Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Yorkshire Housing Limited (202117183)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117183

Yorkshire Housing Limited

1 July 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the subsequent repairs.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and record keeping. 

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident has advised that she has a heart-related health issue.
  2. The resident initially reported that there was a leak under her kitchen sink which had caused a foul smell throughout her property on 1 June 2021. An appointment took place on 23 June 2021; the operative found no evidence of a leak but suggested that the resident ask for a surveyor to attend. A surveyor inspected the property on 9 September 2021 and identified that the stop tap was wet to touch and that a kitchen unit may need to be removed and refitted in order to access the affected area. In November 2021, the resident also reported that her patio doors were letting water into the property when it rained.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord during November 2021 as she remained dissatisfied that several repair issues had not been resolved. She said that the leak under her sink had been ongoing for ten months, and that the inside of her kitchen cupboard and the flooring in her kitchen and bathroom had now been affected, as well as her bath panel. She was dissatisfied that she had been told that the leak identified in September 2021 was not considered urgent. She advised that the local authority’s Environmental Health service had attended and advised that the issues posed a serious health risk. She later added that she was dissatisfied that the leak was initially identified to be caused by the stop tap in her kitchen but later found to be caused by the waste pipe behind her toilet. She raised concerns that she could not use the kitchen as the cupboards were damp, and that the floor “squelched” under her feet. She asked for the flooring in her bathroom and kitchen, and her kitchen units and worktops to be replaced, as she had been informed by a contractor that they were beyond repair due to the water damage. She also raised concerns that she had not received a call from a manager as requested, and that no one had been out to check her patio doors which were letting water into the property.
  4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that it had attended the resident’s initial report of a leak in June 2021 within its target timescales. It acknowledged that, following the surveyor’s inspection on 9 September 2021, the contractor did not make contact to arrange a suitable appointment date within its target timescales. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience this may have caused. It noted that it had agreed an appointment for 17 November 2021, however, the resident had not provided access to the property on this date for it to complete any repairs. On 25 November 2021, an operative attended and found that the stop tap was ok, but that there was a leak from the waste pipe behind the resident’s toilet which was rectified. In its stage two complaint response on 17 December 2021, the landlord apologised for the time it was taking to complete the repairs following the leak. It confirmed it had arranged for an appointment to address the issues regarding the resident’s reports of rainwater coming through her patio doors, her kitchen unit handles, and the bath panel which had been damaged by the leak.
  5. Following the complaint, an operative attended on 18 December 2021 and replaced the bath panel which had been stained. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident had refused the work to her kitchen handles as she wanted the kitchen to be replaced. The records state she also refused the work to repair the patio door with sealant, as she believed that the door needed to be replaced.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the length of time it had taken to resolve the leak in her property. She added that the leak had caused damage to her kitchen and bathroom, but the landlord had advised that it would not replace the flooring. She advised that she was experiencing damp and mould throughout the property, and that the works to her patio doors, kitchen and bathroom remained outstanding. She wanted the repairs to be completed and compensation for the inconvenience caused. She contacted this Service recently to advise that some repairs still remain outstanding.


Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the repair issues and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the subsequent repairs.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to any kitchen and bathroom fixtures such as basins, sinks, toilets and baths which includes the relevant pipework. It is also responsible for the structure and exterior of the building, including entrance and patio doors. The resident is responsible for providing access to the property so that the landlord is able to inspect and carry out repairs. The repairs policy states that emergency repairs, such as uncontainable leaks should be attended to within 4 hours and made safe, then rectified within 24 hours. Urgent repairs should be completed within 7 days and routine repairs should be completed within 28 days. in some cases, a pre-inspection may be needed to assess the work that needs to be completed. A surveyor may attend and plan for the necessary repairs to be carried out. A landlord would be expected to take a resident’s personal circumstances into account, and may be expected to prioritise repairs where a resident is considered vulnerable.
  2. In this case, the resident initially reported a smell beneath her sink which she believed was caused by a leak on 1 June 2021. This was attended to on 23 June 2021 which was within the landlord’s timescales for routine repairs. It was reasonable for the landlord to classify the repair as a routine repair as there was no evidence of an uncontainable leak which would have caused immediate danger to the resident. The landlord’s records show that it had attempted to call the resident to arrange an earlier appointment, but had not been able to get through. It had also attempted to attend the repair on 17 June 2021, however, the operative was unable to gain access to the property which prevented the issue from being addressed at an earlier date.
  3. The operative did not identify any leaks at the time of this visit and recommended that a surveyor visit to identify the cause of the issue. The evidence shows that the work order for a surveyor to attend was initially raised on 2 July 2021 but was not attended until 9 September 2021, approximately two months later. It is noted that two appointments had been arranged on 8 July 2021 and 20 August 2021 but did not go ahead. It is unclear from the evidence provided as to whether these appointments were missed or whether there was no access to the property. The landlord has not provided an explanation for the delay at this stage which understandably would have caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident, who was still experiencing the damp smell in her property and believed there was a leak.  
  4. The surveyor attended on 9 September 2021 and found that the stop tap in the resident’s kitchen was wet to the touch. A repair order was raised on 10 September 2021 for an operative to attend and rectify the issue. This repair was not attempted until 17 November 2021, following further contact from the resident, and was completed on 26 November 2021, which was significantly outside of the landlord’s 28 calendar day timescale for routine repairs. In turn, the repair to the resident’s bath panel was completed on 18 December 2021, which was within a reasonable timescale once the leak had been resolved. The landlord has acknowledged the delay at this stage and apologised to the resident for the inconvenience caused, but has not offered any financial compensation to the resident which, given the length of the delay and the resident’s need to chase the matter up, was warranted in this case.
  5. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that the operatives who attended had failed to identify the leak in June 2021. She was then told that the leak was coming from the stop tap in her kitchen in September 2021, but it was later found to be caused by the waste pipe behind her toilet in November 2021. It should be noted that it can sometimes take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks, because it can be difficult to identify the cause at the outset. In some case different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved, which would not necessarily constitute a service failure in itself. In this case, the surveyor who attended in September 2021 found that the stop tap was wet to the touch, it was reasonable to assume that this was the cause of the leak at the time as the resident had not reported concerns about any other leaks within the property.
  6. In her communication with the landlord and this Service, the resident has confirmed that she wanted her kitchen to be replaced as well as her patio door and areas of flooring affected by the leak. She has advised that she was informed by an operative that the flooring and kitchen units were badly damaged and would need to be replaced. There is no evidence to confirm the landlord had agreed to this action, nor is there evidence to suggest that Environmental Health had made any recommendations to the landlord about the repair issues. Nonetheless, the landlord does not appear to have specifically addressed the resident’s request for the kitchen and flooring to be replaced in its complaint response, an omission which will be addressed in more detail below. The resident has advised that she was told that the flooring would not be replaced, however, the landlord has not provided any evidence which would confirm the reasoning behind this decision.
  7. It is noted that a repair order was raised on 2 November 2021 in relation to the resident’s patio door which was inspected on 18 December 2021, outside of its 28-calendar day timescale for repairs. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident had refused a repair to the patio door on 20 January 2022 as she believed that the door needed to be replaced rather than repaired. Landlord’s would not be expected to fully replace items such as doors or kitchen units unless they were found to be beyond economic repair. In this case, there is insufficient evidence to show that a full replacement of the patio door was required, and it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a repair. The Ombudsman cannot comment on what repairs would be appropriate, and the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake. The resident would be obliged to provide access to the property for the landlord to complete repairs.
  8. The landlord has taken reasonable steps to apologise to the resident for any inconvenience caused by the delays to the repairs. However, financial compensation was also warranted in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the repair delays in this case, including the delay in identifying and resolving the leak, and the delay in addressing the resident’s concerns regarding her patio door. That omission means that the landlord did not suitably remedy the resident’s complaint, and is, in itself, a service failing.
  9. In its final complaint response the landlord explained that it had made arrangements for several issues: leaky patio doors, kitchen cupboard door handles, and the bath panel. It did not address the other repair issues the resident had raised (in her stage two complaint), such as kitchen counters, cupboard interiors, and wet floors. It is not apparent whether the full range of repairs has now been completed, and an order has been made below to address that.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and record keeping. 

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two stage formal complaints procedure. At stage one, the landlord should respond within ten working days. if a resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 20 working days.
  2. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which sets out requirements for member landlords, the landlord would be expected to advise of the following within each complaint response:
    1. The outcome of the complaint. 
    2. The reasons for any decisions made.
    3. The details of any remedy offered to put things right.
    4. Details of any outstanding actions.
    5. Details of how to escalate the matter if dissatisfied.
  3. As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received, which did not include significant items such as communication logs, the dates of the resident’s initial complaint or escalation request, or specific information regarding missed or cancelled appointments. In this particular case the investigation has been able to reach a determination based on the information to hand. However, the omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked.
  4. Whilst the Ombudsman has not been provided with the specific dates of the resident’s initial complaint or escalation request, the landlord appears to have responded within reasonable timescales in this case. The landlord initially acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 16 November 2021 and provided its stage one complaint response on 19 November 2021 which was within its ten working day timescale at this stage. It issued its stage two complaint response on 17 December 2021, which was within 20 working days of its initial response and therefore reasonable.
  5. However, the landlord’s stage two complaint response was brief and did not address the resident’s request for her flooring in the bathroom and kitchen to be replaced, her claim that her kitchen was unusable, or her request for new wooden shelves in her bathroom following the leak. Furthermore, the landlord’s stage two complaint response did not set out the actions it had taken, the outcome of the complaint (whether the resident’s complaint was upheld), or the reasons behind any decisions made in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. Whilst it apologised for the perceived delays, it did not explain the reasons for this or explain its position as to why it would or would not complete certain requested repairs. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have confirmed its position regarding the resident’s requests for her flooring and kitchen to be replaced in order to resolve the complaint more fully. Taken together, these issues with both the landlord’s complaint responses, and its complaints record keeping show service failings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the subsequent repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint and record keeping.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that within four weeks the landlord pays to the resident:
    1. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the repair delays and lack of clear communication.
    2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling and record keeping.
  2. Within four weeks the landlord must also confirm (with evidence) to this Service, and the resident, that all of the individual repair issues raised with it by the resident in her stage two complaint about her kitchen and bathroom have now been resolved. If any have not yet been resolved it must provide a robust plan to complete them in the immediate future. If the landlord has decided that some of the repair issues are not its responsibility, it must show that it has clearly explained this to the resident.
  3. Please note that this order applies to the repairs reported by the resident up until mid-December 2021, when the landlord’s complaints procedure ended. Any new repair issues that have arisen since that time must be raised by the resident as new complaints with the landlord, who should consider them appropriately.