Clarion Housing Association Limited (201914561)

REPORT

COMPLAINT

Clarion Housing Association Limited

26 August 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 the landlord’s response to the resident about:
1. issues with the water pressure and temperature.
2. damp and mould and a request for a surveyor inspection.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The complaint was progressed by the named tenant’s partner and both are referred to as ‘the resident’ for the purposes of this report. At the time of the complaint, the resident was an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat in a block, which is supplied water from a communal pump room. It has not been disputed that the landlord will have an obligation to repair this in a timely manner and ensure a reasonable water supply is maintained.
At the time of the complaint, after an informal stage, the landlord operated a two stage formal complaints procedure which had no set timeframes for a written response. The complaints procedure excluded issues more than six months old.
The landlord pays compensation in line with The Secure Tenants of Local Housing Authorities (Right to Repair) Regulations 1994, which detail compensation applicable if ‘qualifying repairs’ are not carried out within prescribed timeframes of when reported. These advise that compensation becomes applicable after one day if there is a total loss of water supply and after three days if there is a partial loss of water supply. The landlord also awards discretionary compensation from £50.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records advise that in April 2019, a surveyor carried out an inspection at the property and raised a repair to mould wash bedrooms, bathrooms, ceiling walls and flooring. The records advise that in July 2019, after delays with a quote, the mould treatment was carried out and a leaflet and advice were provided about damp, ventilation and redecoration.
The landlord’s records then advise that on 14 September 2019, the resident reported low water pressure, after which the landlord attended on 16 September 2019. It was noted that a main valve close to the pumps had been turned off, perhaps in error, and water flowed when this was turned back on.
On 12 February 2020, the resident made a complaint to the landlord.
1. He said there had been issues with the water supply, mainly with the pressure, for the last two days. He explained the hot water would run for up to thirty seconds, spit out cold water, then return to running hot water or stop running altogether; and it took up to three minutes to fill a pot with cold water.
2. He said an engineer from the water company had inspected the previous day (after reports from another resident) and on speaking to the water company he was advised the issue was with the water pump and to call the landlord. On doing so, he was informed the water pump subcontractor did not have an out of hours service, but if he called the next day a contractor would be sent the same day to rectify the problem.
3. He had called the landlord that morning and had been later informed the earliest a plumber could attend was 3 March 2020 as the issue was not an emergency. He noted he had now experienced the issue for 72 hours, was struggling to use the water, and his household had children.
4. He said there were many issues within the property and there had been an unexplained leak from the bathroom that went into a property below; a damp issue in the bathroom that was only rectified the previous year; and damp from the ground floor which had been confirmed by a supervisor.
5. He said he wanted to make a formal complaint about the water supply issue, and also wanted an independent surveyor to carry out an inspection due to a suspicion that there were many faults within the property.
On 3 April 2020, the landlord’s repairs contact centre team responded. They explained they were only raising critical repairs due to current Covid-19 pandemic restrictions, and had passed on the issue to a mechanical and electrical team to see if it was a critical repair. It said it was not able to process the complaint due to the restrictions but it would be picked up when restrictions lifted.
On 5 June 2020, the resident emailed and noted that the landlord had not responded to his complaint submitted in February 2020. He noted he had called and been advised the complaint department was in operation. He requested for the complaint to be escalated and for an independent surveyor to visit.
On 30 June 2020, the landlord contacted the resident about his complaint, and there was an exchange of correspondence to mid-July 2020.
1. The landlord noted the resident stated a preference for email and said it would adhere to this.
2. The landlord noted that the resident mentioned several issues which had already been resolved. It queried if the water issue was still ongoing. It asked him to clarify what issues he wanted to be investigated, and also what his request for an inspection was in relation to.
3. The resident noted that there seemed to be an issue with water flow when there was heavy rainfall.
4. The resident noted that an operative had inspected damp the previous year and detailed a list of repairs that were required, including the bathroom floor. He noted the operative had also confirmed there was an underlying issue with damp rising from the ground floor up, and noted that there were some strange marks in a cupboard where the vent was located. He noted that the ventilation system was not fully open and operational when moving in.
