaint of 27 September 2019, the resident raised the matter of damp and mould in her property which she said was caused by the leak. The landlord failed to acknowledge this issue in its complaint response dated 18 October 2019 however it is clear that works to rectify the damage at the property were part of the resident’s insurance claim, and so it was reasonable of the landlord to have left this to be dealt with under the insurance claim. However, the landlord could have explained this position to the resident in its complaint response dated 18 October 2019. Therefore, the lack of clarification here is a shortcoming, albeit a minor one.
  7. The landlord did subsequently acknowledge the damp issue in its final response of 11 September 2020 following contact from the Ombudsman. In this response, it offered for its Technical Service Team to carry out an inspection of the damp – if it had not already been addressed in the resident’s insurance claim. It proposed a date for an inspection however the resident declined its offer. It is noted that during mediation via the Ombudsman, the landlord reiterated its offer to discuss and resolve any outstanding repairs with the resident. As stated above, it was reasonable for the landlord to have left repairs needed as a result of the leak to be dealt with under the resident’s insurance claim. Therefore, its offers made to inspect any damage not covered under the insurance claim in response to the resident’s concerns was generous.
  8. In conclusion, there was a delay by the landlord in stopping the leak and its records kept in relation to this incident were incomplete.  However, the landlord was not under an obligation to deal with any repairs necessary as a result of damage to the property caused by the leak, as this would be covered by the insurance claim made by the resident. Therefore, its offers made to inspect any outstanding repairs (not covered by the resident’s insurance claim) in response to the resident’s concern raised about this in her complaint, was more than reasonable in the circumstance.
  9. However, in light of the landlord’s delay in stopping the leak, incomplete records kept and not acknowledging the mould issue raised by the resident in her stage one complaint, the landlord’s offer of compensation of £400 during mediation was reasonable. 
  10. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. As the landlord acknowledged the delay with repairing the leak, offered appropriate compensation as well as to investigate/ resolve any outstanding repairs not covered by the resident’s insurance’s claim, the landlord has taken appropriate steps to address its shortcomings and put things right for the resident. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to be fair and to put things right.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(c) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress following the Ombudsman’s intervention which, in our opinion, resolves the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of a repair to a leak reported in 2019 which affected the resident’s property, satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. A leak in the flat(s) above the property caused water to flow into the property.  There was a delay by landlord in stopping the leak after this was reported in June 2019. The leak caused damage to the property and possessions including to the ceilings for which the resident made an insurance claim. Whilst the landlord did not acknowledge its delay in attending the leak when raised by the resident in her complaint, it subsequently offered compensation during mediation in acknowledgment of this delay. This offer was appropriate to acknowledge and put right its shortcomings in the handling of the leak. Despite no obligation to do so, it also offered to inspect the damage in response to the resident’s concern raised about this, which was reasonable.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
    1. pay the resident the compensation of £400 offered during mediation to resolve the complaint;
    2. renew its offer to arrange a Zoom meeting with the resident to discuss and come to a resolution about the outstanding repairs and;
    3. take steps to ensure that it is keeping comprehensive records of repairs reported by residents and its responses to these repairs.