Hackney Council (202008118)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008118

Hackney Council

15 March 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 handling of:
1. A leak from the bathroom.
2. A leak from the neighbour’s property.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the property owned by the landlord. The neighbouring property is a leaseholder, for which the landlord owns the freehold.
Under the terms of tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for informing the landlord about any problem which is damaging, or likely to damage their property or surrounding properties.
The resident is also responsible for insuring the contents and belongings of the property. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is not responsible for the loss or damage to resident’s belongings, including that caused by other residents.
The landlord’s Leaseholder’s Rules and Regulations explains that a leaseholder is responsible for repairing any leaks from their property into another resident’s property.
The landlord has four repair priorities as follows:
1. Immediate – It will attend to such repair within two hours to make it safe.
2. Emergency – It will attend to such repair within 24 hours to make it safe.
3. Urgent – It will attend to this repair within five working days.
4. Normal – It will attend to this repair within 21 working days.
The resident reported leaks coming from their bathroom in August and October 2018. The leaks affected the ceiling of the bedroom located beneath the bathroom. At the timethe reports were made, the landlord renewed the bath panel and completed plastering works to repair the bedroom ceiling.
A leak from the bathroom was reported a second time in January 2019 and was found to be caused by the bath sealant failing. To address this, the landlord renewed the bath.