5. The landlord advised that it would only investigate what was stated as a complaint in the resident’s correspondence; that the resident should contact its contact centre to book in the list of repairs put together by the operative; and that it had put in a request for a surveyor to inspect on 15 July 2020. The resident later asked the landlord to rearrange this inspection to anytime after 4 August 2020, due to work and a holiday.
The landlord internally scheduled for a plumber and an electrician to attend on 14 August 2020 to carry out an inspection of the water pump and any other repairs issues. There is no record the resident was informed, although information provided advises the complaint was taken over by different staff who attempted to call him on 4 and 14 August 2020.
On 14 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord. He noted there had been a visit from an operative to inspect the water pressure issue, which he was unaware had been arranged, and he advised he was currently self-isolating. He noted he had originally raised the complaint in February 2020, and he also noted attempted calls about the complaint when he had requested communication via email.
On 20 August 2020, the landlord’s records advise that it spoke to the resident. It noted he reported that every time there was rainfall there was an issue with a communal water pump; that he asked for a surveyor as there was an issue with damp; and that he requested contact by email.
On 21 August 2020, the landlord’s records advise a manager in the mechanical team confirmed they would arrange for the communal pumps to be investigated, and noted it was the first time they had heard of the issue. They suggested for investigation of the issue to also be carried out inside the resident’s property. The information provided advises that on investigation of the communal pumps the same day, no issues were found, however it was reported there appeared to be an issue with a leaking non return valve. It was noted this was referred to another department on 25 August 2020, after which staff handling the complaint contacted different staff across September 2020 to clarify when the non return valve would be attended.
On 14 September 2020, the landlord internally requested for attendance by a plumber and electrician to be re-raised, and on 17 September 2020 a works order was raised to “repair non-return valve on pumped water system.”
On 10, 11 and 18 September 2020, the landlord’s records indicate it attempted to call the resident. It noted it spoke to him on 22 September 2020 and informed him of an inspection on 1 October 2020, although it noted it needed to check the time.
On 6 October 2020, the landlord records advise that the appointment to “repair non-return valve on pumped water system” was arranged for 8 October 2020. The landlord called the resident who said he wanted everything in an email, which it noted it had agreed it would do.
On 8 October 2020, operatives attended for the works to “repair non-return valve on pumped water system.” The resident’s account advises that this was to his property, while the landlord’s records advise it was noted after the visit that “the issue is in the pump room the water pressure to upper floors is intermittent which means it’s not in the flats or riser cupboards.” The landlord’s records advise that an email and video was sent the same day for the mechanical team to rectify the issue.
On 9 October 2020, the landlord emailed the resident and said it had been informed the repair had been completed the previous day, which it asked him to confirm was correct. The same day, the resident complained that the landlord had agreed to handle the complaint via email and email a date and time for when a surveyor would attend, but had not done so. He reported that operatives had attended without notice the previous day and having explained the issue to them, they had agreed there may be an issue with the pump room and not his property, as he said he kept saying.
On 19 October 2020, the landlord issued a response to the complaint, which appears to have been at its informal stage:
1. It thanked the resident for the complaint, which it noted was received on 23 July 2020. It apologised he had cause to complain and for any inconvenience this may have been caused.
2. It acknowledged he had contacted the landlord in February 2020 and the issue had been ongoing, and it advised it had been unable to attend due to government restrictions during the Covid-19 pandemic.
3. It noted that an appointment arranged for 14 August 2020 to investigate the issue was cancelled as the resident was self-isolating. It noted that it had arranged a second appointment for 8 October 2020 and had emailed the resident as requested to confirm if this was completed, but had received no response.
4. It concluded that it could see there had been a service failure in the amount of time the water pump had taken to be repaired.
On 22 October 2020, the resident requested escalation of the complaint. He raised dissatisfaction with the lack of response to his original complaint; the ignoring of emails; the scheduling of a visit on 14 August 2020 while he was self-isolating; and a lack of interest in resolving the issue.
