Watford Community Housing Trust (202010443)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010443

Watford Community Housing Trust

30 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 landlord’s response to reports of a boiler leak.

Background and summary of events

The resident has had an assured tenancy with the landlord since 10 September 2007. The property is a one-bedroom bungalow. The resident has advised the landlord that she has a physical vulnerability.
On 17 June 2020 the landlord carried out the annual gas service on the resident’s boiler. Pressure was topped up on the boiler, which was otherwise considered to be in a good and safe condition. On 22 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that the gas engineer had been satisfied the complete installation was safe for continued use. It enclosed a copy of the gas safety record for the resident’s reassurance.
On 24 October 2020 the resident reported a leak to the boiler at approximately 8pm. The landlord’s contractor attended the property as an out-of-hours emergency callout on the same day at approximately 10pm. The boiler was made safe and the filling loop repaired. The resident stated in later communication that the contractor said to her at the time of the appointment that the leak had been caused by “something not being fitted correctly and not secured.” The job report from the day notes that a leak was reported, and the action taken was to “repair [the] filling loop”.
On 26 October 2020 the resident spoke to the landlord and requested that someone come out to inspect the property, specifically the damp and damage to her carpet that she considered to have resulted from the leak. The resident repeated the request on 30 October 2020. The landlord responded on the same day noting it was formulating a response.
On 5 November 2020 the resident again chased a response, with the landlord responding on 6 November 2020 noting that it was following-up the request with its repairs team.
On 9 November 2020 the landlord’s internal emails noted that the carpet repair should be addressed through the resident’s insurance as per the terms of its policies and the resident’s tenancy agreement. This was communicated to the resident on the same day.
On 11 November 2020 the resident contacted the landlord noting that following contact with her insurers to make a claim for the damaged carpet, they had requested the landlord provide a letter in writing setting out what was wrong with the boiler. The landlord responded to the resident on the same day noting that it would require her insurers to contact it directly to request the information they required to progress the claim.
On 12 November 2020 the resident telephoned the landlord to raise a formal complaint. She stated that she was unable to afford the insurance excess of £350 for replacement of the carpet and believed the landlord should undertake this work as she considered the leak to have been its fault and the leak caused by some part of the system not being fitted correctly. She stated that the contractor who had attended stated that the leak was due to “something not being fitted correctly and not secured.” She requested a copy of the engineer’s report from the date the leak was fixed.
The resident also sent an email to the landlord on the same day setting out similar grounds of the complaint, stating her belief that there had been a lack of quality work on the boiler which had resulted in the leak and subsequent property damage.
On the same day, 12 November 2020, the landlord sent a complaint acknowledgement to the resident, noting that it would contact her within ten working days with its findings or advise if it required further time to provide the response.
On 24 November 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident on the telephone. The resident stated that she had been keeping boxes in front of her boiler which both parties believed caused a delay in identifying the leak.
On 25 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging that it had failed to meet its ten-working day response time for concluding its investigation and apologised for the delay. It noted that the investigation was continuing and that it would provide her with a final complaint response no later than 8 December 2020.
On 1 December 2020 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident in which it set out the following:
1. It had acted appropriately in carrying out the annual gas service and then attending as necessary on 24 October 2020 to carry out the boiler repair. It attached a copy of the engineer’s job report regarding its attendance on the day of the reported leak. It had not been negligent, nor caused any damage to the boiler which could have resulted in the leak occurring. It therefore considered the leak to be unforeseeable.
2. It acknowledged that the resident was unhappy to have been advised make a claim through her own contents insurance, but confirmed this was the correct procedure to follow when claiming for damage to personal belongings. It noted that it strongly advised its residents to take out contents insurance to protect their belongings in the event of such situations.
3. It noted that if the carpet had not dried, it would arrange for a dehumidifier to be delivered and would compensate her for the running cost of this for up to £3 a day.
On 7 December 2020 the resident requested that the complaint be escalated. In her request she set out the following:
1. She was not satisfied with the landlord’s offer noting that it did not fully address the main issue, being the subsequent water damage that had been caused to her carpet and home contents. She stated this had been caused by the malfunction of fixtures and fittings that fell under the landlord’s responsibility and duty of care as a housing association.
2. She noted her carpet would need to be replaced as drying alone would not restore it to is previous condition. She stated that this should not fall to her as the tenant to cover either directly or via her insurance which would disadvantage her financially.
3. On this basis she requested the landlord provide the details of its liability insurance policy to allow her to make a claim against it.
On 8 December 2020 the landlord acknowledged receipt of the escalation request.
On 10 December 2020 the landlord provided its response to the resident’s request for escalation. It noted that while it had considered the points raised in the resident’s appeal and passed these on as feedback for the team concerned, it did not consider it appropriate to deal with the matter as an appeal because no new evidence had been submitted beyond that already considered. It maintained its position that the leak had been unforeseeable and the resident should make a claim against her contents insurance to recover the costs of any damaged goods. It restated its offer to provide her with dehumidifiers.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out the following:
1. The landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the installation in the dwelling for space and water heating [at 2.2.1]
2. Tenants are required to report any disrepair or defect to the landlord promptly [at 2.3.2.1(iv)]
3. Emergency repairs are those required in situations which are actually or potentially dangerous or pose an immediate risk to health or safety. They are likely to include situations requiring immediate action to prevent serious damage to the property. Emergency repairs must be completed within 24 hours of being reported unless exceptional circumstances prevent this [at 3.2.3]
4. Routine repairs are those required in situations which do not pose an immediate threat to tenants, the property or possessions [at 3.2.4]
5. Tenants are responsible under their tenancy agreement for ensuring they have sufficient home insurance cover for their contents and personal belongings [at 9.1]. If damage occurs due to negligence of a repairs operative, the landlord will claim under its relevant insurances policies [at 9.3].
