Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (201912592)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 201912592
Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council
13 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
a. a water leak affecting the resident’s property in 2016.
b. a further water leak into the property in 2018.
c. The associated formal complaint.
Jurisdiction
2. 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.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
4. The resident has complained about leaks affecting his property in 2016 and 2018. In accordance with paragraph 39(e) of The Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman has seen evidence to confirm that the resident raised a formal complaint in 2017 regarding the landlord’s handling of the leak. The landlord issued a response at stage one of its complaints process, but it does not appear that the resident pursued the complaint any further until the second leak in 2018. Therefore, the landlord may have reasonably assumed the matter was resolved. In view of this, the Ombudsman’s investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the 2018 leak and subsequent complaint about this matter. Any reference to the 2016 leak in this report is included for reference purposes only.
Background and summary of events
5. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. This complaint has been raised by the resident and at times by his representative. For ease of reference, the resident and his representative are referred to as “the resident” throughout this report.
6. In December 2016, the resident reported a water leak coming through the ceiling in the kitchen of his property. It was later identified that the leak was caused by a pipe under the floorboards upstairs.
7. The landlord repaired the leak and arranged for a surveyor to attend and issue a report. When the surveyor attended on 25 January 2017, they reported that the resident had installed a new kitchen following the leak. The resident reported that it had taken several appointments for the leak to be repaired as the contractors who attended initially did not have the right materials to complete the repair.
8. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord and the landlord responded to the complaint at stage one of its internal complaints process on 7 February 2017.
9. On 3 November 2018, the resident reported a leak in the same area. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day and turned off the boiler. The landlord’s records say that the resident was advised not to use the boiler until further repairs were completed.
10. The resident says he contacted the landlord again a few days later as he had not heard anything concerning the next steps and there was a hole in the kitchen ceiling.
11. The landlord sent a contractor to fix the leak on 8 November 2018.
12. The resident contacted the landlord again on 12 November 2018 and advised that the leak had caused part of the kitchen ceiling to collapse. He also reported that the floorboards in the hallway had been damaged during the repairs carried out in 2016 and needed to be replaced.
13. The landlord inspected the damage on 19 November 2018 and confirmed it would arrange further repairs to the floorboards and kitchen ceiling following this visit.
14. On 26 November 2018 a complaint was passed to the landlord by the resident’s MP. The MP advised that the resident said he had to replace the kitchen at his property following the leak in 2016. The MP further advised that the living room ceiling had collapsed due to the leak and was still awaiting repair. They asked the landlord to update the resident regarding the repairs needed to his property.
15. The landlord’s records say a contractor attended on 6 December 2018 to assess the damage. Following this appointment, the landlord booked repairs to the floorboards to take place on 14 December 2019 and for the ceiling on 21 December 2018. The landlord apologised for the delay in arranging the repairs. The landlord responded to the MP that day and confirmed that the repairs had been arranged.
16. The landlord’s records state that on 11 December 2018, the resident confirmed he had arranged for the ceiling to be repaired privately. The landlord therefore cancelled the repair request in respect of the ceiling.
17. On 14 December 2018, the resident reported that the floorboards were still damaged. The landlord’s contractors attended on 2 January 2019 and completed the repairs to the floorboards.
18. The resident complained to the landlord on 5 July 2019 and advised he had previously complained on 14 March 2019 and 4 June 2019 but had not received any response. He complained about delays to repairs in 2016 and the original installation of the boiler which he said caused the leak in 2016 which reoccurred in November 2018. He asked to be reimbursed for the cost of replacing the kitchen in 2016 as well as the cost of replacing the ceiling and furniture and flooring damaged by the recurrence of the leak in 2018. The resident also requested compensation for the significant number of days he had to take off work to attend repair appointments. He said the landlord had never issued an acceptable apology in view of the delays and poor service he had experienced.
19. The Ombudsman has been provided with a copy of a letter from the landlord dated June 2019 acknowledging the complaint and advising that it would respond by 31 June 2019.
20. The landlord responded to the complaint on 6 August 2019 and apologised for delays to the repairs following the leak in 2018. It confirmed that the position of the condenser pipe serving the boiler had been adjusted to prevent the problem from reoccurring. The landlord declined the resident’s request for reimbursement of the cost of the ceiling repair, which he had arranged himself. It also declined his request for compensation in view of the time he had to take off work to attend repair appointments.
21. The resident escalated the complaint on 18 September 2019. He said the landlord’s initial complaint response did not consider the original installation of the boiler including the faulty condenser pipe or the high number of appointments which were required to correct this problem. The resident said there had been lengthy delays in completing the repairs and the landlord had failed to give suitable dates for repairs. He repeated his request for compensation in view of these issues.
22. The landlord issued its final response to the complaint on 11 October 2019. The landlord advised that it was “impossible” to thoroughly investigate the complaint because of the length of time which had elapsed between the incidents complained about and the complaint. The landlord confirmed it had apologised for delays to the repairs in its earlier responses, but it was not clear what the resident would consider to be “an acceptable apology.”
23. The landlord confirmed it would not reimburse the resident for the cost of his replacement kitchen or loss of earnings. It suggested that the resident could contact his own contents insurer in relation to these costs and the contents insurer could liaise with the landlord’s insurer if appropriate. The landlord also mentioned that the resident’s continued use of the boiler after he was advised not to use it would have contributed to the damage.
