Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202015542)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015542

Greenwich Council

10 June 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 is about landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to relocate a mains stopcock from outside of the property to the inside of the property.
The complaint is about landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder. The landlord is a local authority. The resident’s property is on the 6th floor of the building. A sample lease has been seen.
The stopcock in this case is an externally operated valve that regulates the flow of water into the property. The resident described this as the ‘mains stopcock’. The stopcock was originally located outside of the resident’s property and has since been relocated to the inside of the property.
The resident has since raised concern with the quality of the landlord’s repair/relocation (2021). This may be assessed in the first instance by the landlord as a separate and new complaint. This investigation has assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to relocate the stopcock prior to July 2021, which is the date when Ombudsman accepted the matter for investigation.
In respect of the complaint handling, the landlord operates a two stage complaint process. Stage one responses are due within 15 working days following a resident’s complaint and stage two responses are to be issued within 20 working days of the escalation.
The resident and the landlord both provided a timeline of events related to the issues under this complaint.
The resident has said that in August 2020 she emailed the landlord to ask about the replacement / relocation of a stopcock and was told that the landlord would ‘only deal with first stopcock into the property’.
In September 2020 the resident said that she asked the landlord to discuss the stopcock relocation (1 – 3 September 2020). An appointment was booked in for 1 October 2020 and the plumber attended and adjusted the mains stopcock. The landlord said that the plumber found that the stopcock was working.
The resident stated that she emailed the landlord again to explain that the other tenants already had their mains stopcocks relocated to the inside of their service cupboard (in their property) where a second water tank stopcock resided. She said that she was installing a new kitchen and wanted her mains stopcock to be relocated to the inside of her property/service cupboard. The resident also said that she wanted to be able to cut off the water supply so that her contractors could relocate the stopcock.
The resident was told that the landlord would not carry this work out on a leasehold flat and directed her to the area manager for authorisation. The resident said that she chased this and was told by telephone on 13 October 2020 that she could relocate the stopcock. The resident said that the landlord then said that it could not provide the service and the resident would have to arrange this (15 October 2020). The resident provided a copy of the text of the landlord’s email in which it said that once the resident’s qualified plumber carried out the work then it could provide a retrospective letter of consent and this may be subject to an inspection (23 October 2020).
The resident said that she had been suffering from panic attacks and was signed off from work due to the way that she was being treated (28 October 2020).
The resident said that she contacted the landlord in November 2020 to ask when the water supply would be interrupted to allow her to carry on with her plans for works to her kitchen. She also sent another email to explain how the situation was affecting her health.
The landlord stated that the resident contacted it to chase a response in November 2020. According to the landlord’s records, this followed the visit in October 2020 where it had repaired the main valve and replaced a stockcock to the ‘cold down services’ and the same records state that it found that the stockcock was fully working.
In December 2020 the landlord told the resident’s councilor that it had not agreed to shut down the water supply to the block to facilitate the works which the resident had raised. It considered that the works were cosmetic and not an emergency. It said that it would be an inconvenience to other residents to be without water for the period of the work.
The resident emailed the landlord and expressed her dissatisfaction about the way that the landlord was treating its leaseholders (7 December 2020). She explained that the landlord had relocated the stopcock in the other flats, she had been trying to resolve this for four months, the landlord had agreed that she could relocate the stopcock, the landlord should have replaced the mains stopcock itself but this was not done, and the mains supply would be interrupted for this anyway.
In the same email she also gave her view over the level of the inconvenience to other residents. She considered that the interruption for 8 flats would be reasonable and water for the bathrooms was supplied by the water tank (not the mains). The resident said that the landlord had interrupted the mains water anyway, without notice, such as on 21 November 2020 and 5 December 2020.
In January 2021 the landlord told the councilor that the block would need to be shut down fully for the work to be carried out and if the resident’s plumber made an error with the movement of the stopcock, then all residents would be affected. The landlord said that the ownership of pipework and associated repairs would fall on the landlord to remedy.
The landlord reiterated its position in February 2021; it would not allow the resident to carry out the work.
The resident escalated her complaint with the Ombudsman on 8 March 2021 via webform. She explained the circumstances and said that the outcome she sought was for the landlord to agree a date to close the water supply for 30 minutes to allow her plumber to complete the relocation of the stopcock in the kitchen, so that she could complete her kitchen installation. She said that she also sought for the stopcock to be replaced as it was ‘old and not functioning well’.
On 9 March 2021 the Ombudsman attempted to facilitate local resolution with the landlord and requested that it provide a response to the resident within 15 working days.
On 6 April 2021 the resident reported to the Ombudsman that the landlord had not responded to her complaint.
On 22 April 2021 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord for second time and asked the landlord to provide the resident with a response within 5 working days. The landlord replied to the Ombudsman on the same day and confirmed that it had forwarded the enquiry and asked the relevant team to contact the resident within 5 working days.
On 29 April 2021 the resident reported to the Ombudsman that the landlord had not responded to her complaint.
On 7 May 2021 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord a third time and asked for a response to the resident and the Service by 14 May 2021. The landlord responded on the same day to acknowledge the outstanding request and deadline.
On the same day (7 May 2021) the landlord emailed the resident and said that the repairs team were inspecting the water tanks on 14 May 2021 and would wait for an update from a survey before providing the resident with a response. It gave the same update to the Ombudsman on 11 May 2021.
On 18 May 2021 the resident reported to the Ombudsman that the matter remained outstanding, and she had not had a response from the landlord; the only responses had been sent to the councilor. The resident explained that her repairs to the kitchen had been delayed and she felt ignored by the landlord.
On 3 June 2021 the Ombudsman began processing a Complaint Handling Failure Order (‘CHFO’) in accordance with paragraph 9 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme for the landlord’s failure to provide a complaint response to the resident.
On 16 June 2021 the resident asked for an update as she had not heard back regarding the status of the case. The Ombudsman updated her as to the next steps (CHFO pending).
On 24 June 2021 the resident repeated her concerns regarding the lack of progress and response to the Ombudsman.
On 28 June 2021 the Ombudsman sent the landlord a CHFO with an order for it to provide the resident with a final response within 5 working days (5 July 2021).
The landlord issued its first complaint response on 5 July 2021.
1. It apologised for the poor service it delivered.
2. In respect of permission to relocate a main stop cock, it said that previously this had been declined but in recognition of the delay in its complaint handling it would agree to permit this to be relocated as a gesture of goodwill. It would contact residents to advise that the water will be shut down while work was carried out after it received a date for the work to commence from its contractor.
On 6 July 2021 the resident responded and requested details of the contractors and the timescale for the work so that she could arrange a date for kitchen works to continue.
On 10 July 2021 the landlord escalated the complaint and said it would aim to respond by 2 August 2021. It passed on the resident’s repair reports to be responded to separately.
On 19 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and asked for the complaint to be escalated if it could not provide an update by the end of the day regarding the date for the works to be completed.
On 21 July 2021 the resident told the Ombudsman that the outstanding concerns of her complaint were that she did not have details of timescales for when contractors would attend to relocate the stockcock, or details of timescales for the completion of the work.
The resident chased a response from the landlord on 1 August 2021, a day before the final response was due (2 August 2021).
Following contact from the resident on 9 August 2021 in which she stated that the matter remained unresolved, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 10 August 2021 to state that the complaint had been accepted for investigation by the Service. The Ombudsman proceeded with an information request.
On 26 August 2021 the landlord requested to continue with its stage two investigations. The Ombudsman declined this as the case was accepted for investigation. In general, a landlord may continue to engage with dispute resolution and engage with efforts to resolve any issues, but the matter will not be delayed further with the Ombudsman where there has been a fair chance for the landlord to progress the complaint under its complaint process and it has failed to do so.
On 29 September 2021 the stopcock was relocated. The resident has since raised concerns about the quality of the works which were carried out. The resident told the Ombudsman that the stopcock was not relocated to the area that she wanted, the landlord did not inspect the works after they had been carried out and she remained dissatisfied with the works. These aspects of the complaint are outside the scope of this investigation and the resident will need to raise this with the landlord as a new complaint.