On 22 November 2020, the landlord received reports of no running water which affected more than one resident, and a works order was raised and an emergency water drop to the block was requested. The landlord’s records advise that staff attended and found a gate valve closed in the pump room. It was noted that this was opened up, water came back on, and hot and cold water were restored. The landlord’s records advise that a third pump was left switched off due to this causing an over pressure valve to kick in.
On 23 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord.
1. He detailed that the previous day the water stopped running, after which an operative who attended informed him that a lever in the pump room had been shut off. He noted that the operative could not explain why. He noted that when he tried to use the water again around 10pm there was no water, and on calling the landlord was informed an operative had flooded the pump room and turned off the water.
2. He reported that there was no running water and that he had subsequently found out that a faulty valve seemed to be the issue with the water pump. He queried why the valve had not been replaced.
3. He noted that his household, which included three children, had to go without water for a few hours the previous day before the operative attended and flooded the pump room; had gone all night without water; and could not currently flush toilets or have a shower.
4. He noted that this was the same issue as the complaint the landlord had failed to deal with, and he requested a response to his unresolved complaint from February 2020.
The information provided by the landlord advises that on 27 and 30 November 2020, it raised works orders for “leaking pipe within the tank room…the leak is after the booster pumps on pipework leading into the building.” On 2 December 2020, a repair was then raised for “pipework in tank room to be replaced.” On 4 December 2020, the landlord internally noted that its contractors would be chased for a quote and when this was approved, a date would be provided for when the issue would be attended.
The same month, following contact from this Service, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage one of its formal complaints procedure. The landlord’s records advise that it attempted to call the resident on several occasions and was informed on 15 December 2020 that email was preferred. The same day it emailed him and detailed that its understanding of the complaint included that he wanted a response to the water problem and a response to a request for an independent surveyor. It asked him to clarify further specific items he wished to be investigated and the outcomes sought.
On 8 January 2021, the landlord’s records advise its contractors attended for reports of low water pressure on the top floor of the block. The contractor noted the issue was checked with residents who said they had water but pressure dropped from time to time. The contactor noted it was assumed this was because everyone was at home using the water and because the system water pressure was set at 2.5 bar. They noted that this was quite low for a block of flats, as a house was normally around 1.5 bar, but the pressure reducing valve could not be altered. They noted there will be pressure relief valves entering each flat; what these were set at was not known; and these could be blown if pressure was adjusted. They noted that pumps had been left off and were out of action due to a leak on pipework still not being repaired. The contractor noted that they left the block with water working, but remedial work was required to “replace leak on pump pipework,” which was detailed elsewhere in the contractor’s report as “a leak on the copper Tee piece below the PRV.”
On 11 January 2021, the landlord made internal enquiries about the status of the issue, and whether there had been a 24 hour period where the block had been without water. The same day, the landlord’s records advise it updated the resident. It said it had chased contractors that would be carrying out repairs to pipe work in the pump room, and explained that once these were completed this would be followed up by its mechanical team to test and ensure all pumps working. It explained the issue was an intermittent fault where the pressure valve shut the water off. It said that, as it had previously advised, it could see no repairs history to suggest there was no water to the block or property for an extended period of time that was not actioned.
On 14 January 2021, the contractors attended for a visit with the landlord to check the pumps were working correctly following their repair. It was noted that the pumps could not be switched on until the tee copper piece had been repaired.
On 18 January 2021, the landlord issued a stage one response to the complaint:
1. It noted the resident requested a response for the ongoing water issue and for a request for an independent surveyor.
2. It noted that it had internally discussed the history of repairs to the communal water supply and pumping mechanism and had been supplied a timeline of repairs from 17 September 2020 to 2 December 2020.
3. It noted that there had been a number of visits to investigate intermittent loss of pressure and, on occasion, loss of supply to the block. It advised that these had been within its service level agreement, and noted they would not have been necessarily scheduled with the resident as they were repairs in the communal pump room.
4. It advised that when a leak was identified on 27 November 2020, pipework had been isolated; booster pumps had continued to function; any interruption to water supply was restored within its service level agreement; and there was no record of extended periods of water loss at the building.