Summary of events

On 10 June 2020 the resident reported a leak from the bathroom, affecting the ceiling of the bedroom below. A plumber attended to the property on 17 June 2020 and reported a second leak was affecting the property, suspected to be from the neighbouring property. They recommended that a visit be carried out to the neighbour’s property. A joint visit with a tiler and plumber was raised to investigate the source of both leaks.
On 14 July 2020, the landlord was informed that the tiler attended, removed the tiles surrounding the bath, and found that the area was damp. The plumber was not present during the visit, so a recommendation was made for a plumber to investigate the leak, attending both the resident’s and the neighbour’s property, to do so.
The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 14 July 2020. They complained that the bathroom leak had been ongoing for two years and caused damage to the ceiling in the bedroom below. The resident noted that they wanted a surveyor to investigate and repair the leak and wanted compensation for the time taken to address the matter.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 27 July 2020. It:
1. Acknowledged that a leak had been affecting the property from 2018 and persisted despite repairs it had previously carried out.
2. Confirmed that a manager and plumber would attend to both properties as recommended on 6 August 2020.
3. Arranged for a plasterer to attend to the bedroom ceiling affected by the leak, on 31 July 2020. It noted that the ceiling had not been reported before the complaint submission.
4. Confirmed that once the leak was repaired, a surveyor would attend to scope for the remedial works. It noted that due to the pandemic, surveys were not going ahead but would commence once restrictions had been lifted.
During the inspection on 6 August 2020, the landlord confirmed that two leaks were affecting the property. One was coming from a pipe in the bathroom and the other was coming from the neighbours’ property. It advised the resident that they would hear from the contractor with an appointment to attend to both. By 26 August 2020 the resident contacted the landlord again, as they had not been contacted. In response, the landlord confirmed an appointment date for the contractor to attend on 15 September 2020.
Following the contractor’s visit, the landlord confirmed to the resident on 16 September 2020, that it would renew the bath and reinstate the tiles to the bathroom. It said that the second leak from the neighbour’s property was coming from a heating pipe, and it believed that this was repaired. It said however, that if the leak from the neighbour’s property was ongoing when its contractor attended again on 29 September 2020, it would carry out further investigations to establish the possibility of it coming from another source.
The landlord attended to the resident’s property and replaced the bath as agreed. While the works were being carried out, the resident and contractor got into a dispute about the bath that was fitted.As a result, the landlord decided to appoint a different contractor to carry out the outstanding remedial work to rectify the damage and the ongoing investigation of the second leakfrom the neighbour’s property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 October 2020 and said that the leak from the neighbouring property was ongoing. They acknowledged the landlord had previously advised that if the leak from the neighbour’s property continued, there would be a process of elimination to establish the source and asked the landlord to provide an update.
The landlord responded on 27 October 2020 and informed that it had passed the repair to source the leak from the neighbouring property to an alternative contractor. They attended on 6 November 2020, checked the pipework within the resident’s property and found no issues. It mentioned that the resident’s laminate flooring was dry but had swollen, suggesting it had been saturated at some point. It concluded that the leak that the landlord had believed was from the neighbouring property, could be an upsurge from an external drainpipe. It suggested that the landlord investigate the external drainage. It relayed its finding and recommendation to the landlord on 16 December 2020.
The resident was in contact with this Service on 14 January 2021, and said the complaint was not resolved as the leak from the neighbour’s property was ongoing. In addition, they said that during the inspection on 6 August 2020, the landlord removed kickboards and panels in the kitchen however, had not put them back. As the resident reported that they had not heard from the landlord about the repair, we contacted it and it raised a stage two complaint. The parties discussed the complaint on 11 February 2021, during which the resident advised the leak from the neighbouring property was ongoing, and that the property smelt of mould and was in poor repair.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident on 12 February 2021. It said:
1. The kickboards and panels were removed during the course of the investigation into the leak and would be addressed once the ongoing leak was traced.
2. It appointed the outstanding repair to confirm the source of the leak from the neighbour’s property and the remedial repairs to the resident’s property, to an alternative contractor due to the dispute between the resident and the former contractor.
3. It confirmed the findings from the contractor’s visit on 6 November 2020 but said that it did not agree with the suggestion that the leak could be associated with the drainage.
4. That it would contact the leaseholder from the neighbouring property and ask that they check the heating pipe and boiler. In addition, it said that a surveyor would also attend the resident’s property as part of the ongoing repair.
5. Once the leak was repaired and the property was dried out, a surveyor visit would be arranged.
6. It upheld the complaint due to the time it had taken to address the leaks from when it was reported. It confirmed that it would assess compensation once the leak was resolved and apologised to the resident for their time and trouble spent pursuing the matter.
The landlord arranged an appointment to attend the resident’s property, on 5 March 2021. It reported that the leaseholder refused access on that day, but they did allow access on 19 March 2021. During the visit to the property, it found that the leak had been coming from a discharge pipe from the neighbour’s boiler but was resolved. Once this was confirmed, the remedial works to address the damage to the resident’s property were raised. These included the supply of a dehumidifier as well as plastering and decorative works to the areas affected by the leaks. The landlord confirmed that these works were completed on 11 August 2021.
The resident brought their complaint to the Service for consideration, in June 2021. They remained unhappy with the outcome of their complaint and said that to resolve the complaint, they wanted the landlord to:
1. Explain why the leaks occurred.
2. Investigate behind the kitchen units for damage that they believed may have been caused by the leak from the neighbouring property.
3. Carry out further decorative works, as there were two different shades of white where the landlord had painted over the existing paint.
4. Compensate for the time taken to resolve the leaks and the inconvenience caused.
5. Provide insurance information so that they could submit a claim for their damaged flooring.
This Service contacted the landlord and it agreed to take part in our mediation process. In response to the outstanding matters the resident raised, it confirmed that the second leak was from the neighbouring leasehold property and was not its responsibility. It confirmed that it completed a full investigation, found no repair required to the kitchen and carried out decorative works to the affected areas once the leak was resolved. In addition, it said that it completed decorative works to areas in the property which were not affected by the leak and said that the remedial works it carried out were beyond what it was required to do. The landlord acknowledged that there was a delay in addressing the leak and in recognition of this, the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, it offered £750 compensation.
We discussed the landlord’s response with the resident, and they were not satisfied with this therefore, the complaint was progressed to investigation.

Assessment and findings

In October 2020, the landlord was subject to a serious cyber-attack which has limited the extent of the information the landlord has been able to provide. Particularly, the landlord has not been able to provide the full extent of the records in relation to the repair works carried out. This investigation is therefore based on the evidence that was available from the landlord together with evidence provided by the resident.