Assessment and findings

In deciding whether the original stopcock was the resident’s responsibility to repair, the lease has been considered. The sample lease states that the resident is responsible for keeping in good and tenantable repair and condition the relevant pipes, except for those affected by the landlord’s covenants (ie the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the flat, including external pipes). The lease sets out the extent of the demise and this includes all pipes, ducts and conduits used solely for the purpose of the flat (but not others).
The evidence suggests that the stopcock served the resident’s flat, but that in relocating this, the landlord would have had to permit the closure of part of the water supply, which served all the residents. Therefore, the resident would not have solely been able to carry out work to the stopcock without the landlord’s co-operation.
The evidence suggests that the landlord declined the works when it was requested by the resident and when it established that the mains water would need to be turned off. This is because if the resident’s contractor made an error, then this would implicate the landlord via its repairing obligations in respect of the other residents in the building and as the potential freeholder. The landlord eventually agreed to do the works, provided that its own contractor could carry this out. This was reasonable, although its communication throughout has not been reasonable. It has been protracted and inconsistent and the resident has experienced time and trouble as well as distress and inconvenience.
The landlord has failed to evidence that it appropriately assessed the respective obligations in relocating the stopcock following the resident’s request. It did not evidence that it reasonably co-operated with the resident to arrange any repairs in a timely manner. Accordingly, there has been maladministration by the landlord.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint within a reasonable timescale. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention on 9 March 2021, and the issuing of a CHFO, the landlord issued its stage one response approximately four months later, on 5 July 2021. This was inappropriate. The landlord also subsequently failed to issue a stage two response within the appropriate timescale under its policy following the resident’s escalation of her complaint.
The landlord missed the opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint at the earliest opportunity and under its appropriate redress scheme provided by the complaint process. The resident experienced time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience. The landlord agreed to carry out the works as a gesture of goodwill in recognition of the delay, however, it did not evidence any learning from the complaint handling, and it did not propose any redress in recognition of its delays in completing the works or the time and trouble for the complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with a paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling to the resident’s request to relocate a stopcock.
In accordance with a paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not evidence that it appropriately assessed the respective obligations in respect of relocation of the mains stopcock; it did not evidence that it handled the resident’s request reasonably or in a timely manner.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint within a reasonable timescale.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 for time and trouble and distress and inconvenience experienced comprised of:
1. £150 for the handling of the request to relocate a mains stopcock, and
2. £150 for the complaint handling