Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Cottsway Housing Association Limited (202113909)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113909

Cottsway Housing Association Limited

11 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and her subsequent request for compensation.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2.  In September 2021 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord as she had experienced a leak from her radiator which had caused damage to her flooring and personal items. The leak had occurred after a contractor had attended to replace her boiler the previous day, and she felt that the contractor was responsible. She wanted compensation from the landlord for the damage caused to her flooring and other items. She noted that the landlord had previously advised her to claim via her home contents insurer and said that her insurer would not accept a claim due to poor workmanship.
  3. In response to the complaint, the landlord raised an emergency repair and attended the same day to resolve the leak. It had discussed the matter with the contractors who denied liability for the leak as they were not responsible for the existing pipework in the property. The landlord established that the leak was the result of general wear and tear on the radiator valve and confirmed that the resident would need to approach her insurers, as it was not responsible for the damage to the flooring and other personal items. It offered the resident £350 compensation, comprised of £200 offered as a gesture of goodwill by the contractors and £150 to compensate the resident for her insurance excess fee. It also offered to provide a supporting letter to confirm that the leak was accidental for insurance purposes.
  4. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied that the landlord had advised her to raise a claim via her own home contents insurance. She advised that her own insurer would not take on the claim, and maintained her position that the contractor was responsible for the leak that had occurred. She wanted further compensation for the distress and inconvenience experienced and for the damage caused to her flooring and personal possessions.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping installations for heating and water, including water pipes, in good repair and proper working order. The resident would be responsible for the internal decoration of the property, which would usually include floor coverings. The agreement recommends that a resident takes out their own insurance policy to protect their belongings in the event of damage or loss. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs such as uncontainable leaks should be attended to within 24 hours.
  2. As part of her communication with both the Ombudsman and the landlord, the resident stated that she felt that the landlord’s contractors had been negligent in their handling of boiler replacement which she felt had caused the leak. It is not the role of this Service to determine liability for the damage caused to the resident’s property or determine whether the landlord or its contractors had been negligent in a legal sense. The Ombudsman is also not able to order the landlord to pay for the damage caused to the resident’s belongings as this would be more appropriately dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. However, the Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord has followed its own policies and procedures correctly and acted in line with industry best practice in its response to the resident’ repair reports.
  3. In this case, the landlord acted appropriately by attending to the reported leak within 24 hours in accordance with its repairs policy. The landlord would not be obliged to arrange for the resident’s damaged flooring to be replaced, as the resident would be responsible for the internal decoration of the property in line with the tenancy agreement. It did, however, take reasonable steps to inspect the property and the affected valve following the leak to determine the cause of the issue. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, it would be the resident’s responsibility to ensure that her personal items were insured against damage due to leaks. The landlord acted appropriately by advising the resident to raise a claim through her own contents insurance in the first instance as it had established that the leak was accidental. It also acted appropriately by discussing liability for the damage caused with the contractors who ultimately denied liability.
  4. The presence of the leak itself does not automatically indicate a service failure by the landlord or its contractors. Pipes and other household fixtures can and sometimes do fail. Only if there was evidence of actions, or inaction, by a landlord which led to or contributed to the repair issue, or a delay by a landlord in responding to reports of such a repair, would it be expected to consider compensation. In this case no such evidence is apparent.
  5. In its final response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord offered the resident £350 compensation, comprised of £150 towards the cost of her insurance excess fee and £200 as a gesture of goodwill from its contractors. Given that there was no evidence of a specific failing by the landlord or its contractors, the compensation offered went above and beyond what the landlord was obliged to do.  

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Recommendation

  1. While the landlord was not obliged to offer compensation in this particular case, given there was no evidence of a service failure, its offer was good customer service. If it has not already done so, we recommend that it now pay the resident as it earlier agreed.