Trafford Housing Trust Limited (202017444)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017444

Trafford Housing Trust Limited

29 October 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak from the flat upstairs.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy for a two-bedroom flat located on the 10th floor of a high-rise block.

Policies, procedures, and agreements

Tenancy agreement:

This sets out the landlord’s general repair obligations and confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure of the property, which includes the internal walls and floors. It is also responsible for ensuring that the electric installation at the property is in good repair and in ‘proper working order’.

Electrical Safety Policy:

This sets out the landlord’s obligations in terms of ensuring the safety of the electrical installations it is responsible for maintaining. It details the legislation and good practice the landlord needs to abide by. For instance, under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord needs to ensure that electrical installations are ‘maintained in a safe condition throughout the tenancy’ and this requires it to periodically inspect and test the electrical installation at least every five years. The policy states that any deviation from this periodical testing should be at the recommendation of a competent NICEIC qualified person and should be backed up by sound engineering evidence to support the recommendation.

Responsive repairs policy:

This sets out the landlord’s repair obligations. It states that the landlord is responsible for repairing damage to the internal walls and ceilings and to the electric installations. The policy states that the tenant is responsible for internal decoration.
It sets out the timeframe for emergency repairs, such as a significant leak, as within 8 hours of notification.
With regards to damage to tenants’ personal possessions, it states:
1. We strongly recommend that you take out a household contents insurance policy. Many tenants mistakenly believe that their furniture, belongings, and decoration are automatically insured against theft or damage from fire or burst pipes. This is not the case, and unfortunately some people realise this only after the damage has been done. It is your responsibility to insure the contents of your home against accidental damage, including fire, storm, and flood damage.

Compensation policy:

