One Housing Group Limited (202116962)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116962

One Housing Group Limited

22 April 2022

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 concerns the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of a water leak from the property above.
2. The associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
On 14 May 2021 the resident experienced an uncontrollable leak into her property from the property above. The landlord’s repair logs state that it raised an emergency repair on 18 May 2021 for a plumber to visit the property above to help locate the source of the leak and to determine the responsibility for undertaking repairs. An internal landlord email sent on 18 May 2021 stated that it had informed the leaseholder of the property above that was their responsibility to complete repairs.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 May 2021 and requested to raise a complaint. She described the elements of the complaint as.
1. The leak had not been properly repaired and there were still issues with water leaking into her property from the property above and leaking out of her property into the property below.
2. She was not happy with how the landlord had handled the matter when she reported it and it should have responded in a timelier manner.
3. She felt neglected by the landlord.
As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested compensation towards her rent costs.
The landlord sent a stage one complaint response on 21 June 2021. It informed the resident that:
1. It had advised the resident on the day of the leak that it would be her responsibility to locate and remedy the leak as leaseholder of the property.
2. The neighbour’s insurance provider arranged for a plumber to attend the property above but was unable to locate the source of the leak.
3. The landlord had requested a copy of the insurer’s plumber’s report on 17 May 2021, and on 18 May 2021 it arranged for its own plumber to attend the neighbour’s property. This plumber located the source of the leak and informed the neighbour that it would be their responsibility to resolve.
4. It had examined the call recordings of the resident’s communication with the landlord, and it was satisfied that it had followed its processes and provided the resident with correct information.
5. It explained that any claim for damages or loss should be addressed with the insurance company for the building. The landlord provided the resident with the insurer’s contact details.
6. It apologised for not providing the stage one complaint response within its published timescale and offered the resident £50 compensation in view of this.
The landlord sent a stage two complaint response on 17 July 2021. It informed the resident that:
1. The landlord would pass on the resident’s concerns to the insurer.
2. It explained that the resident was responsible for repairs to the property, while the landlord was responsible for repairs to the fabric of the building. It further noted that these responsibilities were the same for leaseholders who owned their properties and for leaseholders who were a shared owner.
3. It was satisfied with the resolution it offered to the resident at stage one relating to delays in the complaint process..
In an email sent to this Service on 21 December 2021, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as:
1. The landlord did not act appropriately when informed of the leak.
2. The repairs arranged by the insurer were of a poor quality and incomplete.
As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord should cover repair costs as it owns 55% of the property.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy categorises the types of repairs it responds to as “Emergency” (attend within three hours and make safe within 24 hours) and “Routine” (attend within 28 days or at a mutually convenient time). The policy defines an emergency repair as situation that presents an “immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public”.
Section 2 of the repairs and maintenance policy relates to the responsibilities the landlord has for different types of tenures and service agreements. In regard to shared ownership and leaseholder properties, the policy states as follows:
1. “The lease is the source document which outlines repairs and maintenance responsibilities which includes heating services. It is important to recognise that each lease may be different and as such a lease should be checked to confirm [the landlord’s] obligations”.
Section 3 of the resident’s leasehold agreement relates to the leaseholder’s covenants (what the leaseholder has agreed to abide by in signing the agreement). Section 3(3) is concerned with what the resident has agreed to keep in repair and states, in part, that the resident is to:
1. “Keep the interior of the Premises and the glass in the windows and doors (if any) of the Premises and the interior faces (including plaster and other internal coverings or lining and any floor boards tiling and screeding) of the walls ceilings and floors of the Premises and all radiators and water and sanitary apparatus and gas and electrical apparatus of the Premises and all pipes drains and wires which are in the Premises and are enjoyed or used only for the Premises and not for other premises in the Building on the Landlord’s Estate and the fixtures and appurtenances of and belonging to the Premises clean and in good substantial repair and condition damage (in excess of any insurance excess) by fire or other risk insured by the Landlord excepted unless such insurance shall be vitiated by any act or default of the Leaseholder”.
Section 5(3) of the leasehold agreement relates to the Landlord’s covenants of what to keep in repair. This, in part, states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining, repairing, redecorating, renewing and improving:
1. “The roof foundations and main structure of the Building and all external parts thereof including all external and load-bearing walls the windows and doors on the outside of the flats within the Building (save the glass in any such doors and windows and the interior surface of the walls) and all parts of the Building which are not the responsibility of the Leaseholder under this Lease or of any other leaseholder under a similar lease of other premises in the Building”.
2. “The pipes swerves drains writs cisterns and tanks and other gas electrical drainage ventilation and water apparatus and machinery in under and upon the Building (except such as serve exclusively an individual flat in the Landlord’s Estate)”.
3. “The Common Parts”.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to acknowledge the complaint within two working days and provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
The complaints policy states that a claim for damages and/or liability will not be considered as part of its complaint process and will be considered by its insurance team.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering non-statutory compensation where there has been “mismanagement, a delay in service, and/or additional costs have been incurred due to a service failure. This can include a failure to meet agreed service standards, or not following the complaints process”.
The policy goes on to note that “compensation should be paid in a manner that is fair and proportionate and represents value for money. It is not a replacement for home contents insurance and residents must insure their personal belongings against accidental damage, loss, fire or water damage”.
Section 4.4 of the policy describes the circumstances where the landlord will not make a compensation payment. these include:
1. The claim is made due to unforeseeable circumstances and/or caused by a third party or was beyond that landlord’s control, such as a water leak from a neighbouring property.
2. If the damage or loss should have been covered by home contents insurance.
3. Claims for litigation and/or negligence which will be dealt with through the landlord’s insurers.
The compensation policy also provides guidance for levels of payments. This categorises the levels of redress it will consider as “Minor Impact” (up to £50), “Medium Impact” (£50 to £250), and “High Impact” (£250 to £500). Minor impact is defined as “the complaint has been upheld and there has been minor inconvenience or distress caused. Impact has been no more than a reasonable person could be expected to accept and the compensation is a token in acknowledgement of our responsibility. This type of payment would generally be recorded as a gesture of goodwill”.

Scope of investigation

In her correspondence with the landlord and with this Service, the resident has stated her dissatisfaction with how the insurer for the building has handled repairs to her property and progressed her claim for damages.
This Service is unable to investigate the resident’s concerns regarding the insurer’s conduct. This is because the Ombudsman can only investigate complaints about social landlords, who are members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The insurer is not a member of the Scheme and therefore the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about its activities. The insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord was not responsible for the insurer’s decisions regarding the repairs to the property and the resident’s claim for damages.
This is in line with paragraph 35 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will only consider complaints about the actions or omissions of a member. Paragraph 2(c) of the Scheme defines a member as “social and private landlords, lessors, licensors, managing agents and other providers of housing services which are members of the Scheme either on a mandatory or voluntary basis;” The resident may be able to refer her concerns about the insurer to The Financial Ombudsman, once the insurer has given its final decision on her complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above.

When informed by both the neighbour and the resident on 14 May 2021 about the leak, the landlord correctly informed both parties that the neighbour would be responsible for completing repairs as the leak originated within their property. This was appropriate action by the landlord and in line with the covenants of the leasehold agreement described above which set out that leaseholders are responsible for repairs within their own properties.
When the landlord was informed that the plumber arranged by the buildings insurer had been unable to locate the source of the leak, it raised an emergency repair on 18 May 2021 for its own plumber to investigate. This action by the landlord was made in line with the leasehold covenants. If the water leak had continued it may have affected the fabric of the building, which would be the landlord’s responsibility to resolve. The landlord’s plumber was able to identify the source of the leak and confirm the neighbour’s responsibility for fixing it.
Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord in its response to the leak. It correctly explained both its own and the resident’s repair responsibilities under the leasehold agreement. It also followed its complaints and compensation policy by passing on the resident’s requests for compensation for damages on to its liability insurer.
Landlords are entitled to have insurance policies to cover the cost of liability claims and the landlord would not be expected to consider a claim for damages outside the insurance process. As stated above, this Service cannot investigate the actions insurers, including the landlord’s liability insurer and therefore we cannot comment further on the insurance process or the outcome of any insurance claim.
As stated in the landlord’s compensation policy, residents are advised to take out their own contents insurance to cover any damage to their personal possessions due to unforeseen events such as leaks. This is because the landlord is not responsible for the cost of repairing or replacing residents’ personal possessions in this type of situation. The landlord would only be expected to pay for such damage if the damage occurred as a direct result of negligence by the landlord or its contractors.
During the complaint process, the resident highlighted concerns with the condition of the electrics in the property’s kitchen as a result of water damage, and that it could be a fire hazard. The leaseholder covenants (“electrical apparatus of the Premises and all pipes drains and wires which are in the Premises”) state that this would be considered the responsibility of the resident. The resident could raise this issue with the buildings insurer, if she has not done so already.
The resident has also requested a copy of the plumber’s report from the landlord. This report was made by the plumber arranged by the insurer who visited the property above the resident’s flat on 14 May 2021. While the landlord has stated that it requested a copy of the report on 17 May 2021, it is not clear if a copy was provided by the insurer.
Moreover, due to data protection regulations, it may not be possible for the landlord to pass on a copy of the report without the written permission of the insurer. If the resident still wishes to receive a copy of the report, it is advised that she contact the insurer directly about the availability of the report.

The landlord’s complaint handling

In its stage one complaint response, the landlord apologised for not meeting its target response time and offered the resident £50 compensation in view of this. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and apologising to the resident. It put things right by offering £50 compensation. The compensation award was made in line with the landlord’s compensation policy at the minor impact tariff of its payment guidance.
The payment was also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £50 to £250 for service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. As an example for when this level of redress should be considered, the guidance suggests “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact on the outcome for the complainant “.
The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the delay. The landlord demonstrated that it learnt from outcomes by providing the stage two response within 20 working days in line with its complaint policy.
Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this element of the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to address what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it responded to the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of its complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves this element of the complaint.