One Vision Housing Limited (202214626)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214626

One Vision Housing Limited

17 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 resident’s toilet and its subsequent offer of compensation.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident first reported to the landlord on 8 February 2022 that the toilet was blocked and could not be flushed. The landlord’s contractors visited that day but could not gain access, and re-visited the following day. The repair records state that the contractors were unable to clear the blockage. They had to return to the property the following day with the appropriate equipment to carry out root cutting works, as this was identified as a possible cause of the problem. The landlord’s records indicate works were completed on 10 February 2022. The resident reported further leaks and overflows, as well as the toilet being stable, several times between February and May 2022. The landlord has said that, during this time, contractors visited the property on eight occasions – on two of them not being given access. In the last of these appointments, on 7 May 2022, the toilet was replaced.
4. The resident’s mother raised a complaint on his behalf on 13 May 2022 about the ongoing toilet problems and damage caused to flooring as a result. The resident sought compensation for the cost of replacing the flooring.
5. The landlord issued its complaint response on 25 May 2022. It provided a summary of events and appointments between February and May and confirmed that the toilet was ultimately replaced. It apologised for the inconvenience caused, but explained that it believed the repair reports had been responded to appropriately. Nevertheless, it acknowledged that the toilet replacement took a prolonged period of time, and that that had caused inconvenience and frustration for the resident. It offered £250 as a good will gesture towards the damaged flooring. It noted that the resident had reported further intermittent leaks, and said it had arranged a repair visit for 1 June 2022.
6. The resident escalated the complaint on 5 July 2022 as he was seeking a higher amount of compensation to cover the costs of replacing the damaged flooring. In its final response, issued on 18 July 2022, the landlord offered to replace the resident’s bedroom carpet in addition to the previously offered compensation.
7. The resident referred the complaint to this Service as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation. He sought £800-1000 to cover damages to personal items and the flooring replacement at his property.

Assessment and findings

8. The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and working order the installations within the property for sanitation, including toilets.
9. The landlord’s records show that it first attended the resident’s home on 8 February 2022, the same day issues with the toilet were reported, but it could not gain access. It then attended the following day, but contractors reported being unable to clear the blockage as they needed special equipment to remove the tree roots they suspected were the cause of the problem. The landlord’s records indicate that contractors attended the property on 10 February as promised, leaving the toilet unblocked. There were more reports of problems in February. The records state the toilet is the only one in the property, so this would usually constitute an emergency or urgent response which, under the landlord’s policies, has a 24-hour target. The repair records show that the landlord attended to the resident’s reports in that time frame. The operatives were not always able to resolve the matter in one visit, but it can sometimes take more than one attempt to identify the cause of a repair issue and more time is occasionally required to complete a repair. That would not necessarily constitute a service failure. In this case, when that happened, operatives attended the following day. On at least one occasion the resident was able to resolve the problem himself. Based on the evidence seen here, the landlord’s repair efforts initially appeared in line with its published time frames and in line with basic good repair practice.
10. A further overflowing and subsequent flooding through some rooms was reported on 22 February, to which the landlord attended on the same day. Its records state contractors suspected the drain had collapsed due to the root problem. On this occasion, contractors recommended a portable loo to be installed.
11. Further repairs were carried out in March and April following more reports of toilet leaks and flooding. Although it was not always possible to resolve the problem in one visit, the evidence shows that the landlord also attended these reports in a timely manner (within 24 hours) and attempted to put things right every time the resident raised an issue.
12. On 7 May 2022, the toilet was ultimately replaced. The landlord acknowledged that the length of time taken to fully resolve the issue caused frustration to the resident, and apologised for the inconvenience. The problems the resident experienced would be stressful and inconvenient for anyone in those circumstances, and so his frustration is wholly understandable. However, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord took reasonable and relevant steps to meet its repair obligations, and acted within its published repair time frames. Nothing in the information seen for this investigation indicates the landlord’s actions were misguided, or that it missed opportunities to resolve the ongoing problems faster.
13. Moreover, when investigating the resident’s complaint the landlord was unable to identify any clear failings in its operatives’ actions. Nonetheless, it acknowledged the impact on the resident, regardless of any failings, and offered compensation and repairs to the resident’s flooring.
14. It is important to appreciate that a landlord would usually only be expected to consider providing compensation when there is evidence that its actions, or inaction, contributed to any damage or inconvenience caused by a repair issue. The landlord did not identify any such evidence, and so the compensation and repairs it offered were not something it was obliged to do. While the inconvenience to the resident was undeniable, this investigation has also not seen any evidence suggesting the landlord’s actions or inaction either caused or prolonged the problems. Its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
15. In his complaint to this Service, the resident said that the leak had caused mould on some doors and to some personal possessions. There is no evidence that the resident raised these issues with the landlord. He is therefore recommended to do so, as the Ombudsman cannot investigate issues that have not been previously raised with the landlord through its internal complaints procedure. However, as explained above, a landlord is usually only expected to compensate for damage if its actions in some way contributed to the damage. Otherwise a resident would usually need to make a claim against their home contents insurance.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint.