Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202009320)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009320

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited

28 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:

Response to the resident’s report of a leak.
Decision not to offer compensation in respect of damage caused to the flooring.
Complaint handling.

The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After careful consideration, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, complaint 1b is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. In the complaint to the landlord, the resident’s representative (Mr K) explained that the flooring within the property had been damaged as a result of a leak. He said that they therefore wished to be compensated, so that the flooring could be replaced.
While the resident’s and Mr K’s concerns are acknowledged, the issue of determining whether the landlord is responsible for the damage caused to the flooring in this case is a matter of contested liability. The Ombudsman cannot make liability decisions. Such decisions are best made by an insurer. Paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
As such, the issue of whether the resident should be compensated for damage caused to the flooring has not been investigated as part of this investigation. However, we have investigated whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s request was appropriate in the circumstances.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident has resided in the property, a two-bedroom second floor flat since 2006.
The resident’s son (Mr K), who also resides at the property, has complained on behalf of the resident.

Tenancy Agreement

The repairs and maintenance section of the tenancy agreement states that the resident must maintain any equipment installed or improvements the resident has made.
Section 42.1 of the agreement states the resident is responsible for insuring the contents of their home.
Section 47 states the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order any installations for the supply of water which includes water pipes.

Repairs and Maintenance Policy

Section 7.1 of the policy states that the structure of the home (excluding any fixtures and fittings) and any shared areas for which the landlord is responsible, are covered by its building insurance policy.
Section 7.2 of the policy states the landlord does not cover the cost of repairing or replacing contents – including a resident’s own flooring, furniture, and other belonging. As part of the tenancy agreement residents are encouraged to take out a home contents insurance policy for their peace of mind.
Appendix 1 of the policy states residents are responsible for supplying and maintaining flooring.
The landlord’s website lists emergency repairs (repairs needed to safeguard safety or the structure of the building) and includes a burst pipe or uncontrollable leak as a repair. Emergency repairs would be responded to within four hours.
Non-emergency repairs (that do not pose an immediate threat to people or the building) include contained water leaks, defective sink or wash hand basin, minor repairs to external doors. Non-emergency repairs are responded to within 14 days.

Customer Care Policy

The landlord operates a two stage complaint process. The landlord will try and agree an appropriate remedy with the resident and respond to the initial complaint within 10 working days. If the resident requests a review of the decision, a two person panel will decide whether the response and/or remedy offered was appropriate. The normal response target is 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 30 June 2020 Mr K called the landlord to report a blockage affecting the kitchen sink. He managed to rectify the blockage during the call. However, he expressed concern that something was wrong with the plumbing, as the bathroom sink had been blocked a few times the previous month. The landlord’s repair log details an entry on 18 May 2020 where the resident reported the bathroom sink to be blocked. In addition, a previous entry for 2019 logged the toilet being blocked.
The landlord sent a contractor to the property the next day, who gave the kitchen sink the “all clear”.
During the evening of 1 July 2020, Mr K’s neighbour, in the flat below, advised that they had water running down their walls and into their light fittings. On 2 July 2020, Mr K reported a water leak which had caused flooding in the passageway, storeroom, and bathroom. The landlord’s contractors attended within the hour and traced the leak to a waste pipe in the bathroom that connected to the stack. The contractors supplied and fitted a new part to the pipework, cleared the sink and tested several times to check for leaks. All blockages were cleared, and the job recorded as completed. An order was raised to reinstate the bath panel on 7 July 2020.
On 7 July 2020, Mr K emailed the landlord. He said:

On 30 June 2020 he advised the landlord that in his opinion there was something wrong with the plumbing in the property.

After being notified of the leak on 2 July 2020, the landlord prioritised the call and sent a contractor within an hour and identified a burst stack pipe. However, as a result of the leak, all the flooring in the property had been damaged, and in his opinion, it could have been avoided if it had been inspected when the contractors attended to the blockage in the kitchen sink.
He advised that it had caused upset after saving for several years to pay for the flooring.

Mr K was asked to send in photos of the damage by the landlord on 9 July 2020. The evidence shows these were sent by Mr K on 14 July 2020 (this Service has not seen the photos).
The landlord responded on 16 July 2020 to apologise for any inconvenience and distress caused to the family. It understood that the contractors had attended, works had been completed but advised if there was any further damage, it would ask the contractors to reattend. The landlord advised that it would not replace or pay for new floor covering as Mr K should claim on his home contents insurance.
Mr K emailed the landlord on 29 July 2020 reiterating the damage that had been caused by the leak to the flooring in the property. He advised that he did not have contents insurance to make a claim. He stated that in his opinion, the landlord had not addressed the reoccurring blockage and it was not accidental damage.
Mr K did not receive a response from the landlord and contacted this Service in November 2020. This Service wrote to the landlord in January 2021 and again in July 2021. We asked it to provide Mr K with a complaint response.
On 23 June 2021, in an internal email, the landlord queried what action had been taken following an email from this Service on 8 January 2021. An email response sent on 24 June 2021 asked if there was an existing complaint in progress as the complaint database had no record of a complaint since June 2010.
The landlord emailed this Service on 1 July 2021 stating that it had telephoned Mr K in January 2021 advising him of how to set out his complaint but had no record of a complaint being received. It noted that Mr K had been in contact with the repairs manager in July 2020 and was not sure if a response was sent at that time. However, it would log the formal complaint.
On 21 July 2021 the landlord issued a stage one complaint response stating:

