Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202103221)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103221

Greenwich Council

9 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of a water leak into his property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat, situated in a block of flats. Throughout this case, the resident’s sister acted as a representative on his behalf. For clarity in this report, both the resident and his sister will be referred to as ‘the resident.’
On 21 March 2021, the resident reported a leak into his property. The landlord attempted to trace the leak, but was refused access by the tenant of a neighbouring property. The landlord gained access on 25 March 2021, and traced the leak to a waste pipe in the property above the resident’s. On 26 March 2021, the landlord attended the resident’s property and made safe the electrics in the kitchen, due to the leak. The landlord carried out works on 30 March 2021, which it believed would resolve the leak. Following reports from the resident that the leak was ongoing, the landlord attended on 31 March 2021 and identified a further leak on the pipe. The leak was ultimately resolved on 1 April 2021.
In the resident’s initial complaint, he raised concerns about the length of time taken for the landlord to resolve the issue. He was unhappy that his calls had been cut off due to the landlord alleging that he was “irate”. He stated that there had been ten days of water ingress into the property, and five days with no electricity in the kitchen. He later added that his belongings had been damaged due to the leak.
On 20 April 2021, the landlord inspected the property to assess the damage, and acknowledged that the ceiling and tiling needed to be made good following the leak. On 6 May 2021, the resident submitted a claim for the damage to his possessions through the landlord’s liability insurance.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 28 May 2021, where it partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged that there were delays in resolving the leak and the follow-on remedial works, which it stated was due to difficulties in gaining access to the above neighbour’s property, and the restrictions by the Covid-19 pandemic. It apologised for the delays and informed the resident that the necessary follow-on works had been raised for 9 July 2021.
Following this, the resident continued to chase the follow-on works. On 7 July 2021, the landlord completed plastering and carpentry works in the property. It completed tiling works on 20 August 2021, and redecorated on 5 October 2021.
The resident subsequently escalated his complaint to this Service. He was dissatisfied with the delay in completing the works and was unhappy with the damage to his belongings and the resulting stress. He was also unhappy with the length of time he was left with no lighting or electrics in the kitchen.
On 30 May 2022, the landlord stated it had reviewed its handling of the situation. In view of the delays in completing the follow-on works for the resident, it offered the resident £150 compensation. It acknowledged that its communication could have been better, and that it could have resolved the matter sooner. The resident was dissatisfied with the offer as it would not cover the damage to his possessions, or the significant impact caused by the leak.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

The tenancy agreement states that it is vital for residents to get household contents insurance to cover the cost of replacing belongings that may be lost through theft, fire, burst pipes, or other causes.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs will be dealt with in two hours, urgent repairs will be dealt with within one to five working days and non-urgent repairs will be dealt with within 20 working days. Examples of urgent repairs to be dealt with within one working day included leaking water pipes and unsafe electrical fittings. It also states that sometimes it would just make the situation safe within the response time and return later to complete the work.
The landlord’s repairs policy also states that residents must allow access to its staff and contractors for repairs. It states it will give 24 hours’ notice, where possible, although in an emergency where there was a risk of personal injury or serious damage to a property, it may have to enter a property without prior notice.
The landlord’s ‘Customer Feedback’ policy states that at its ‘formal complaint investigation’ stage, a response would be issued within 10 working days and during its ‘final review’ stage, a response would be issued within 20 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into his property