Bathroom leak

The resident informed this Service the leak has been ongoing since 2018, after refurbishment works were completed in the bathroom. The records the landlord provided, confirms that leaks from the bathroom were reported in 2018 and 2019 and the landlord completed works to address this at that time. After 2019, there were no further reports about a leak from the bathroom again, until June 2020. Given that a year passed before the leak from the bathroom was reported again in 2020, this assessment will review how the landlord responded to the reports from June 2020.
In response to the report of the leak on 10 June 2020, the landlord raised an urgent repair for a plumber to attend and they did on 17 June 2020. Following this, a joint visit with a plumber and tiler was arranged. The date of the appointment is not clear but, only the tiler attend the visit. As a result, a plumber did not attend the property again until 6 August 2020, nearly two months after the leak was first reported. There was a delay in the plumber attending and the visit was outside of the landlord’s repair timeframe.
When the resident reported the leak, they said that the leak was affecting the ceiling in the bedroom beneath. However, the landlord did not raise a repair to address this at that time the report was made in June 2020. After the resident submitted the formal complaint on 14 July 2020, and mentioned that the ceiling had fallen, the landlord responded that the ceiling repair had not previously been mentioned. Whilst this was not the case, the landlord did raise an order at this time for the ceiling to be made safe.
The landlord found the source of the leak from the bathroom during its visit on 6 August 2020. After it confirmed that the repair had been passed to its contractor on 10 August 2020, the resident had to chase up the appointment 16 days later, as they had not been given adate yet. This indicates that the landlord did not proactively ensure that the leak was addressed at the earliest opportunity.
Once the landlord attended to the property on 15 September 2020, it clarified to the resident that the bath would be replaced to address the leak. This Service has not received confirmation of the date the bath was replaced however, based on the evidence provided, this happened sometime between 16 and 30 September 2020.
The landlord has not provided any record of the reports it received from its contractor about the dispute with the resident during the visit to replace the bath. Nevertheless, it is evident that it received notification of the dispute from its contractor, and this informed its decision to re-allocate the remaining works in October 2020. In light of a dispute between the resident and contractor, its decision to allocate the works to another contractor was reasonable to avoid any further conflict between the parties and to progress any outstanding repairs.
However, its communication with the resident about its decision to allocate the works to another contractor, was prompted by the resident chasing it on 7 October 2020. This was a shortfall in communication as the landlord did not alert the resident as soon as it made a decision to re-allocate the works.
The landlord has not provided the exact date the leak from the bathroom was repaired but, the resident confirmed when they contacted the landlord on 7 October 2020 that the bathroom leak had been resolved. Given this, it is evident the landlord resolved the leak when it attended to replace the bath, three months after the first report.
The landlord’s response to the bathroom leak was outside of its timeframe and there was a shortfall in the landlord maintaining communication with the resident in relation to the repair, as the resident had to prompt it for updates. When the landlord allocated the remainder of the remedial works to an alternative contractor, it did not do so promptly which was unreasonable. Although the bath replacement resolved the leak, remedial works to reinstate the tiles remained outstanding after this and was delayed as a result.

