Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202123777)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123777

Greenwich Council

6 October 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 report of hot water flooding her bathroom.
2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority.
4. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 July 2021 to report her bathroom being flooded with hot water from a burst pipe. The resident said that her husband was at risk of getting injured or slipping over. The landlord’s contractor attended the property the same day and repaired the pipework, stopping the flood.
5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 21 July 2021 concerning the time it took for the landlord to respond to her calls about the burst pipe. She was also dissatisfied as she was informed by the contractor that the flood was due to the pipework underneath the bath not being completed by the landlord to a satisfactory standard. She asked for the tiles in the bathroom to be replaced by the landlord, as the water from the burst pipe had lifted them off the floor.
6. In its stage one response of 28 September 2021, the landlord accepted that the pipe fitting was not installed to the standard expected and was sorry for the inconvenience caused. It said it was not responsible for any damage to the resident’s floor tiles and this would need to be claimed via her contents insurance. If the resident did not have contents insurance then she could try to claim for these items against its own insurance, but an assessment of liability would be made before agreeing to any claim. The resident was dissatisfied with the response and said she did not have contents insurance.
7. In its final response to the complaint, dated 23 November 2021, the landlord apologised for the inconvenience the resident had experienced. It reiterated that the resident was able to try and make a claim against its own insurance. It said that it had found similar tiles for £16.90 per pack and would like to offer the resident £75 as a goodwill gesture towards the purchase of the tiles.
8. The resident brought the matter to this Service, as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer. She requested that the landlord arrange for a contractor to attend and replace the damaged tiles, at its own cost.
9. Following this, the landlord advised this Service that it had revised its offer to £175. This comprised £50 for the delayed response at stage one, £50 for the inconvenience caused as a result of the flood, and the initial £75 offered for the replacement tiles. In addition, the landlord requested that the resident invoice it regarding the labour required to replace the tiles. The landlord advised the resident of its revised offer in a letter dated 8 July 2022. It is not known if the resident has accepted the landlord’s offer.

Assessment and findings

Tenancy agreement, policies and procedures

10. The tenancy agreement between the resident and landlord states that the landlord is responsible for “keeping in repair and proper working order installations for the supply of water and waste pipes”.
11. The landlord’s “Your guide to repairs” document states that a leaking water pipe where the water cannot be shut off is considered an urgent repair, and should be attended within one working day. Additionally, this document states that it recommends that residents obtain contents insurance to cover their possessions and decorations against damage. For example, water damage from a leaking pipe.
12. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two stage internal complaints procedure. At stage one, it will provide a response within 15 working days of receiving the complaint. At the final stage, it will provide a response within 20 working days.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of hot water flooding her bathroom

13. As specified above, it was the landlord’s responsibility to repair the leaking pipe. In accordance with its “Your guide to repairs” document, the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend the property within one working day of the initial report. This response was appropriate as it was in accordance with its target timescales.
14. The resident says that when the contractor attended the property to fix the pipework, they said that the burst pipe was a result of the initial unsatisfactory pipework carried out by the landlord. The landlord acknowledged its responsibility for the unsatisfactory pipework as part of the stage one complaint response and issued an apology.
15. As the landlord acknowledged the burst pipe as being its fault, it would have been appropriate for it to have considered putting right the damage caused to the resident’s floor tiles, rather than referring the resident to her own insurance in the first instance. This is because the resident may have incurred costs (in the form of an “excess” and/or an increase in future premiums) should she have claimed on her own insurance. It is also likely that a claim for damage to floor tiles would not have been covered by contents insurance as they are usually regarded by insurers to be part of the fixtures and fittings in the property.
16. In its final response, the landlord offered £75 towards the cost of the replacement tiles as a goodwill gesture. However, this offer failed to put things right as it did not include the cost of installing the tiles. It is acknowledged that the landlord has more recently revised its offer to include reimbursement of the cost of the works and additional compensation, and therefore that it has now fully acknowledged its failings and made an appropriate offer to put things right. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have made this offer at a much earlier stage, while the complaint was being considered through its complaints procedure. Therefore, a finding of maladministration has been made.
17. To put things right the landlord has been ordered to pay additional compensation of £50 to fully reflect the length of time the resident has had to wait for a satisfactory outcome.

Complaint handling

18. The resident raised the formal complaint on 21 July 2021 and the landlord responded on 28 September 2021. This significantly exceeded the landlord’s 15 working day target and the recommended 10 working day target set out in this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. While it is accepted that there may be occasions when a landlord reasonably needs longer to respond to a complaint, no evidence has been provided to show that the landlord kept the resident updated in this regard.
19. It is acknowledged that the landlord has more recently accepted that there were unacceptable delays in it responding to the stage one complaint, and has offered £50 compensation to the resident for this matter. This is proportionate to the delay and resulting impact on the resident, and is in line with this Service’s own remedies guidance. However, the landlord missed the opportunity to put things right during the complaints procedure and therefore a finding of service failure has been made in respect of its complaint handling.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it responded to the reports of a burst pipe.
21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s complaint.

Orders

22. The landlord is ordered to:

1. Pay the resident compensation totaling £225, broken down as follows:

1. £175 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports about her damaged floor. This includes a payment of £75 towards the cost of replacement tiles.
2. £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint at stage one.
3. It should be noted that the compensation order replaces the landlord’s previous offers, and if any compensation has already been paid to the resident then the landlord can deduct this from the amount ordered. The landlord should pay the compensation within four weeks of the date of this report.

2. Reimburse the resident’s labour costs to replace the tiles, upon the resident’s provision of an invoice.