5. It acknowledged and apologised that there had been a delay arranging some follow-on work to replace some damaged pipework. It advised that an appointment had been arranged for 14 January 2021 for contractors to repair the pipework and carry out checks afterwards to confirm the pumps were working as they should.
6. It noted that it had been unable to discuss the context of the request for an inspection with the resident. It advised that if he was requesting a survey due to outstanding repairs, repairs should be reported to its contact centre to arrange for an operative to attend. It explained that if there was a need for further work or a technical officer to attend this would be recommended by the operative who attended.
7. It concluded that it had been unable to identify a service failure, as although there had been multiple visits, these had been attended within agreed timeframes and the impact on the building water supply had been minimised.
8. It acknowledged and apologised for a delay in its complaint response, which it explained was due to high volumes, and awarded £50 in recognition of this.
The same day, the information provided advises that:
1. The resident reported the vent system in the property had stopped working and that a vent specialist was needed.
2. The contractor attended to carry out works to the pipework and the landlord received reports of no water at the block. The contractor noted they isolated the water and carried out works to the pipework. They noted they tested the pipework and that when pressure built up, water released from a ‘PRV.’ Their notes advise that this was problematic. They noted that the reason for the issue was that the pumps were running at 3.5/4 bar; a 3 bar ‘PRV’ was installed; and a 5 bar pressure relief valve was needed. They noted that they left the site with the mains bypass on, and pumps off, until the issue was resolved.
The landlord subsequently refers to this visit as having resolved matters, in its final response and in September 2021 when collecting information for investigation by this Service.
On 18 February 2021, the resident requested escalation of the complaint.
1. He asked the landlord to read the complaint in its entirety, as his complaint was raised in February 2020 and the issues dated to before the repairs from September 2020. He raised dissatisfaction with the water issues in light of Covid-19, having children and doing home learning.
2. He noted he had explained why he wished for an independent surveyor to inspect the block and his property. He advised that there had been a damp issue in the bathroom and adjoining ceiling outside the bathroom, and an inspection had identified issues with damp, ventilation and flooring in the bathroom. He advised that in January 2021 he had reported the ventilation system had stopped working, and black spots were starting to reappear. He advised that he was still waiting for the issue to be rectified as the wrong operatives had been sent on two occasions.
On 9 March 2021, the landlord’s records advise it raised a works order to assess damp in the property, which was attended on 19 March 2021 and it was noted “property has history of air flow system problems causing mould to bathroom and hall now unit has failed mould has returned however there are problems in bathroom under bath and floor has bubbled and needs replacing plumber requested also water marks around air flow unit roof may have a problem advised manager.” Following this, the landlord raised repairs in March and April 2021 for a plumber to inspect the bathroom for leaks and potentially take the vinyl up to allow it to dry before relaying. The resident’s account confirms a plumber attended and advised that there was no leaks, but the floor needed changing as it had warped due to damp and leaks issues.
On 16 April 2021, the landlord issued its final response to the complaint.
1. It noted that the resident contacted a customer services team about water pump issues on 12 February 2020; it received the complaint on 2 April 2020; and it responded on 19 October 2020. It explained the delay was due to being unable to progress the case due to the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions. It apologised for the delay and awarded £100 in recognition of this. It also apologised for the delay in its final response and awarded a further £50 in recognition of this. It explained that confirming appointments by email was usually challenging due to the delays, and there had been difficulty contacting the resident by phone. It apologised that the resident continued to be contacted by phone and advised it had taken steps to ensure communication preferences were followed.
2. It noted that repairs were first reported on 2 February 2020 and were completed between November 2020 and January 2021. It apologised for the delay in the repairs and awarded £50 for completion of repairs outside their service level agreement, and £100 for inconvenience.
3. It noted that works were still ongoing for damp and ventilation issues, and provided contact details for any concerns the resident had for works still in progress.
4. It confirmed that it had awarded £400 in total in recognition of the issues and service failures identified, which included £100 for a delay in response to a data access request.