It had attended the leak of 2 July 2020 the same day and instructed drainage specialists to attend. The drain specialists confirmed works were completed on 6 July 2020, four days after the work order was raised. The bath panel was reinstated on 8 July 2020. On or around the same time, Mr K informed the landlord of a blocked kitchen sink and defective doors. The sink was unblocked and the contractor advised there was nothing defective with the doors, however the floor had swollen and as a result the doors were catching.
The landlord confirmed that the repairs manager had advised Mr K that he should claim under his home contents insurance for the damage caused to the laminate flooring. Mr K informed the landlord that he did not have contents insurance.
It did not have direct correspondence with Mr K after 29 July 2020.
A further inspection had been arranged for 28 July 2021 to confirm all was in working order at the property. Mr K confirmed there were no further issues and the flooring had been replaced. However, Mr K requested that the landlord reimburse him for the cost of replacing the flooring.
It concluded that the leak was rectified within a reasonable time.
It failed to follow up a response to Mr K’s email on 29 July 2020 and for that failing, offered compensation of £100.

Mr K submitted a response to the landlord (which is not dated) after remaining dissatisfied with its response. He stated the following:

There were several mistakes in the letter one of which stated that the flooring had been replaced, which it had not. Mr K advised he was not in a financial position to replace the flooring.
He had tried to call the landlord after 29 July 2020 but was told to wait for a response or that the landlord was busy. He confirmed that only after contacting this Service did he receive a response from the landlord.
Mr K advised that he had made several calls regarding sink blockages prior to the leak. He added that the previous operatives who had attended did not carry out any investigation, but just unblocked the sink. It was his opinion that the contractors did not look behind the bath panel until it was too late. It was his view that the stack pipe burst after not being inspected.
He asked for compensation to replace laminate flooring and repair the surroundings damaged as a result of the leak. He noted that it was an accident caused by the lack of care and attention towards the building pipes and the works carried out by the landlord prior to the incident.
He concluded that the landlord did not rectify the problem and the damage was caused as a result of negligence. Mr K was advised about contents insurance but stated that it was not accidental damage, rather improper inspections and care taken on repairs. The landlord only responded to the complaint after this Service was involved. Mr K was seeking £2000 in compensation to cover the cost of replacing the laminate flooring and surroundings damaged as a result.
Mr K advised that an inspection on 2 July 2021 had not taken place, after he had taken the day off work to be in.

On 17 September 2021 the landlord wrote to Mr K after completing a review of the complaint. It apologised for taking longer to respond than it had hoped. It was the landlord’s view that its previous offer of compensation was adequate and the repairs both prior to and after the leak had been carried out properly. It recognised that the leak had caused damage to the flooring but noted that it was the responsibility of Mr K to insure the contents of the property. The landlord advised Mr K of his rights to contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak

In accordance with the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairs in relation to pipes supplying water. The landlord’s published information on its website states that emergency repairs, such as a leak, will be attended to within four hours. The landlord met its repair obligations by attending the property to assess the leak within an hour of Mr K’s report. This demonstrated that the landlord met its repair obligations swiftly and appropriately.
Within his complaint correspondence, Mr K advised that he had reported blockages in May 2020. The landlord’s call logs do not detail any calls recorded relating to the blockages Mr K reported. Its call records do not therefore align with its repair logs which detail blockages previously reported to a wash handbasin and a toilet. In an email to this Service on 1 December 2021, the landlord confirmed that it “does not have accurate dates and records of the time that it spoke to Mr K on the phone”.
Whilst the landlord is expected to keep accurate communication records, this Service has concluded that the lack of call records did not adversely affect Mr K in terms of the repairs, as the landlord responded to his reports of blockages or the leak in a timely manner. However, the failure to keep appropriate records did affect the landlord’s handling of the complaint, which is assessed elsewhere in this report.
It is evident that Mr K reported numerous blockages in the property prior to the leak in July 2020. He reported concerns that the blockages were a result of a bigger issue with the pipework in the property. While Mr K had reported these concerns, the landlord had not demonstrated what, if any, investigations were undertaken in relation to the repeated blockages. From the evidence provided, the landlord did not instruct a drain specialist to attend the property until after the leak occurred in July 2020. As the landlord was responsible for keeping in repair and working order the installations for the supply of water, the landlord could reasonably have done more before July 2020 to satisfy itself that the repeated blockages were not a result of a bigger problem.
Furthermore, the landlord failed to attend an inspection at the property on 28 July 2021, and appeared to have no record on its system of this being booked, which is evidence of further inappropriate record keeping. This caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience. In view of this, and for the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing the complaint, the landlord should offer further compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused. An order has been made on this below.
The landlord maintained its position throughout its complaint response, explaining the reasons why it would not provide compensation for flooring. This was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which confirms flooring is the responsibility of the resident to maintain. It was therefore under no obligation to repair or replace the laminate flooring. However, Mr K was seeking compensation for the damage caused by a leak, which in his opinion was a result of the landlord not investigating his report of ‘issues with the pipework’ which he felt was the cause of several blockages.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on insurance sets out that if a landlord disputes that it has been at fault, it is reasonable for it to follow its policy for such claims and either refer a resident to their own contents insurance policy or to the landlord’s own insurer. This is because an insurance claim will establish negligence and / or liability to pay. This Service is unclear why the landlord did not refer the matter to its insurer so that a liability decision could be made. Taking such action would have been a reasonable and proportionate response in this case.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord failed to escalate Mr K’s complaint in July 2020 when he expressed dissatisfaction at the landlord’s response. The landlord had not recorded the complaint accurately and no further action was taken. This was a departure from the landlord’s Customer Care policy, as detailed above.
After involvement from this Service, the landlord advised that it made contact with Mr K in January 2021 to inform him of the process to submit a complaint. The landlord has not provided this Service with a record of that call. Furthermore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to recognise that the complaint was a continuation from his initial complaint, and to not therefore have requested a submission of a new complaint.
The landlord did not send a complaint response in January 2021 after being advised to do so by this Service, and this resulted in further frustration for Mr K. Its actions were not in line with its Customer Care policy or with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. In addition, this delayed and extended Mr K’s complaint timeframe significantly.
The landlord provided a stage one response in July 2021, 12 months after Mr K’s initial complaint. The landlord’s policy states that a stage one response will be issued within 10 working days. The initial complaint was not recorded appropriately, in line with its Customer Care policy. After Mr K submitted a further complaint on 1 July 2021, and the landlord issued a complaint response 11 days outside of its prescribed timeframe. Its stage two response was issued 22 days outside of its 20 day policy timeframe. However, in this instance, the landlord appropriately notified Mr K that the investigation was taking longer than expected and therefore there would be a delay in issuing the response.
It is acknowledged that the landlord did attempt to put things right, by offering Mr K £100 in its stage two complaint response, in recognition of the delay in issuing a complaint response. This was in line with its customer care policy for a “service failure which had caused moderate inconvenience or annoyance to the resident through a failing by the landlord”. Mr K informed the landlord that he had been adversely affected by the leak and was not in a position financially to replace the flooring. The landlord did not refer Mr K to its own insurers and whilst it offered compensation, the redress was not proportionate to the level of distress and inconvenience caused to Mr K, nor did it reflect the time and trouble caused to in trying to resolve his complaint. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, this Service has made an order which is reflective of the distress and inconvenience caused.
In addition, the landlord did not appropriately address Mr K’s concerns within its complaint responses. The landlord focussed on its position that although the leak damaged the flooring, it was not its responsibility to replace or compensate for the damage. However, it failed to address Mr K’s concerns that there was a problem with the pipework. The landlord’s decision not to investigate Mr K’s concerns further was a missed an opportunity to try to provide him with an explanation, and/or to put things right. In addition, as detailed above, the landlord failed to refer the matter to its insurer – or to provide Mr K with details of how to make an insurance claim.
Determination (decision)
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord responded to and carried out the required repairs within an appropriate timescale and in line with its repair response times. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have done more to satisfy itself that the repeated reports of blockages were not the result of a bigger problem with the plumbing. The landlord failed to refer Mr K to its insurers, as it would be expected to do where there is a dispute over who was at fault, so a liability claim could be made.
The landlord identified a delay in sending complaint responses and it offered compensation, in accordance with its customer care policy. However, the compensation offered did not go far enough to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to Mr K.
The landlord is expected to keep accurate and contemporaneous records as this is an essential aspect of the landlord’s service delivery. In this case, Mr K made repeated efforts to contact the landlord who had failed to accurately record his complaint on its database. This led to a protracted complaint process for Mr K. Furthermore, the landlord failed to attend a pre-arranged appointment with Mr K, which caused further time and distress, exasperating the situation further.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to within four weeks of the date of this report:

Apologise to Mr K for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified within this report.
Pay Mr K £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in relation to its handling of reports of the leak and for failing to refer Mr K to its insurers, where there is contested liability.
Pay the resident £300 for the time and delay in escalating Mr K’s complaint.

Pay the resident £50 for the adverse effect caused by the landlord’s poor record keeping.
Provide the resident with the relevant information on how to refer the matter to its insurers.

Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should conduct a review of its record keeping processes and/or practices, ensuring that appropriate records of repairs calls are made. Calls should be suitably recorded, monitored and followed up where appropriate. The outcome of this review must be shared with this Service.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to:

Review its staff training regarding their application of its customer care policy, in order to ensure their appropriate recording of, handling of, and responses to complaints.

Provide the resident with details of affordable contents insurance, or to another service who may advise on this matter.