Tower Hamlets Homes (202116150)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116150

Tower Hamlets Council

12 April 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for leaks, damage and loss of water in the bathroom.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a flat.
3. On 18 August 2021, the landlord arranged for a contractor to unblock the bathroom which was successful. However, the resident noticed a leak on his living room and kitchen ceiling the same day.  Subsequently, the resident contacted the landlord to report an uncontainable leak in the bathroom, after which the contractor attended the same day. The following day a second contractor attended the property to isolate the leak. Both concluded the damage to the waste pipe behind the toilet had been caused from the previous repair. It was advised that the panel would need to be removed to gain access to the pipe. A further appointment was scheduled for 23 August 2021 and, despite the allotted timeslot being missed, the repair was completed that day.
4. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord as he was unhappy with the length of time taken to resolve the leak. He stated that he was a key worker and the only way he felt his family was protected during this time was by cleaning himself regularly to protect them against covid. The resident felt that the landlord had breached human rights rules.
5. On 3 September 2021 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It acknowledged that the service the resident received had fallen below what would normally be expected, and it awarded £30 compensation for trouble and upset and an additional £10 for the missed appointment. It acknowledged a claim from the resident that the leak had caused damage to paint work and feature wallpaper in the living room and kitchen, and it detailed that in order to make claim for damage to the property he would need to submit a CF1 form. The resident confirms to this Service that this is not something that he pursued.
6. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and wanted additional compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused.
7. On 13 October 2021, the landlord issued its final response. This outlined the events that took place and explained that the compensation offered was in line with its compensation policy.
8. In response to this, the resident was not satisfied with the compensation outcome and referred the complaint to the Ombudsman for adjudication.

Assessment and findings

9. As set out in the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairs in relation to leaks.
10. When the resident informed the landlord of the uncontainable leak, it arranged for a contractor to visit that day, but a repair was not conducted. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that where there is an emergency it will arrange for the property to be visited within 24 hours, with a 2 hour response to make safe and prevent danger. Section 5.4.1 of the leaks procedure policy also states, ‘If it is not possible to complete the repair on first visit, the property will be made safe and water penetration isolated to prevent further damage. The contractor will also ensure, as far as is practicable, that any water is vacuumed up and the property left reasonably dry. A further appointment will then be made.’ In this instance, contractors visited the property on the date of the reported issue, then the following day to isolate the leak. However, a further appointment was made due to the type of repair. This service acknowledges the inconvenience this would have caused for the resident, however notes that the landlord acted in line with its guidelines.
11. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the length of time taken to fix the leak and stated this resulted in the household being unable to use the bathroom. This was following the contractors’ advice, who said to wait until the repair was completed. The resident also expressed concerns for his family without the proper use of facilities, and the resident felt his family was at risk of COVID. It is understandable the resident had concerns about this, as well the impact of the leak and resulting work needed on his household.
12. The landlord’s policy states, “where issue may cause inconvenience but not of urgent nature such as posing immediate risk to health and safety. Includes but is not limited to minor leaks, minor plumbing work and repairing taps.”. The landlord’s approach is that residents will not have to wait more than 20 working days for completion of this type of repair. However, in most cases the repair will be carried out well in advance of this. In this case the repair took 6 working days, and whilst it is not disputed that the time taken caused inconvenience to the resident and his household, this was not an unreasonable length of time to complete the work needed.
13. This investigation notes that the resident seeks compensation for damage as a result of the leak. However, it is not in this Service’s authority or expertise to definitively decide on matters such as liability or negligence in the same way as the courts. In this case, the landlord signposted the resident to a procedure by which he could progress his claim, and therefore the landlord responded to this aspect reasonably.
14. Due to the contractor missing the allotted timeslot for the appointment scheduled on 23 August 2021, the landlord considered its compensation policy. This policy states, “Appointments missed by our contractors will be monitored and reported as part of our performance monitoring process. It is our policy to compensate tenants for these, in the form of a £10 voucher.” As the contractor repaired the leak that day and no further appointments were missed, the landlord’s remedy was in line with its policy and is reasonable.
15. In this case the landlord identified service failure, apologised to the resident and to put things right for the resident compensated £30 for trouble and upset in addition to £10 for the missed appointment. Section 3(b) of the Right to Repair regulations 1994 states residents are entitled to compensation from their landlord if qualifying repairs are not carried out within a prescribed period. The prescribed period for partial loss of water is 3 working days after which compensation would apply. The kind of compensation that would be applicable in the circumstances would be £10 plus £2 for each day that exceeded the prescribed period. Since the issue was resolved in 6 days, compensation would have totalled to £14. Therefore the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of £30 to be a reasonable offer, as it is slightly more than might have been calculated under the right to repair regulations.
16. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord took reasonable steps to address the residents’ concerns, fully acknowledging where faults could have been improved and offered appropriate redress.

Determination (decision)

17. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Landlord has acknowledged delays and offered compensation which the Ombudsman considers to be reasonable redress.

Reasons

18. When the landlord was informed about the leak and later the resident’s concerns about the time taken to repair the bathroom, it responded positively and in line with its repair obligations.
19. The landlord made reasonable efforts to put things right for the resident and compensated him fairly. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was reasonable redress for the failings identified.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

20. The landlord to ensure residents are made aware of cancelled appointments.