On 22 April 2021, the landlord raised a works order which appears to have been in response to a report from the resident. This noted that there were dry water marks in a cupboard near the ventilation until, which a roofer said could be an issue with the foundation or unit or pipework creating moisture. This was later cancelled as the ventilation unit had been referred to the contractor to attend.
On 28 April 2021, the landlord raised a works order which appears to have been in response to a report from the resident. This noted that the ventilation unit had now been attended and overhauled, and it was requested for the walls to be checked for water damage and repaired where necessary. This was later cancelled with a note that the resident would call again for a new job to be raised.
The resident subsequently brought the complaint to this Service. He expressed dissatisfaction that:
1. The water pressure was still a major issue and that one minute there was full pressure, and the next minute the water would go very cold and pressure drops.
2. The bathroom had poor ventilation, and damp and mould was a recurring problem in the property. He said this was made worse when the ventilation unit broke down, which it took the landlord a few months to replace.
3. The landlord refused to send a surveyor to inspect a cupboard that houses the ventilation unit. He detailed there were dried water marks on the ceiling and wall which operatives that attended for the vent unit, as well as a roofer he asked in, had recommended inspection of before the new unit was installed. He stated that the dried water marks and mould indicated structural issues and noted that the other side of the cupboard wall, which is located in a communal area, also had marks.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident was advised to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office about the landlord’s response to an information request. He was also informed that the Ombudsman would not consider issues that were not part of the original complaint and were not addressed in the landlord’s final response, which includes issues in respect to the entry system and car parking.

The landlord’s response to the resident about issues with the water pressure and temperature

This investigation notes that while infrequent loss of water will be distressing for the resident and his family when experienced, the individual reports he has made to the landlord appear limited, to February 2020, when he made the complaint, and November 2020, when other residents appear to have been affected at the same time. It is unclear if the resident was among those reportedly affected in January 2021. This means there have been long periods where no specific and repeated reports have been made, as might be expected if the issue significantly and frequently impacted the resident.
The landlord’s response to the complaint was therefore reasonable in some aspects. While delayed, the landlord took steps to visit the property in August 2020, which gave it appropriate opportunity to directly assess the issue experienced by the resident. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that repairs in November 2020 and January 2021 were a delayed response to the report in February 2020, The landlord made an overall award of £400 in recognition of its failings, of which £150 was for the repairs delays and inconvenience. These were positive and demonstrated that the landlord sought to acknowledge and remedy service issues. However, there are aspects of the landlord’s response which have not been satisfactory.
The landlord’s responses attributed some delays to the Covid-19 pandemic, however this does not address the lack of action in the month after the report in February 2020, which preceded the pandemic. The complaint also arose from the resident being informed in February 2020 that the issue was not considered an emergency and that he would have to wait twenty days for a repair. This investigation would have liked to have seen the landlord consider if its responses to the report in February and April 2020 were appropriate given that, while total loss of water was not reported, the resident reported that he and his children were struggling to use hot and cold water and it was taking three minutes to fill a pan. This appears to constitute partial loss of water that the ‘Right to Repair’ regulations (which inform the landlord’s compensation policy) advise should be resolved within three days.
The landlord seemed to focused on water outages at the block as a whole, and lacked focus on the resident’s report that intermittent pressure issues were experienced at his individual flat, particularly when it rained. The resident would have benefited from making more reports than he did, as indicated above, however the landlord did not seem to give sufficient focus to this or demonstrate a systematic approach was being taken to investigate the issue. The resident’s flat being located on the upper floors of the block could have served as more of a guide for the focus of investigation as the higher a flat is, the more likely water pressure may be impacted by pumps not being fully operational.
The landlord acknowledged a delay in follow-on work to replace damaged and leaking pipework, carried out on 18 January 2021, however it is not clear it considered service improvements for potentially avoidable delays. The evidence shows that on 21 August 2020, investigation of the pump room identified a leaking valve which was referred to the mechanical team. The evidence advises the complaints staff then had difficulty in September 2020 trying to clarify when the leak would be attended, which suggests there may be room for improvement in processes to refer and follow up repairs. The evidence then advises that an email and video was referred to the mechanical team after a visit to the resident on 8 October 2020. The evidence does not show that action was taken in respect to these, and a repair for a leaking pipe in the vicinity of a valve was not raised until between 27 November and 2 December 2020, three months later and after water outages had affected the block and therefore multiple residents.