Leak from the neighbouring property

The landlord became aware of the leak from the neighbour’s property during its visit on 17 June 2020, to investigate the leak that the resident reported was coming from the bathroom. After its attendance on 15 September 2020, it informed the resident that the leaking pipe from the neighbouring property had been fixed. However, there is no information to support this claim.
After the visit on 15 September 2020, the landlord said that if the leak was still present when its contractor attended on 29 September 2020, it would conduct a further investigation. As identifying the source of a leak can involve a process of elimination, this approach was appropriate. However, there is no evidence that the landlord proactively followed up with its contractor about whether the leak was still present when it attended on 29 September 2020.
The resident alerted the landlord to the fact that the leak was ongoing on 7 October 2020 but, it did not attend to this again until 6 November 2020, nearly four months after it was first aware. After the visit in November 2020, the landlord received the report on 16 December 2020 and did not agree with the contractors suggestion that the leak could be associated with the drains. Even though it did not agree with the recommendations, it took no alternative action to address the ongoing leak after it received the report. It had previous knowledge that a leak had been coming from the neighbouring property but, did not ensure that the leaseholder addressed this within a reasonable time, even after the resident notified it the leak was ongoing in October 2020.
As a result, by the time the stage two complaint was raised in January 2021, the leak was still outstanding. As part of the resolution to the complaint, the landlord agreed to contact the leaseholder of the neighbouring property and while this was appropriate, it took until March 2021 which was a significant period of time to do so.
The landlord has indicated that it was denied access to the leasehold property on a number of occasions and said that this has contributed to the delay. This Service has only seen evidence of a refusal of access by the leaseholder on one occasion in March 2021. Moreover, there is no evidence that that the landlord took action to enforce the terms of the lease, which would be expected in the case it had difficulty getting the leaseholder to address the issue.
The landlord’s handling of the repair to the leak from the neighbouring propertywas not reasonable. The source of the leak itself was not the landlord’s responsibility to repair however, it had a duty to ensure that it the leaseholder was aware of the issue and addressed this efficiently to avoidany furtherdamage to the property. Throughout the time the leak was outstanding, the landlord did not follow up with the resident as it agreed to and it took no action to satisfy itself that the leaseholder had addressed the leak, until March 2021, nine months after it became aware of the leak.

Conclusion

In response to the complaint, the landlord confirmed that it would contact the leaseholder and once the leak was resolved, it agreed to attend to carry out remedial works and consider compensation.
It acknowledged the delay in addressing the leaks to the property and it was appropriate for it to do so. It followed through on the actions it agreed to take in the final response, received confirmation that both leaks were resolved and carried out the remedial works required in the property.
In addition to this, during the mediation process the landlord provided thorough responses to the outstanding issues raised by the resident. Prior to this Service’s intervention, it confirmed to the resident what had caused the bathroom leak and the leak from the neighbour’s property. It decision not to investigate behind the kitchen units was reasonable as it had carried out an inspection in August 2020 and found no repair was required. The landlord has reviewed photographs of the remedial works carried out and provided this Service with the images. It is not within our remit to assess the quality of the works however, the landlord is satisfied that the works have been completed on the basis of the photographs provided by its contractor and this is reasonable.
The Ombudsman expects that a landlord consider the impact that its service delivery has had on the resident. In this case, there was a delay of nine months before both leaks were repaired.The resident spent time and effort pursuing the landlord while the repair was ongoing. The service failure on the landlord’s part in not proactively following up with the resident, contributed to the delay in resolving the leaks and damage to the property. In order to rectify this, the landlord carried out remedial repairs to the damage, acknowledged the delay, apologised to the resident, and offered them £750 compensation.
The level of compensation the landlord offered was proportionate to the service failures on its behalf. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, explains that awards in the region up £700, are appropriate where there has been considerable service failure but there is no permanent impact on the resident. The leaks were ongoing for a unreasonable period of time and therefore, had a significant impact on the resident, causing them distress and inconvenience, while it was ongoing. This included the resident spending time pursuing the landlord for updates or, to progress matters. Nevertheless, there was no permanent impact, and the landlord has since the complaint, taken steps to ensure that the leaks are resolved and completed the remedial works to restore the property as it was. The resolution it has offered to the resident overall, therefore, is considered as satisfactory.
In addition, the resident has noted that there was damage to their flooring, the landlord responded by providing the resident with the details of its insurer to make a liability claim, which was appropriate in the circumstance. The resident has since made a claim to the insurer which was addressed outside of the complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In relation to the handling of the leak from the bathroom and the leak from the neighbouring property, in accordance with paragraph 55c of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress following the Ombudsman’s intervention which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

In line with the Ombudsman’s principle of putting things right, the landlord acknowledged the delay in completing the repair, completed the remedial repairs to the damage to the property after the leak was resolved and made an offer of compensation that is proportionate to the service failure.
In addition, the landlord has provided the resident with details of how they could pursue an insurance claim for the damage to their flooring.

Recommendation

If the landlord has not already paid the resident the £750 it offered, it should do so within 3 weeks of this decision. Once the payment has been made, the landlord should provide evidence of this to this Service.