It is noted that the resident submitted an insurance claim through the landlord’s liability insurance for his personal possessions, which he stated had been damaged due to the leak; however, this claim was not accepted by the insurer. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord, and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the landlord’s insurers. Nevertheless, under the terms of the tenancy agreement, residents are encouraged to take out contents insurance on personal items. The landlord would not be expected to pay the cost or replace the damaged items and its advice to refer the matter to insurers was therefore correct in the circumstances. However, the landlord has stated that the resident can seek legal advice if he remains dissatisfied with the outcome of the insurance claim.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that leaking pipes should be dealt with as an urgent repair, within one working day. The leak was initially reported on 21 March 2021, and was ultimately resolved on 1 April 2021, which was a total of 10 working days. It should be noted that the landlord had attempted to attend to the leak between 21 March 2022 and 24 March 2022. This shows it had tried to attend to the leak within the appropriate timeframe listed in its policies and procedures but was unable to gain access to the neighbour’s property above.
In circumstances where access is refused, the landlord would be expected to consider whether the situation warranted it forcing access to a property. However, this is normally reserved for more severe cases where there is an immediate risk to the safety of residents. Likewise, although the landlord could have taken action to apply for an emergency injunction in order to gain access, this would have taken time and may have been delayed further due to the Covid-19 pandemic at the time. Therefore, the landlord’s attempts to access the neighbouring property were reasonable in the circumstances.
After the landlord gained access to the upstairs property on 25 March 2021, it raised works for 30 March 2021 to resolve the leak. Although it did make safe the electrics in the resident’s property during this time, from the evidence provided, it is not clear whether the leak was made safe in line with its repairs policy. In addition, the resident continued to report the leak during this time, suggesting that the leak was an ongoing issue. From the repair logs provided by the landlord, the delay was due to the landlord requiring a plumber and a carpenter to attend on the same day. However, it has not provided evidence to show why it was unable to obtain a carpenter and plumber at an earlier stage, or that it had considered any alternatives. The landlord acknowledged the delay within its stage one complaint response to the resident, and whilst it apologised for the inconvenience caused, it did not offer compensation which would have been appropriate in view of all the circumstances.
Subsequent to the works being completed on 30 March 2021, the resident reported that the leak had not been resolved. The landlord informed this Service that it attended the property on 31 March 2021, and a leak was identified on the pipe two properties above the residents, which it resolved on 1 April 2021. It should be noted that information relating to this incident is not included in the repair logs provided by the landlord.
In addition, there were times where the information it provided to this Service seemed to be contradictory to the repair logs, such as; the landlord informing this Service that when its operatives attended on 30 March 2021 no leak was found, despite confirming to the resident it had been resolved, and its repairs log showing that it was resolved on 30 March 2021. Furthermore, its stage one response stated that the leak was resolved on 30 March 2021, but follow-on works were needed, which were completed on 1 April 2021. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its policies and procedures. This is a further failing on the landlord’s behalf, and it is therefore ordered to review its record-keeping processes, to ensure its staff are keeping accurate and clear records relating to any repairs.
Following the leak being resolved on 1 April 2021, the landlord acted appropriately by raising follow-on works to make good the damaged areas of the property. It inspected the property on 20 April 2022, and raised works which included plastering and retiling the affected areas in the kitchen, and redecorating where necessary. The plastering and carpentry works were completed on 7 July 2021, the tiling works were completed on 20 August 2021, and it redecorated on 5 October 2021. The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in these works, and stated it was due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the restrictions that were imposed.
Whilst this Service acknowledges that these delays were somewhat outside of the landlord’s control, it would have been expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide an expected completion date if possible. From the evidence provided, the landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident about any delays other than in its stage two response, and it therefore failed to appropriately manage his expectations throughout the repairs process.
Furthermore, the resident regularly had to chase the landlord in order to receive an update on the works and the dates of appointments. Likewise, there were times where the resident was not made aware of changes in appointment dates, such as; the carpentry works due to be completed on 9 July 2021 being brought forward to 7 July 2021.This is further evidence of poor communication by the landlord, which impacted the resident and led to further inconvenience due to the time and trouble he spent chasing a resolution. Although the landlord acknowledged this and apologised to the resident, it is recommended that the landlord provides further staff training on the importance of communicating effectively with residents.
During the landlord’s complaint review in May 2022, it acknowledged that there were delays and a lack of communication in its handling of the follow-on repairs, and in view of this, it offered the resident £150 compensation. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise that there had been times where its service had been less than it should have been, this offer of compensation was significantly later than the completion of the follow-on works in October 2021. There is therefore no evidence to suggest that the landlord would have been unable to reach such a decision at an earlier point and the evidence suggests that the delayed offer was distressing for the resident.
When considering the above factors, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that compensation of £250 would provide adequate redress. This is in line with the remedies guidance provided by the Ombudsman for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but there may be no permanent impact. The repairs were ultimately completed and therefore there was no permanent impact but there was inconvenience and distress to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident raised a stage one complaint on 31 March 2021, which the landlord raised under its ‘formal complaint investigation’ stage. It issued its stage one response on 8 April 2021, which was a total of five working days after the complaint being raised. The landlord had responded promptly to the resident’s complaint and acted in line with its customer feedback policy.
Following the resident’s escalation on 5 May 2021, the landlord escalated the complaint to its final review stage. It issued its stage two complaint response on 28 May 2021, which was a total of 18 working days from the complaint escalation. This was also in line with the appropriate timeframe listed in the landlord’s customer feedback policy.
The landlord then completed a review of its handling of the situation and issued a further complaint response on 30 May 2022. Although it attempted to put things right during its review, it was a significantly delayed offer, and was issued after the resident had escalated his complaint to this Service. This caused further distress and inconvenience for the resident, as it caused him to believe it was the outcome of the Ombudsman’s investigation. In addition, the landlord could have reached this decision at an earlier stage, and therefore this constitutes a failing by the landlord.
Moreover, although the complaint responses issued by the landlord summarised the events of the leak, and committed to completing inspections and works within the property, including redecoration works and plastering, it failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the amount of time he was left without electricity and lights within the kitchen of his property, which resulted in him being unable to cook, and his complaint that his calls were cut off by members of its staff.
The Complaint Handling Code provided by the Ombudsman, sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how a landlord should handle a resident’s complaint. It states that a landlord should address all points that were raised in a complaint. The landlord’s omission to do this, constitutes a further failing. The landlord is therefore ordered to raise a new complaint about these issues through its complaints process. If failings are found during its investigation, it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with an appropriate level of compensation. Furthermore, the landlord is recommended to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of our complaint handling code, to ensure all aspects of a resident’s complaint are being addressed.
When considering the failings identified above, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that compensation of £100 would provide adequate redress. This is in line with the remedies guidance provided by this Service for cases where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge this failure or put it right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a water leak into his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way the landlord handled the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within four weeks of the date of this letter:
1. Pay the resident £350 compensation, which is made up of:
  1. £150 for the delays throughout the landlord’s handling of the leak and follow-on repairs needed, which caused distress and inconvenience for the resident,
  2. £100 for the landlord’s poor record-keeping and,
  3. £100 for the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
2. Raise a new complaint relating to the resident’s loss of electric and lighting in his kitchen due to the leak, and if failings are identified, provide the resident with a proportionate amount of compensation.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. reviews its record-keeping practices and considers providing additional staff training to ensure it is keeping clear and accurate records relating to repairs.
2. provides further staff-training on the importance of communicating with residents, to ensure that their expectations are managed effectively.
3. reviews its staff’s training needs regarding their application of our complaint handling code, to ensure all aspects of a resident’s complaint are being addressed.