6. Emergency repairs include loss of entire heating provision where the tenant is elderly, and all serious plumbing or gas leaks where the fabric is in danger of damage. Routine works include minor leaks.
The landlord’s compensation policy notes that compensation may be claimed for damage to residents’ belongings caused by the landlord in certain circumstances. In most cases it will require an operative or project surveyor to inspect the damage. Compensation will not be paid if the damage was the result of the customer failing to remove belongings from the work vicinity or to keep their losses to a minimum. A compensation claim must be made within five working days of the issue arising. It is intended that all claims will be dealt within in the same estimated timeframes as dealing with customer feedback. Compensation will not be payable where there is insurance or insurance should have been put in place by the customer.
The landlord’s insurance policy and procedure sets out that the landlord must consider the evidence available when a resident makes a claim for financial loss due to alleged negligence.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a two-stage complaint process:
1. At stage one, a complaint will be acknowledged within one working day. It will aim to resolve the complaint the same working day if a quick solution can be found. If not, it will aim to resolve the issue within a maximum of ten working days.
2. The landlord reserves the right not to accept an appeal/complaint escalation if no new evidence is being submitted beyond that already considered, and its policies, procedures or regulatory requirements have been followed in full in relation to the matter.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination on liability regarding damages to the resident’s belongings. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures and fairly in all the circumstances when responding to the substantive issue. Therefore, the Ombudsman can consider the actions taken by the landlord to repair the leak as well as its response to the resident’s request for an insurance claim to be raised with the landlord’s insurers, and its response to the complaint about the damage to her carpet.
The landlord acted appropriately in response to the initial report. It raised an emergency work order as soon as the resident reported the leak and attended the property to resolve and make safe the issue within a matter of hours. This was in line with its emergency repairs timeframe of 24 hours, and meant the immediate issue was resolved, mitigating the risk of potential further damage.
The occurrence of a repair issue or the fact that damage to belongings results from this prior to a report being made does not of itself establish that a landlord committed a service failure. By their nature, appliances will experience faults and break down over the course its lifetime. The landlord is not obligated to prevent any fault from ever occurring, but rather to respond appropriately to resolve issues as when and when they occur. On this basis, a landlord can only respond to reports of an issue once it has been informed that it exists.
The resident has stated that there was no way for her to detect the leak as it was on the boiler in a store cupboard that she does not go into, and additionally because there were boxes below the boiler which blocked sight of the leak and also soaked up the water for some time. While this set of circumstances is unfortunate, the landlord cannot be held responsible for this. In the absence of evidence of any service failure that led to the leak, its actions must be judged from the moment it became aware of the issue.
Following the resident’s communication with it about the damage to the carpet, the landlord took appropriate steps to consider her request that it make an insurance claim on its own policy. Its internal emails demonstrate that it was satisfied the resident should claim on her contents insurance on the basis that it was a claim for damage to her contents/personal belongings, specifically the carpet, and this therefore fell under the resident’s responsibility in line with the tenancy agreement and repairs policy. It provided the resident with instructions on how to communicate her own insurer to progress the matter, and also assured her it would communicate with the insurer if contact was required between the parties.
Regarding the landlord’s subsequent response to the resident’s request for it to resolve the issue of the damaged carpet, both parties have taken opposing views on who should be responsible. Here, the resident claimed that the fault with the boiler had been caused by the landlord’s poor workmanship, specifically that some part of the system had not been correctly installed or maintained. In support of this position, the resident has recounted a conversation that she states occurred when the landlord’s contractor attended the property to fix the leak. She has reported the contractor expressed the opinion that the leak had been caused by “something not being fitted correctly and not secured.”
However the resident has not provided any documentary or other evidence in support of this position other than her account of the contractor’s statement. The Ombudsman relies on the available documentary evidence to make determinations that are fair in all the circumstances of the case. In contrast with the resident’s position, the landlord has provided a record of the previous annual gas service carried out on 17 June 2020 which noted the boiler to be in good and safe condition. The letter of 22 June 2020 communicated this finding to the resident. Additionally, the job engineer’s report from the attendance when the leak was fixed does not provide any explanation as to the cause of the leak, simply stating that action was taken to repair the filling loop. The landlord provided this to the resident at her request to justify the position it took in response to her concerns about the carpet. It was entitled to rely on the terms of its repairs policy and the tenancy agreement that noted the resident to be responsible for having insurance to protect belongings such as her carpet. Considering all the evidence, there is no indication of service failure.
The offer of dehumidifiers was an appropriate one for the landlord to make in an attempt to assist the resident to mitigate any damage to her belongings and progress the complaint towards a possible resolution. The resident has raised the reasonable point that the offer was made some time after the leak and repair occurred, by which point she was of the opinion that they would serve little purpose. Nevertheless, it was an appropriate offer to make as it demonstrated part of a broader approach to assist the resident in a limited capacity without agreeing to the resident’s request for the insurance claim, which was a fair position to take. Given the resident’s concerns, the landlord should consider making such an offer earlier in the process in similar future cases, i.e. as soon as it knows that there is an issue such as a wet carpet. The delay here does not amount to service failure, but should be recognised by the landlord and the learning taken on board.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 there was no maladministration regarding the complaint about the landlord’s response to reports of a boiler leak.

Reasons

The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports of the boiler leak, arranging an emergency call out at which the boiler was made safe. The landlord has provided documentary evidence to establish that the previous maintenance work it carried out on the boiler was appropriate and of a good standard. It engaged in a reasonable fashion with the resident’s request for a liability insurance claim to be raised, even though it ultimately rejected the request and made itself available to assist the resident’s insurers so as to achieve a resolution to the issue.