One Housing Group Limited (202013584)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013584

One Housing Group

14 July 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 complaint is about the level of compensation the landlord offered the resident following a leak into her property.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and resides in four-bedroomed maisonette within a block of several properties.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 March 2020 to report a leak coming through her kitchen ceiling from her upstairs neighbour’s bathroom. The landlord’s out-of-hours service attended the same day and attempted to access the property above her but was unable to gain access. The resident was advised that the landlord’s daytime service would attend to fix the leak.
On 24 April 2020, the resident called the landlord to report that the leak in her property persisted and was spreading. The landlord’s internal correspondence on the day same day noted that, since the initial attendance, follow-up work had been requested but no one had attended the property. It raised a job for a plumber to inspect the mains water pipes in the roof of the building.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 25 April 2020 to express her dissatisfaction with its handling of the leak. She relayed that she reported the leak on 9 March 2020 which was attended by its out-of-hours service who advised her that there was little that could be done at the time and they needed to reattend during the day to inspect the roof. The resident said that when the worker attended a few days later, she was informed that the roof was dry and the matter would be reported to the office.
The resident said that she had called the landlord’s office 23 times and was given conflicting information each time. She was told by one member of staff that a roofer needed to attend but she was unaware if this went ahead. The resident reported that, in the meantime, her ceilings in several rooms in the property were “dripping wet” and she had since developed mould on the walls which was also attracting insects. To resolve her complaint, she wanted to know why the landlord had let the issue continue and she wanted compensation for the damage to her possessions, flooring, and wallpaper, and she wanted the landlord to carry out work to the damaged walls.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 27 April 2020 and the same day its contractor carried out the repair to the leak which was from a leaking mains water pipe in the roof space of the building. The landlord arranged, on 28 April 2020, for dehumidifiers to be delivered to the resident. The landlord arranged to visit the property on 7 May 2020 to collect the dehumidifiers and assess the damage to the property from the leak. It informed the resident it would contact her after this visit. The landlord completed remedial work to the damage caused by the leak on 4 June 2020.
The resident corresponded with the landlord between 19 August and 18 September 2020 to seek compensation for the damage to her property from the leak. She had been offered a £25 goodwill gesture which she found insufficient as this would not cover the cost of running the dehumidifiers. The resident said that she had been assured that she would be reimbursed for the cost of the electricity in running the dehumidifiers which came to £75. She also reported that there had been damage to the flooring in her kitchen and living room and she would have to “do the whole rooms again”.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £95 made up of £20 for the costs of running the dehumidifier and a goodwill gesture of £75. It confirmed that it would not compensate her for the flooring, asserting that this would be covered by her home contents insurance. The resident confirmed that she did not have home contents insurance.
The resident raised a formal complaint through her representative on 20 October 2020. Both the resident and the representative will be referred to as ‘the resident’ for the remainder of this report. The resident reported that, after her initial report on 9 March 2020 of the leak, two weeks later the water ingress had continued and no remedial work had been done. She relayed that she had been advised that no work could be done until 1 June 2020 and that between 9 March and 24 April 2020 she contacted the landlord on 23 occasions.
The resident reported that the leak had spread to the living room, toilet and passage ceilings, and the upstairs wall. This had damaged her decoration and caused mould and a smell to develop. This damage was to:
1. her wood flooring in the living room
2. her wallpaper which had peeled and bubbled
3. the linoleum in the bathroom and toilet
4. the toilet walls
5. and plaster and paint had peeled and crumbled on the upstairs passage wall and ceiling.
The resident received dehumidifiers on 24 June 2020 which she used for two weeks, and the landlord painted over the areas damaged by the leak. She said that she had been advised to take pictures of the damaged flooring to her living room and kitchen to forward onto the landlord. However, the landlord had not replaced nor compensated her for this. She was unhappy that the landlord had not compensated her for the cost of the electricity to run the dehumidifiers, which had come to £80.
The resident contended that the landlord had been in breach of its repairing obligations and had not provided a reason why it had not followed its repairs procedure, asserting that the leak she reported constituted an emergency repair. She held the landlord responsible for the damage caused to her property, decoration, and possessions due to its delay in addressing the leak.
To resolve her complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to apologise and explain why it delayed the repair, provide compensation for her distress, provide reimbursement of her excess electricity costs for running the dehumidifiers and for it to either replace her flooring or reimburse her for the cost of doing so.
After acknowledging the complaint on 2 November 2020, the landlord spoke to the resident on 12 November 2020 and issued a final response to her on 23 November 2020. It explained that the leak was reported on 9 March 2020; it investigated the upstairs property on 11 March 2020, when it found that this property was also experiencing water ingress. The roof was inspected by its contractor who found no evidence of a fault with the roof. After the landlord spoke to the resident on 24 April 2020, it arranged for an inspection of the pipes in the roof on 27 April 2020 which revealed a leak in the pipework, which was repaired the same day. It confirmed that it delivered dehumidifiers to the resident on 29 April 2020 which it collected on 28 May 2020 and it then carried out remedial works to the property which were completed in June 2020.
The landlord confirmed that it had offered to replace the kitchen flooring with a non-slip, poly-safe floor, in a choice of colours, as “standard practice”. It noted that the resident wanted the laminate flooring to be replaced but advised that it would not do this for health and safety concerns. The landlord confirmed that it considered the resident’s living flooring to be “contents” and therefore directed her to claim for this under her home contents insurance.
The landlord stated that its policy provided for the reimbursement of £2 per day for the electricity costs of running a dehumidifier. In this instance it calculated this to be £60 comprised of 30 days at £2 per day. The landlord noted that the resident had reported this cost to be £80 and agreed to pay this amount to reimburse her costs.
In recognition of the landlord’s delayed response and the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint, it offered her £50 in respect of her right to repair and £100 compensation for her inconvenience. It confirmed that this concluded its internal complaints procedure.
The resident confirmed to this Service on 19 April 2021 that the matter that remained was the amount of compensation she was being offered. She remained dissatisfied that it declined to replace the flooring in the living room and that it would not replace the kitchen flooring with “like-for-like” laminate flooring and was instead offering rubber flooring.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy confirms that “it is not advisable for residents to lay fixed floor coverings (tiles, hard wood or laminate) in their homes” and “where residents have installed fixed wall or floor coverings, they are responsible for obtaining the correct… contents insurance cover”. This agreement also confirms that it retains the right to recover the costs of removing such floor coverings from residents at the end of their tenancies.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy confirms that it has the discretion to make a compensation payment in respect of a resident’s statutory right to repair where a qualifying repair is not completed within an agreed timescale. This policy confirms that this timescale is one working day in the case of “leaking from water or heating pipe, tank or cistern”. This policy provides for three categories of repairs: emergency repairs, which are to be attended and made safe within 24 hours; urgent repairs, which are to be attended within three working days and completed within five working days; and routine repairs, which are to be attended within five working days and completed within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation and other payments procedure states that it “encourages and advises” residents to hold home contents insurance to cover damage to their possessions. This procedure also provides for compensation to be offered when there has been damage to resident’s items by its failure to fulfil a repair obligation that was made known to it. This compensation may be in the form of “works, replacement items, cleaning, redecorating or a payment.
The landlord’s complaints resolution and compliments policy provides for an informal complaint resolution stage, followed by a one stage formal complaints procedure. At the formal complaint stage, a written response is to be provided to the resident within 15 working days unless an extension is agreed.