Assessment and findings
Repairs following the water leak in November 2018
24. In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property, including any installations and pipework etc for the provision of heating and water. The landlord’s repairs policy says the landlord will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours to make the property safe and secure. If further repairs are needed following an initial repair to make the property safe, these further repairs will be completed in line with the landlord’s timescales for routine repairs which is 25 working days or major works which is 60 working days. The repairs policy defines an emergency repair as an issue having “an immediate health and safety risk to you, your home or your neighbours.”
25. Therefore, the landlord was expected to respond to the resident’s reports of a water leak in November 2018 as an emergency repair. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day that the leak was reported and made the property safe by turning off the boiler. This was in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, as set out above. The landlord’s contractor attended again a few days later to fix the cause of the leak.
26. However, the resident reported that there was a hole in the kitchen ceiling as well as damage to the floorboards in the property and these issues remained unrepaired in December 2018, more than 25 working days after the leak was reported. The ceiling was due to be repaired on 21 December 2020 but the repair was cancelled as the resident arranged and paid for the ceiling to be repaired himself by a private contractor. The floorboards were repaired on 2 January 2021. The landlord has apologised for the delay in completing these repairs and does not need to apologise again for the same issue. However, the landlord should offer £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed repairs.
27. The landlord would not be obliged to reimburse the resident for the cost of the repair to the ceiling, which he arranged and paid for himself. This is because there is no evidence to suggest that the resident informed the landlord in advance that he intended to arrange the repair himself. If he had informed the landlord in advance, then it would have had the opportunity to bring the scheduled repair forward or agree an acceptable price for the repair, so the resident could arrange it himself.
28. The resident has requested compensation for the time he had to take off work to attend repair appointments in relation to the November 2018 leak. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, residents are expected to allow access to the landlord and its contractors when required, including to carry out repairs. This will inevitably cause some inconvenience as tenants may have to take time off work to attend appointments and allow access to their property. It is not always possible to carry out all necessary repairs within one appointment and several appointments may be needed. It can be necessary to arrange an inspection, as in the case, before repairs are carried out to establish what repairs are required before the repairs can be arranged. The landlord would not be expected to compensate the resident for the time he had to take off work to attend repair appointments following the leak in November 2018 as the evidence does not suggest that there were an excessive number of appointments to complete the repairs.
29. The resident is also seeking compensation for damage to his furniture and flooring caused by the leak. The landlord would not be expected to compensate the resident for these items as there is not enough evidence to show the landlord was responsible for causing the leak. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s comments concerning the original installation of the boiler in 2016. However, as stated above the Ombudsman is unable to consider this as part of our investigation. Also, the landlord has suggested that the damage was made worse by the resident not following the contractor’s instructions to keep the boiler switched off between 3 November 2018 and the repair to the pipework on 8 November 2018.
30. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, residents are advised to take out contents insurance to cover their personal possessions and it was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to contact his contents insurer in its final response to his complaint. The resident may be able to make a liability claim through the landlord’s insurer if he considers that his possessions were damaged due to negligence by the landlord or its contractors. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to have any involvement in insurance matters and therefore we cannot comment on this matter further in this report.
Complaint handling
31. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within three working days and respond within ten working days at both stage one and stage two of its complaints process. If the landlord needs more time to respond, it should let the resident know and agree an extended deadline with them.
32. The resident first raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the water leak in March 2019. He followed this up with a further complaint in June 2019 as he had not received a response. The landlord has said that it did not have a record of the resident’s attempts to contact it in March 2019 and June 2019. However, a letter from the landlord dated June 2019 acknowledging the complaint was included in the information provided to the Ombudsman. Therefore, it appears that the landlord did receive the resident’s complaint in June 2019, although it may not have received the earlier complaint raised in March 2019. This point is not addressed at either stage one or stage two of the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident had to raise the complaint several times over a period of months before the landlord responded. This would have reasonably caused him some distress and inconvenience and the landlord should offer compensation in view of this.
33. There were also long delays in the landlord providing information to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman requested information from the landlord on 15 January 2021 and it was provided on 13 April 2021, following several reminders. The landlord has explained this delay was due to staff absence, meaning that the Ombudsman’s correspondence was not picked up. This caused a delay to the Ombudsman’s investigation of the complaint which would have added to the resident’s inconvenience as he had to wait longer for a decision. This has been considered when looking at the overall compensation award errors in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its systems to ensure that it is able to pick up and action correspondence when staff members are absent for prolonged periods of time.
Determination (decision)
34. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
a. repairs following a leak in 2018.
b. the associated complaint.
Reasons
35. The landlord carried out an emergency repair within its published timescale when the leak was first reported. The leak itself was repaired a few days later but there were delays in the completion of the remaining repairs to the ceiling and floorboards which were damaged by the leak. The landlord has acted reasonably by apologising for these delays but it should also offer compensation for the distress and inconvenience the delays caused the resident.
36. The landlord would not be expected to reimburse the resident for the cost of the ceiling repair as he did not request permission for this repair in advance and therefore the landlord did not have the opportunity to make alternative arrangements.
37. The landlord is also not obliged to compensate the resident for the time he had to take off work to attend repair appointments or for the damage to his personal possessions caused by the leak.
38. There were significant delays in the landlord responding to the complaint and providing information to the Ombudsman. The landlord should pay £150 compensation to the resident for any distress and inconvenience this caused the resident.
Orders
39. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation for distress and inconvenience as follows:
a. £100 for delays in completing repairs following the leak in 2018.
b. £150 for delays and errors in its handling of his complaint.
40. The payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this decision.
Recommendation
41. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its systems to ensure that it is able to pick up and action correspondence when staff members are absent for prolonged periods of time.