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

One Housing Group Limited (202007192)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007192

One Housing Group

4 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 concerns:
    1. the landlord response’ to the resident’s reports of a water leak from the bathroom ceiling in the property.
    2. The effect of the ongoing issue of the water leak on the health of the resident.
    3. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a strong odour present in the 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. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Medical conditions

  1. Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
  2. When the resident requested an escalation of the complaint on 7 September 2020, he described an incident where a piece of debris fell from the bathroom roof causing an injury. During a telephone conversation between the resident and this Service on 9 December 2020, the resident further described the adverse effect on his health that the ongoing leak had caused.
  3. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his medical conditions, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme, which says the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which we consider could be more effectively resolved by a court. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation involving his property may have caused the resident.

Reports of a strong odour

  1. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.
  2. During the telephone conversation with the landlord on 9 December 2020, the resident also raised an issue of a strong odour in the property’s bathroom which seemed to originate from a stock room belonging to the landlord. The resident stated his dissatisfaction that this issue had yet to be addressed by the landlord.
  3. As this element of the resident’s complaint was not part of the formal complaint raised with the landlord in August 2020, it is not within the remit of this Service to consider at this stage. The landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect of the complaint before the Ombudsman can become involved. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint regarding this issue. The resident may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.   

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a two-bedroom flat in a communal building.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy categorises its repair responses as’ Emergency’ (attend and make safe within 24 hours), ‘Urgent’ (attend within three working days, complete within 5 working days), and ‘Routine’ (attend within 5 working days, complete within 20 working days). Outside of response timescales, the policy does not provide any further definition of the different repair categories. 
  3. At the time of this complaint, the landlord operated a one-stage complaints policy. When first receiving a complaint, it would be acknowledged within three working days and the landlord would attempt to resolve the complaint informally. If that was not possible, it would then send a formal complaint response within 15 working days of the escalation of the complaint to the formal stage.
  4. It should be noted that on 4 January 2021 the landlord implemented a new two-stage complaints policy which is in compliance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code

Summary of events

  1. The landlord’s repair logs state that the resident reported a water leak from the bathroom ceiling on 13 August 2020. A work order was raised for 14 August 2020, where an operative determined the source of the leak was likely from the boiler room or the roof. A follow-on appointment was requested as the operative was unable to gain access to the boiler room.
  2. A further report was made on 17 August 2020 and an emergency repair was raised for the same day as water was seen to be penetrating the light fitting in the bathroom. The light fitting was isolated and temporary lighting was fitted to the bathroom.
  3. On 21 August 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to express his dissatisfaction with the lack of progress in resolving the issue. He informed it that the leak had caused a piece of the bathroom ceiling to fall off and he was still without electrics in the bathroom. He requested that the ceiling was repaired by the landlord and that the matter be treated as a complaint.
  4. The resident wrote again to the landlord on 28 August 2020. He again highlighted his concerns about the safety of the bathroom ceiling and informed the landlord that he would not yet request for the complaint to be escalated to the formal stage until follow-on work had been completed.
  5. Follow-on work was arranged for 28 August 220, which is described in the repair logs as: an electrical repair, an inspection of the roof and the drainage pipe for potential blockages, and to make safe the damaged plaster on the bathroom ceiling.
  6. On 7 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested an escalation of the complaint. He noted that the follow-on work was mostly concerned with inspecting the problem rather than undertaking repairs. He also described an incident where he was struck by a piece of concrete falling from the ceiling. The resident provided a photograph of the piece of concrete.
  7. The landlord escalated the complaint on 8 September 2020. On 23 September 2020 it called the resident to discuss the complaint and ongoing work, and then sent a formal complaint response on 2 October 2020. The landlord first addressed the work undertaken at the property, informing the resident that:
    1. On 28 August 2020 cracked parts of the bathroom ceiling were removed to make safe as a temporary repair while the source of the leak was identified.
    2. An inspection of the loft was undertaken on 4 September 2020. The areas in the loft suspected of being the source of the leak were sealed and follow-on work was raised for a plumber to inspect the internal pipework.
    3. The plumber, however, did not attend the next appointment. The operative who did attend could only again make a temporary repair to the bathroom ceiling. The landlord apologised to the resident for this error.
    4. The inspection of the pipework occurred on 23 September 2020 and a further inspection took place on 2 October 2020. The second inspection identified the source of the leak as the roof. The landlord had raised a work order for 9 October 2020 to commence work on the roof.
    5. Although it can be difficult to locate the sources of leaks, the landlord recognised that the length of time it took to locate the source of the leak in this case was not acceptable.
  8. The landlord informed the resident that it had upheld its complaint. It apologised for the length of time it had took to identify the leak, incorrectly raising a work order for a general operative rather than a plumber, and for the delay in providing the complaint response. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation, which it broke down as £50 for delays in completing the repair as per its complaint policy and a further £50 as a goodwill gesture.
  9. The landlord concluded the response by informing the resident that he had exhausted its complaint process and advised him on the steps to take to bring his complaint to this Service should she remain dissatisfied.
  10. On 28 December 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a new complaint. He noted that despite the assurances from the landlord, the leak had not been resolved and that he was now experiencing water leaks from the living room ceiling which had caused pieces of debris to fall on himself and family members. The resident also provided photographs of the living room ceiling.
  11. On 15 January 2021 the landlord sent a follow-up response to the original complaint. It informed him that it had considered the leak resolved after work was carried out by its specialist contractor to the roof of the building on 10 November 2020. It had now raised additional work for its contractor to carry out work to the boiler room. The landlord also informed the resident that the contactor may require access to the roof from his property, and that it would contact him by 20 January 2020 to arrange an appointment date.
  12. The landlord then apologised to the resident for the delays in resolving the matter and that it would review its compensation offer upon completion of the work.
  13. The landlord’s repair logs state that a work order was raised for 11 February 2021; the notes of the job state that as the boiler room roof is higher than the main roof, water running off the boiler room roof is likely the source of the leak. Work was recommended to “cut the stack and break out the gully in the boiler room, renew section and re-concrete”. The logs also note that access to the resident’s property would be required to complete this work.

