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

Longhurst Group Limited (202202236)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202236

Longhurst Group Limited

20 September 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 response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for increased water bills following a leak.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 June 2021 regarding her toilet constantly filling up (but not overflowing, so no flooding was occurring). The repair records show no further action was taken until the resident complained to the landlord on 15 September 2021, when she explained that her water bills were going to go up because water was constantly filling up in the toilet and nothing had been done to resolve the issue. An appointment was booked for 8 October 2021 but this was missed by the contractors. A visit took place on 19 October 2021 and the toilet was repaired.
  3. The landlord’s first complaint response was on 22 October 2021. It acknowledged the delays in completing the repair and offered £110 compensation for the inconvenience caused. The landlord also advised the resident to apply for a “water leakage allowance” with her water company, before it would consider compensation for any increased costs in her water bill.
  4. On 1 November 2021, the resident explained that the toilet needed repairing again as this time it was empty and not filling up with water. She said she was having to refill the cistern by hand. She also requested an escalation of her complaint on 3 November 2021. The landlord’s contractors attended on 15 November 2021, at which point they repaired the toilet. There were no further issues reported with it.
  5. On 5 January 2022 and then on 8 and 9 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord as she had not received her final response after her escalation. She explained that the water company was chasing her for an unpaid bill which she could not afford to pay. The landlord responded on 15 February 2022. It apologised for the delay and explained that there had been technical issues. It asked for evidence of the water leakage application being rejected by her water company. Copies of the increased water bill and a standard bill for the same period were also requested. However, the resident explained that her mental health situation was making it difficult to obtain the information, and she asked the landlord to get it itself.
  6. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 15 March 2022 It stated that the water company would not discuss the resident’s account for security reasons and therefore she would need to provide the evidence. It explained that under its compensation procedure it must obtain copies of the requested documentation (at stage one) before being able to consider any compensation. The landlord also offered to help the resident fill out the water leakage allowance form over the phone. In regard to the lack of response to emails, the landlord apologised and reoffered the £110 compensation from its first response.
  7. The resident came to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to reimbursing her increased water bill, the length of time it took to repair and the level of compensation offered considering the impact on her mental health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has stated that the delays in her toilet being repaired has caused an impact on her mental health which this Service is not doubting. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and well-being. Therefore, the resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the actions or lack of action by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for increased water bills following a leak

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states that, if a resident incurs an increased water bill due to a failed or unattended repair, compensation will be considered, providing the resident supplies evidence they have approached their water supplier for a leakage allowance (and their request has been refused), a copy of their current bill showing the increased usage, and a copy of the previous year’s bill for the same period, or confirmation from their water supplier of what their bill should be based on previous usage.
  2. The faulty toilet was reported in June 2021. However, this was not repaired until October 2021. The reason for the lack of action from the landlord was unclear. The landlord did not contact the resident after her initial report until she raised a complaint in September 2021. The landlord acknowledged the delay in repairing the resident’s toilet in its complaint response, apologised, and offered £110 in compensation. The resident was still able to use her toilet during this specific time. In the circumstances of the impact of the delayed repair, the landlord’s compensation was broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for complaints where there is no long term impact, and was therefore reasonable in the context of the landlord also being open to consider reimbursement for any increased water usage.
  3. The resident informed the landlord of her increased water bill on 13 October 2021. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this in its first response on 22 October 2021, where it asked the resident to apply to the water company for a water leakage allowance; and if it were refused, to then come back and provide a copy of the refusal and a bill showing the increase. This was in line with standard practice amongst social landlords, the landlord’s compensation policy, and was appropriate because if there was a process which the resident could access reimbursement for wasted water, it was understandable that the landlord would ask her to utilise it first. The landlord left open the option to consider reimbursing her if her efforts with the water company were unsuccessful, and offered to assist her in making that request.
  4. The resident explained to the landlord how unwell the stress of dealing with this issue was making her, and that was partly why she had not been able to provide the requested information. The landlord explained why it could not contact the water company on her behalf, as she had asked, and why it needed the information. The evidence supports the resident’s explanations that she was feeling overwhelmed and frustrated, and her reluctance to engage further is understandable in the circumstances. Nonetheless, the landlord’s request and the efforts it made to provide assistance were relevant and not unreasonable
  5. It is important to appreciate that the landlord accepted and acknowledged its poor repair service, and reasonably redressed the failing. Part of that redress included considering reimbursement for the extra water charges, if the resident could provide information directly relevant to the matter. Overall, these actions were reasonable, proportionate, and relevant to the circumstance the resident was in, and the request for further information was appropriate.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident’s escalation request on 3 November 2021 was not responded to by the landlord. The resident contacted again in January and February 2022 for a response, and the landlord then provided its response on 15 March 2022. Although her reasons for escalation were unclear, the resident’s email specifically requested an escalation. In a situation like this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to communicate with the resident and establish her concerns in a timely manner which it did not do. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request in mid-February 2022, and explained that the delay was due to “technical issues” which caused some emails to be left unattended. It acknowledged and apologised for this in its stage two response. However, the resident had sent at least three update requests before the landlord realised its error, and each of the requests had displayed the resident’s increasing distress and anxiety about the outstanding water bill.
  2. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) a stage two response should be provided within twenty-working-days of the complaint being escalated. The landlord’s complaints procedure states the same. While the landlord explained why the delay occurred, in the context of the resident’s chaser emails, her growing stress, and the length of the delay, an acknowledgement and apology were important, but not enough to be considered a reasonable remedy. In line with the Code, some token of compensation should also have been considered, and there is no evidence the landlord did. That was not reasonable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the leak and increased water bills satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders  

  1. In light of the inconvenience and distress which will have been caused by its poor complaint handling, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100. This payment should be made within four weeks of this report. Evidence of the payment must be provided to this Service.
  2. This payment is in addition to the £110 offered by the landlord in its complaint responses, which should also now be paid if it has not already been.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should remain open to considering reimbursing the resident if she provides the relevant information showing increased water consumption in the relevant repair period.