This states that the landlord will not pay compensation ‘where the matter could have been covered by household insurance’.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that a leak was reported by the resident on 2 December 2020. It is noted that the leak was from the upstairs flat and the records show a plumber attended on an emergency basis. There are no further details about this incident and there is no evidence to show that the resident had any particular concerns about the landlord’s handling of this leak at the time.
The resident reported a second leak on 25 December 2020. His correspondence at the time with the landlord, and the landlord’s repair records, show that the leak was again coming from the flat upstairs. The resident said that there was water dripping down from the ceiling onto the walls and onto the electrical sockets in the kitchen. He said his appliances e.g. kettle, blender had been affected by the water leak and there was staining on the walls and damage to the carpet and cabinets. He was also concerned that this was the second leak within a few weeks from the upstairs flat. The resident was unhappy with the situation and wanted to register a formal complaint.
The landlord’s repair logs shows that a plumber and an electrician attended on an emergency basis as the resident had said that the sockets in the kitchen were wet. The ‘job completion’ notes show that the electrician checked the kitchen sockets and the landlord was satisfied that no further electrical testing was necessary on this occasion.
On 5 January 2021 the landlord logged a Stage 1 complaint. Its internal correspondence at that time showed that it made enquires with the contractors that attended to the leak and it was confirmed that there was no defect to the building as it was the tenant upstairs who had caused the damage by leaving the kitchen sink running and overflowing.
The landlord made further enquiries on 7 January 2021 and considered if it had any repair responsibility for the staining to the walls and ceiling. It concluded that as there was no defect to the building structure and the leak was due to the upstairs tenant’s actions, the resident would need to claim for this damage on his own home insurance. It was also noted that the damage in question was ‘decorative to the walls and ceiling’.
The landlord issued its Stage 1 complaint response on 8 January 2021:
1. It confirmed that it had investigated the resident’s concerns and it was satisfied that there was no defect to the building as the leak was due to the tenant above.
2. Any damages to the resident’s items in his flat would have to be claimed under his home content’s insurance.
3. It confirmed that its electrician that attended checked the electrics before leaving the property and no issues were found.
4. As a gesture of goodwill, it offered the resident a voucher for £50 to help towards the cost of redecorating.
5. It noted the resident’s request for a surveyor to inspect the property, and it explained that this was not warranted given the nature and extent of the damage.
The resident requested for the complaint to be escalated on 16 January 2021. He said he was worried about the safety of the electrics and felt that the landlord was just ‘brushing things under the carpet’. He reiterated his request for someone to inspect the electrics again. He disagreed with the landlord’s view that he should claim for the damage on his home insurance, and he said that the leak was not his fault and the landlord should ensure that the tenant upstairs (who was responsible for the leak) should compensate him for his losses.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 25 January 2021 shows that it made further enquiries about whether or not any further inspection was necessary for the electrics, and it also considered if there was any underlying issues with the flat upstairs given the two leaks occurred within a few weeks.
The records show that an electrician attended at the time of the leak, and he was satisfied that the electrics were safe and no further testing or checks were deemed necessary. As for the close proximity of the two leaks, it was satisfied that the leaks were for unrelated issues to do with the tenant’s actions; the most recent was the sink left running, and the one prior was the drainpipe for the washing machine had come away from the trap.
Further enquiries were made and the landlord concluded that as the leaks were due to ‘tenant behaviour’ and an electrician had already attended and confirmed the electrics were safe, no further attendance was necessary.
The records show that the landlord spoke to the upstairs tenant on 26 January 2021 and it was noted that he was apologetic and worried about the consequences of the leaks, and the landlord was confident that there were no underlying issues of concern and the tenant was reminded of the need to be more careful in the future.
The landlord issued a Stage 2 final complaint response on 18 February 2021:
1. The complaint was noted as being about the landlord’s decision not to carry out further testing on the electrics, and that the resident was unhappy that he had to claim for the damage to his possessions on his home insurance, and he wanted the landlord to pay for this.
2. It explained the background and confirmed that a plumber and electrician attended for an emergency repair.
3. It acknowledged the resident’s concern regarding water ingress into the electrical sockets, but it maintained that its electrician had confirmed that he checked all the electrical sockets in the kitchen and ensured the worktops and top of the cupboards were dry before leaving and no follow up visits were required. It was satisfied that the flat was left in a safe condition.
4. It explained that it has looked into the previous leak and it explained the causes of both leaks were unrelated, and it had reminded the tenant upstairs to be more careful.
5. With regards to the damage to the décor and possessions as a result of the leak, it could not accept any liability for this, and it explained that the advice given previously about making a claim on his home insurance was correct.
6. Although it could not accept responsibility for the damage caused by the water leak, it offered a gesture of goodwill of £50 in vouchers towards the redecoration costs.
The resident referred the matter to this Service on 31 March 2021.
On 14 June 2021 the resident agreed to consider mediation and confirmed that he wanted:
1. The landlord to arrange for a surveyor to come out and inspect the electrics, either reassuring the resident that there were no safety concerns or making good any issues.
2. The landlord to confirm its position on redecorating the damaged areas of the property.
3. The landlord to provide confirmation of the actions they have taken to ensure the occupier of the property the leak originated from takes steps to mitigate the risks of any further leaks.
The landlord responded to the mediation on 28 June 2021 and confirmed the following:
1. Inspection – its repairs team would be in touch with the resident to arrange a further inspection of the electrics.
2. Décor – the leaks were not as a result of negligence from its repairs team; neither are the causes of the leaks related. Its position on redecorating remained the same, that this was an insurable event that the resident could claim for under his own home insurance. It said it would increase its goodwill gesture to £100 vouchers.