Assessment and findings

  1. Overall, the landlord has followed its repairs policy during this case. Initial reports of the water leak were classed as ‘Urgent’ and attended to within five working days and when it was reported that water was leaking into a light fitting in the resident’s property, this was classed as ‘Emergency’ and attended to within 24 hours.
  2. It can be difficult to locate the source of a water leak into a property, particularly in cases where the leak is only apparent during wet weather. The frustration of the resident is wholly understandable due to the length of time it took for the landlord to locate the source of the leak. Unfortunately, until the source was located, it was not possible to complete repairs to the bathroom ceiling.
  3. The landlord has accepted that it took too long for it to locate the source of the leak and that one job was incorrectly raised on its system, which caused a general operative to attend rather than the expected plumber. The landlord apologised to the resident and awarded him £100 compensation (£50 for right to repair as per its compensation policy and a £50 goodwill gesture). The landlord also apologised for not meeting its targets for providing a formal complaint response.
  4. Section 2.1 of the landlord’s compensation policy describes the types of compensation it considers. This states that for repairs not completed in a timely manner, it follows the right to repair scheme (£10 plus £2 per day to a maximum of £50), that it offers £10 for missed or failed appointments, and that it will consider discretionary payment of goodwill to cover time, trouble and distress.
  5. The landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident and offering compensation. It clearly recognised and accepted that its service had been poor. The actions it took to remedy these were reasonable and appropriate, the exception being the level of compensation it offered to the resident. Although broadly in line with its own compensation guidance, it was disproportionately low when the length of the delay and the inconvenience caused to the resident due to damage to the bathroom ceiling is considered. The landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s complaint was reasonable. However, there was service failure in respect of the amount of compensation it offered.
  6. It should be noted that this report only considers the compensation awarded to the resident in the formal complaint response sent on 2 October 2020, and not any subsequent payment made to the resident relating to the ongoing issues of a water leak as described in the landlord’s follow-on response sent on 15 January 2021. As explained above, the resident may be able to refer a separate complaint to our service about the more recent water leak once this matter has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of a water leak from the bathroom ceiling in the property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord apologised to the resident and accepted that the matter had taken too long to resolve and awarded compensation, in line with its internal policy. However, the level of compensation offered to the resident was disproportionately low and did not properly recognise the length of delays and the inconvenience that this matter had caused to the resident.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay to the resident a further £150 compensation for its service failures in the delays in resolving the leak and providing a complaint response. This is in addition to any other payments offered by the landlord during its complaints process.
  2. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.

Recommendations

  1. If the work to resolve the leak into the property’s living room ceiling from the boiler room roof remains outstanding, the landlord should:
    1. write to the resident and advise him of the current status of the work, the reasons for the delay and if possible, a timescale for completing the outstanding repairs.
    2. consider further compensation once the works have been completed.