This Service recognises that communal water outages will occur when issues develop and parts fail, however this is not satisfactory. This suggests action was not taken until a wider impact was reported, and shows a lack of proactive action that was not fair to the resident or any other residents in the block who experienced a loss of water that may have been avoidable if action had been taken earlier.
The landlord advised that it completedrepairs for the water issue in January 2021, and provided no repairs records beyond the visit on 18 January 2021 when providing information to the Ombudsman in October 2021.This suggests that at this time it consideredthe 18 January 2021 visit to have resolved issues in relation to pipework and pumps.This investigation is not satisfied the evidenceshowsthat this was the case.
The contractor which carried out the works to the pipework reported a problem remained where water released from a valve when pressure built up. Their report said a 5 bar pressure relief valve was required to replace the current 3 bar valve, and that the site was left with a mains bypass on and affected pumps left off until the issue was resolved. This shows that while pipework repairs were carried out on 18 January 2021, issues were unresolved.
The landlord provided no information as of October 2021 that this work was followed up, and in June 2021 the resident informed this Service that the water pressure and temperature was still a major issue. The level of doubt about resolution of matters from the evidence provided by the landlord is not satisfactory. The absence of information about further action, and the resident’s account of continuing to be impacted at least five months after the works on 18 January 2021, can only lead this Service to infer that the issue the resident complained about remained unresolved for some time, possibly to the present; although how frequently and to what extent the resident has been impacted is unclear.

The landlord’s response to the resident about damp and mould and request for a surveyor inspection

This investigation notes that there is no indication that repairs issues referred to in the February 2020 complaint related to recent service, in line with the landlord’s policy that complaints should relate to issues that occurred in the past six months. The most recent record for mould issues, which will be distressing for the resident and his family, was when mould treatment was carried out in July 2019, for example. The resident advises that not all repairs were raised by a surveyor, however this investigation has seen no evidence to support this; responsibility for issues such as vinyl flooring mentioned usually fall to a tenant; and this appears to relates to matters that occurred over six months before the complaint was made. The longer the time goes on, the more difficult it is for this Service to conduct an effective investigation.
The resident did not make specific reports about mould-related issues until January 2021 when the ventilation system was reported not to work, following which the information provided advises that this was replaced in mid-April 2021, just over three months later. The landlord did not provide its mechanical policy, however this is reasonably in line with wider timeframes landlords have for more major works such as these, and was not an unreasonable timeframe.
The resident complained to this Service that a surveyor was not sent to inspect marks in a cupboard that housed the ventilation unit, and marks on the other side of the cupboard wall located in a communal area. This was not part of the original complaint, however a recommendation is made to the landlord in respect to this.
The lack of recent reports clearly informed the landlord’s consideration of the request for an independent surveyor, and considering all the circumstances of the case, its advice to the resident to raise any outstanding repairs to its contact centre appears reasonable. Overall, its consideration of the repairs issues and the request for a surveyor appears to have been proportionate, based on the evidence available about previous and current repairs issues at the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord appropriately acknowledged and offered compensation of £150 for the delays in its complaint responses, however in the Ombudsman’s opinion this does not go quite far enough to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused the resident by the complaint handling.
The landlord took eight months to respond to the complaint; three months to respond to the escalation; two months to respond at its final stage; and took an overall 14 months for the complaint to complete the landlord’s complaints procedure. This investigation recognises the impact of Covid-19 on the landlord and its resources, nevertheless this was too long.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised it had continued to contact the resident by phone rather than email, his preferred method, which was appropriate. However, it was not entirely reasonable to suggest that delays were caused by difficulty contacting the resident by phone and it being challenging to confirm appointments by email, given the individual circumstances.
The resident’s preference for email was expressed at an early stage, however this was ignored in multiple attempts to call him, including over eleven days at one point. This will have unreasonably impacted progress and caused delay.
