Midland Heart Limited (202209468)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209468

Midland Heart Limited

5 March 2023


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 handling of repairs to the property after an overflow pipe leak.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The resident lives in a one bedroom flat.
  2. On 9 February 2022, the resident reported that an overflow pipe from her upstairs neighbour’s boiler had leaked, leading to her living room carpet becoming wet. The landlord attended the neighbour’s property and repaired the pipe. However, on 13 February 2022, the leak from the pipe reoccurred. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 February 2022 requesting it be repaired, but due to the neighbour not being available until 16 February 2022, the landlord could not attend the property within its 24-hour timeframe. It did attend the neighbour’s property on 16 February 2022 and the leak was fixed.
  3. The resident complained about the handling of the leak on 18 February 2022. She stated that due to the leak there had been internal damage to the walls of the property which had caused staining, damage to her carpet due to the water, and damage to her TV stand. The resident requested compensation for the internal damage and for the leak to be fixed, by way of replacing the neighbour’s boiler.
  4. In its response, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint on the basis that the service provided was below the standards expected, which it apologised for. It confirmed that the source of the leak was the neighbour’s boiler and as such this would be replaced to reassure the resident that the leak would not reoccur. It agreed to complete internal decoration works in the property in order to remedy the internal damage to the decorating. Additionally, it asked the resident to obtain three quotes for a carpet installation so it could consider this as part of its redress. It offered the resident £100 towards the cost of a new TV stand and £170 for the inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the repairs.
  5. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 4 August 2022. The resident stated that she remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the overflow pipe repairs, and she would like a surveyor to visit the property to ensure it does not occur again. In addition, the resident would like an increased offer of compensation and she believes the landlord should be covering the full costs for the damage that occurred internally.
  6. At the time of her referral to this Service, the internal works to the resident’s property had not taken place. However, on 6 October 2022 the landlord attended the property and completed stain blocking to resolve the staining caused as a result of the leak. The landlord also increased its offer of compensation to the resident to £1,426.74. This was comprised of:
    1. £159 for delays to the completing stain blocking in the property between April 2022 and October 2022;
    2. £170 for the inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the repairs;
    3. £170 for its poor communication;
    4. £100 towards a replacement TV stand; and
    5. £827.74 for the cost of new carpets of the resident’s choice.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her referral to this Service, the resident stated she had experienced a leak, similar in nature, multiple times over the space of four years. Whilst this Service understands this may be a long-standing issue for the resident, we cannot investigate complaints which have not exhausted a member’s complaints procedure or were not brought to the Ombudsman’s attention within 12 months of doing so.
  2. The resident has also referenced how the landlord’s failure to complete the repairs sooner has impacted her emotionally, physically and mentally. Whilst this Service understands how distressing a leak in the property can be, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Assessment

  1. In its communication with the resident during the initial reporting of the leak, the landlord set an expectation that it would attend her property within 24 hours to repair the leak as an emergency repair. Therefore, when it did not attend her property until two working days later, the landlord had failed in its service to the resident as it had set the expectation it would attend within 24 hours.
  2. Upon reporting the second occurrence of the leak, the landlord clearly informed the resident that the neighbour was unavailable until 16 February 2022, and as such would not be able to attend and resolve the leak until three working days later. It was established that the leak was not continuous and, as such, was not an immediate danger to the health of safety of the resident or the building. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to wait for the neighbour to become available to complete further repair works.
  3. The landlord compensated the resident £340 or its poor communication and for the inconvenience caused by the delays. The landlord acknowledged its failings in its service and attempted to put things right with the resident in the form of compensation and a permanent solution of replacing the neighbour’s boiler. This compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (published on our website). The guidance suggests amounts of £100 to £600 for cases where there has been service failure which adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact. Therefore, the compensation offered to the resident for its poor communication and inconvenience was reasonable.
  4. Whilst it is a fundamental part of the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether a landlord has acted appropriately in response to a resident’s repair request, this will often necessitate an assessment of how the resident’s own actions may have contributed to the situation. Rather than demonstrating bias in favour of the landlord, this is an example of our independent and impartial role in practice.
  5. It is acknowledged that after the initial offer of compensation above, there were further delays in the repairs process between April 2022 and October 2022. However, it is also acknowledged that the delays in completing the repairs between April 2022 to October 2022 were due in some part to the resident’s own actions such as requesting certain scheduled dates that were weeks from the correspondence dates, not informing the landlord for over two weeks that the stain blocking work did not resolve the repair, and missing an appointment. Therefore, the landlord was not solely responsible for the delays during this period of time.
  6. That said, during this period the landlord was responsible for some of the delays that occurred. A key example of this is that on 16 June 2022 the landlord completed insufficient stain blocking to the resident’s walls and completed a different repair to the one the resident was informed of. The landlord had identified on a previous visit that the stain blocking would require to be painted on instead of sprayed on, due to the extent of the leak; however, the landlord completed sprayed repairs on the stain blocking which proved to be insufficient to treat the stain. The landlord’s failure to complete the identified repairs satisfactorily in the first instance was a failure in its service, and led to further delays as a contractor had to reattend the property to complete the correct stain blocking treatment.
  7. The landlord offered the resident an additional £159 for the delays during this period, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (published on our website). Furthermore, it also shows that the landlord acknowledged the impact the additional delays would have had on the resident and tried to put things right with further financial redress. Therefore, this offer of compensation, in light of the evidence, was reasonable.
  8. Ultimately, as a resolution to her complaint the resident would like the landlord to attend the property with a surveyor to ensure that the overflow pipe will not leak again. From the evidence provided, a reoccurrence of the leak has not occurred since February 2022 suggesting that the leak is fully fixed and there is no evidence to support the need for a surveyor to attend the property. In addition, the landlord has relied on the findings of its qualified staff and contractors, who deemed that the source of the leak had been successfully identified and repaired. A landlord would be entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, and accordingly the decision to not have a surveyor to reattend the property without a new leak being reported is reasonable in the circumstances.
  9. In addition, the resident has requested an increase in compensation offered as she believes that the landlord should pay for the costs associated with the damage caused. It is general practice that when damage occurs to the internal areas of a resident’s flat, landlords typically refer residents to its liability insurers or the resident’s home contents insurers. However, there are occasions when landlords may see it fit to provide the resident with direct compensation for the damage caused. Both of these resolutions would be reasonable action for the landlord to take, and the use of either resolution would be dependent upon the situation.
  10. The resident suffered internal property damage to her TV stand and carpet as a result of the overflow pipe leak. In October 2022, the landlord reimbursed the resident for the cost of the new carpet installed in her property, which has ultimately resolved this aspect of the resident’s complaint as she did not have to cover these costs herself. The landlord also paid £100 compensation towards a replacement TV stand, which was reasonable considering that the resident did not provide the landlord with a cost of the TV stand nor did she request a specific increase on this compensation. Furthermore, it was reasonable in consideration of the damage caused and the inconvenience to the resident. Therefore, it is this Service’s view that the landlord has appropriately compensated the resident for the internal damage to the property.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property after an overflow pipe leak satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £1,426.74 compensation it offered in October 2022, if it has not done so already.