The level of compensation the landlord offered the resident following a leak into her property

The landlord had an obligation to repair and maintain the structure of the property, including any installations for the provision of heating, power and sanitation, including any service media, such as pipework. Therefore, it was obliged to carry out the repairs necessary to remedy the leak affecting the structure of the property.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, above at point 22, does not specify exactly which types of repairs are considered emergency or urgent. Given that the leak reported by the resident had the potential to cause damage to the structure of the property and that it was found to be affecting a neighbouring property, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to treat the repair as an ‘urgent’ repair, with a completion timeframe of five working days.
The leak was reported on 9 March 2020 and not confirmed repaired until 27 April 2020. This was 28 working days in excess of its timeframe for an urgent repair. Under the circumstances, this was an excessive length of time for the leak to be allowed to persist and, therefore, the landlord delayed unreasonably in completing the necessary work to rectify the leak. It is noted that the resident requested, in her formal complaint on 20 October 2020, that it provide an explanation as to why the repair took so long to complete but there is no evidence of it providing this.
In the landlord’s final response on 23 November 2020, it explained that its roofing contractor had inspected the roof and found no evidence of a leak. Nevertheless, it is not disputed that the resident made repeated contacts with the landlord between 9 March and 24 April 2020 about the persistence of the leak. Therefore, it is considered that it continued to be aware of its repairing obligation to remedy the leak into her property.
After the leak was repaired on 27 April 2020, the landlord provided dehumidifiers, offering reimbursement for the cost of electricity to operate these, and carried out remedial decoration work which was completed on 4 June 2020. These were reasonable actions on the landlord’s part. However, in its final response, on 23 November 2020, it asserted that it would not replace the resident’s living room flooring and would not replace her kitchen flooring with laminate.
It was an inconsistent application of the landlord’s compensation and other payments procedure, above at point 23, to carry out remedial works to the resident’s decoration and offer to replace her kitchen flooring but decline to replace her living room flooring. While this procedure, “encourages” residents to hold home contents insurance, it also specifies that compensation is payable for damage caused to a resident’s possessions by its failure to carry out repairs that it was aware of. As it has been established that the landlord was aware of the leak, and delayed unreasonably in rectifying it, therefore, in accordance with its procedure, compensation was due to the resident for the damage caused to all her possessions due to its delay. It was unreasonable for it to exclude the living room flooring from its offer of compensation.
It was reasonable, however, for the landlord to decline to replace the kitchen flooring with laminate, given that its repairs and maintenance policy advises against the installation of wooden flooring and that, on the termination of her tenancy, the removal of this would be a rechargeable cost to her. Therefore, the landlord should offer an alternative replacement of the resident’s kitchen and living room flooring.
In addition to the reimbursement of the resident’s £80 electricity costs in operating the dehumidifier, the landlord offered £50 compensation for her right to repair, made at its discretion as the right-to-repair procedures was not followed, and £100 for her inconvenience. This totals £150 discretionary compensation for the resident’s distress and inconvenience. This amount is a reasonable offer which is in line with our remedies guidance where “there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration”.
In conclusion, the landlord delayed unreasonably in carrying out the remedial work but acknowledged the delay in its final response and offered compensation. However, its offer of compensation was not made in accordance with its own procedure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the level of compensation it offered the resident following a leak into her property.

Reasons

The landlord did not apply its policy and procedure consistently in its offer of compensation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days:
1. The landlord is to pay to resident the £230 monetary compensation it previously offered her, if it has not done so already.
2. The landlord is to re-offer a replacement floor covering for the resident’s kitchen floor.
3. The landlord is to offer a replacement floor covering for the resident’s living room floor.
4. The landlord is to write to the resident to provide an apology and explanation why the repair of the leak took an extended length of time to resolve.
5. The landlord is to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.