3. Upstairs tenant – it had made enquires and was satisfied that there were no underlying issues with the flat or the tenant, and he had been advised to be more vigilant.
The landlord’s revised offer of an inspection and £100 vouchers was put to the resident but he declined this offer and requested that his case go forward to investigation.
The landlord has provided this Service with confirmation that on 26 July 2021 it carried out a ‘full assessment’ of the electrics at the resident’s property. It provided a copy of the safety certificate and an ‘electrical installation condition report’ which confirmed that the electrics were in a ‘good general condition’ and that ‘no remedial work was required’.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
There are two main aspects to the resident’s dissatisfaction. Firstly, with regards to the safety of the electrics following the leak on 25 December 2020; and secondly with regards to the damage to the internal décor in the flat caused by the same leak.
The resident’s concerns and anxiety about the safety of electrics following the leak are duly noted. However, the Ombudsman is not able to provide the resident with an independent survey of the electrics as this is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to provide. The Ombudsman is only able to provide an independent review of the landlord’s actions in its response to the resident’s concerns.
In this regard, the available evidence demonstrates that the landlord acted appropriately by arranging a plumber and an electrician to attend to the leak on the same day as an emergency repair. The repair records show that the electrician checked the electrical sockets and was satisfied that they were safe. Whilst the resident has disputed this, there is no evidence to suggest that the electrics were not checked and/or they were left in an unsafe condition.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s dissatisfaction and his concerns were handled empathetically and the landlord has demonstrated that it made appropriate enquires and carefully considered the matter via its complaint investigations. Looking at the available correspondence and records, whilst the resident has raised concerns about the safety of the electrics, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that would question the validity of the electrician’s findings at the time of the leak.
The landlord’s decision not to carry out any further testing at the time of the leak was in accordance with its Electrical Safety policy, which states that any ad-hoc testing (i.e. other than the 5-year periodical check) should only be done if recommended by an electrician and should be backed up by sound engineering evidence to support the recommendation. In this case, the electrician confirmed that, in his view, further testing was not warranted or necessary.
Having said that, the landlord has acted fairly and reasonably by engaging positively with the Ombudsman mediation process, and in an effort to try and address the resident’s concerns, it has carried out a full safety check on the electrics. The report it has subsequently provided confirms that there are no safety issues with the electrics.
Looking at the evidence that is presently available, the landlord has addressed the resident’s concerns, and has appropriately evidenced that there are no safety issues with the electrics.
With regards to the damage to the internal décor and the resident’s possessions caused by the leak, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s response was appropriate.
When a complaint relates to potential financial compensation for damage of this type, it is appropriate for the landlord to consider if the matter should be referred to either its own insurer or the tenant’s own insurer. In this case, the matter for this Service to consider is whether it was fair in all the circumstances for the landlord to have referred the resident to his own insurer. It should be noted that the landlord’s own insurance does not cover such internal damage.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principals are key for both landlords and this Service in considering what a reasonable and fair response to an insurance issue is – in particular ‘be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process’.
In this case, the records evidence that the landlord properly considered the resident’s concerns about the internal décor damage and it made enquiries with its staff to establish the extent of any repair responsibility it may have. The records show that the landlord was satisfied from its enquires that the leak was not due to any service failure or negligence on its part, and as such, it was not required to carry out any repair to the internal décor. The landlord has demonstrated that it acted appropriately by advising the resident that he would need to refer the matter to his own home contents insurer to make a claim for any contents damaged by the leak.
The resident has said that he feels this is unfair as he was not responsible for the leak. That is not disputed, but the issue here is that the landlord has no repair obligation in this instance to make good any damage to the internal contents and décor. The leak was clearly not of the resident’s doing, but similarly, there is also no evidence to show that the landlord was in any way responsible for the leak.
The landlord has shown that it made enquires with its staff and with the tenant upstairs and looked into the previous leak that occurred in early December 2020 to establish if there were any underlying repair issues that it needed to address. The records show that it was satisfied from its enquiries that the two leaks were not related and were due to separate issues related to the neighbour’s actions. There was no evidence of any underlying structural issues that led to these leaks. The first leak was due to a washing machine pipe not having been fitted correctly, and the second leak was due to an overflowing sink. These were both deemed to be due to the neighbour’s action/inaction and the neighbour was spoken to and reminded of the need to be more careful in the future and to be mindful of the impact such incidents have on other tenants, which was an appropriate response.
Despite no finding of service failure, the landlord acted fairly by carrying out a full assessment of the electrics and by offering the resident £100 in vouchers towards the redecorating costs. There was no requirement for it to do either, and it did so in an effort to resolve the complaint through the Ombudsman’s mediation process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s property following a leak from the flat upstairs.

Reasons

The landlord has demonstrated that it responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns. Furthermore, it has carried out a full check on the electrics and it has offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £100 vouchers towards redecorating costs in an attempt to resolve the complaint through the Ombudsman’s mediation process.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendation

If it has not already done so, the landlord to re-offer the resident the £100 vouchers it offered him as part of the Ombudsman’s mediation process.