The resident then received the unexpected visit on 14 August 2020 which the evidence shows was scheduled by end of July 2020. The landlord will have had time to email the resident in advance, and to liaise with him when he returned from holiday in early August 2020 to reschedule. The landlord later noted on 6 October 2020 that the resident wanted to be emailed details about the visit on 8 October 2020, however there is no evidence the landlord emailed the details. These show a lack of regard to the preference for email rather than difficulty coordinating appointments with the resident and contractors via email.
The landlord’s first two responses were not comprehensive, which meant escalation by the resident was almost inevitable and contributed to matters being protracted. The initial response acknowledged there had been a service failure but did not detail any remedy or steps to help resolve the issue, which was not appropriate. The stage one response approach was more helpful, but this did not consider the initial complaint handling or the investigation in August 2020 and whether the valve leak repair identified then was complete.
The landlord’s final response provided more acknowledgement of the issues the resident had experienced. However, it could have looked at matters in greater detail beyond the delays to demonstrate its service delivery had been fully considered; and it could have also demonstrated that it more robustly reviewed the repairs said to have been completed for the resident’s water issues. The uncertainty from the information provided about these is not reasonable, which could have been avoided if the response had detailed what repairs were completed and when to resolve the resident’s reported issues.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about issues with the water pressure and temperature.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about damp and mould and a request for a surveyor inspection.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged repairs delays, however it does not demonstrate it acknowledged delays from August 2020 to November 2020 in raising a leaking pipework repair, or that it identified service improvements to try to avoid these. The evidence provided does not satisfactorily show that repairs on 18 January 2021 will have resolved the resident’s issues with the water pressure and temperature, as further works were recommended and it was stated that affected pumps were left off until these were done.
The landlord’s response to the reports about damp and mould and the request for a surveyor were proportionate, based on the evidence available about previous and current repairs issues at the property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it completed repairs for the ventilation system in a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord acknowledged complaint delays and some issues, however in the Ombudsman’s opinion this did not go far enough to recognise the individual failings and distress and inconvenience caused the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In addition to its previous offer of £400, the landlord to pay the resident:
1. £300 for the issues identified with its response to issues with the water pressure and temperature.
2. £100 for the issues identified with its complaint handling.
The landlord to:
1. liaise with the resident to establish if he still experiences issues with the water pressure, and take steps to investigate this or agree a plan with him to monitor the issue;
2. review the contractor report for the 18 January 2021 visit; review whether it has completed the recommended works; and take steps to complete them if it has not.
By way of profession report, the landlord should review:
1. the reasons for the pumps being isolated and the water supply being via a mains bypass, and the pros and cons for this arrangement being ongoing;
2. whether the pumps being isolated, and the water supply being via a mains bypass, adequately delivers the optimal water pressure required for the block, particularly upper floors such as the residents.
The landlord should update the resident and this Service about the outcome to the above and confirm when the works recommended at the 18 January 2021 visit were completed if they have been already done, within six weeks of this decision.
The landlord to review the effectiveness of:
1. its processes in respect to the steps its complaints team takes and the evidence it relies on to ensure repairs are completed;
2. its processes for the referral, follow-up and monitoring of actions between its complaints and mechanical teams;
3. its processes for the review, follow-up and monitoring of actions identified in contractor reports supplied to the mechanical team.
the landlord is ordered to review learning in respect to similar circumstances, and how it will ensure the appropriate investigation of similar issues by its repairs and complaint services, are handled, giving fair consideration to the individual circumstances of residents at a block.
The landlord should inform this Service of the outcome to the above within six weeks of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord to review the February 2020 report of water pressure issues and whether this was given appropriate priority; and consider appropriate process changes if applicable.
The landlord to send a surveyor to carry out a visual and damp meter inspection of the marks in the resident’s ventilation unit cupboard and on the other side of the cupboard wall in communal areas; and to take any appropriate action based on the outcome of this.
The landlord should advise this Service of its intentions in respect to the above recommendations within six weeks of this decision.