Sovereign Network Homes (202122676)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122676

Network Homes Limited

26 May 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 reports of pigeons getting into the structure of the building.
handling of the resident’s concerns about water quality and requests for information relating to water test results.
complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a Housing Association. The resident is an older person and has a heart condition.
The property is a second floor flat, within a sheltered housing scheme. The flat benefits from a private external balcony.
The tenancy agreement sets out the rights and repair obligations of the resident and the landlord. The landlord “will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property including, all installations for the supply of water, gas and electricity, heating and sanitation (including baths, basins, toilets and sinks provided by the landlord)”.
The complaint was raised by the resident, and at times by her son. For clarity, this report will refer to both the resident and her son as “the resident”.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord has a two stage formal complaints process that consists of a stage one investigation and a stage two appeals panel. The target timescale for responses are 10 working days at stage one and four weeks at stage two. Where it is unable to meet those targets, it “will send out a holding letter explaining the reasons for the delay and provide a new target response date”. The policy states that “a complaint cannot be escalated until the stage one decision has been issued”. The policy does not apply when the resident “has not raised their concerns within six months of the issue(s) occurring”.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the circumstances under which it will pay compensation and its payment tariff. This includes payments for delay, distress, loss of a statutory service, time and trouble, and incurred costs.
The landlord has a repairs policy which sets out agreed response times for responsive repairs. It describes routine repairs as, all repairs for which it is responsible that are not emergencies. It states that it will complete routine repairs in 15 working days. The landlord’s website describes planned works as bigger repairs that take longer to arrange. For planned work, it will give an estimated completion date, but aims to complete these types of repair in 90 days.
The landlord’s repairs policy places responsibility for pest control and disinfestation on its residents, “except where caused by a design fault with the property”.
The landlord has a pest policy which sets out its approach to pest control and advice. The policy describes the term ‘pest’ to mean any organism which is judged to be a threat to humans in the homes they occupy, including feral pigeons. The policy states:

“[the landlord] is not responsible for pests within its resident’s homes unless there is a rat, mice or pharaoh ant infestation or an infestation in several connected properties, flat block or estate, or an infestation in a communal area”
“where there is a pest infestation in a communal area, it is the responsibility of neighbourhoods to ensure the infestation is stopped”. “Neighbourhoods will carry out regular inspections of estates, and work with residents to offer advice and support to help prevent the likelihood of pests”
“if there is evidence to show that the tenant is responsible for infestations because of lifestyle of other choices, this may be considered anti-social behaviour. In these scenarios, the anti-social behaviour procedure should be followed”
“the [landlord] will deliver a service to deal with infestations of rats, mice, pharaoh ants, cockroaches and any other pests that could cause a statutory nuisance. The service could include delivering treatments and if there are any defects to the property allowing pests to get inside, carrying out proofing works to stop access”.

The landlord has an obligation to remedy any category one hazard in its properties under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Defined hazards include:
1. domestic hygiene, pests, and refuse. This concerns protection against infection

water supply. This is limited to the supply of water after delivery to the dwelling. It includes water for drinking, cooking, washing, cleaning and sanitation.

The landlord has a water hygiene policy, which sets out the way that the landlord will manage water systems in residential premises and provides a framework of actions designed to control the risk from legionella. The landlord has provided copies of some of its risk assessment and management plans, and water hygiene maintenance reports, carried out at the scheme.
The Government guidance on copper (updated on 20 May 2022) states, that drinking water containing high levels of copper can cause stomach pain, nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea. Exposure to copper contaminated water can cause blue or green discolouration of the skin and hair. Skin and eye irritation can also occur.

Summary of Events

This investigation focuses on issues raised by the resident about pigeons getting into the structure of the building, between 24 May 20021 and the date of the landlord’s final stage two response on 26 August 2021. In relation to the resident’s complaint about water quality and her requests for water test results, the scope of this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between 7 October 2020 and the date of the landlord’s final stage two response on 26 August 2021.
To place the resident’s complaints in their current context, this report also includes references to the actions taken by the landlord, that took place after 26 August 2021.
The resident formally approached her landlord on 6 February 2020, following adverse skin reactions after bathing and looked for reassurance about the quality of the water being supplied to the property. The landlord signposted the resident to the water utility company in the first instance.
The water utility company visited the resident on the 2 July 2020 and 7 July 2020, when it took water samples from the mains supply before it entered the scheme. It emailed the resident on 26 August 2020, enclosing a copy of the results. It:
1. commented that “the water entering the property was showing nothing unusual for us to report any findings”. “After visiting the property”, it had noticed there was a “build-up of green hardness around the kitchen and bathroom tap”, which it said might suggest “corrosion of internal copper piping”
2. said the copper readings “coming into the property” had not shown a high result (0.0660mg/l against standard of 2mg), but suggested further investigation be carried out of “the internal plumbing work to stop further discolouration”.
The resident provided the landlord with the utility company’s survey report and recommendations on 7 October 2020. The landlord’s surveyor considered the report on 26 October 2020. He said that he was “far from being a water expert”, but he did not believe there was any further work to be done. He noted that the copper levels quoted were not high, and suggested that the utility company had contradicted itself by recommending further tests be carried out to prevent discolouration.
The resident contacted the landlord several times between 24 May 2021 and 7 June 2021, raising concerns about neighbours feeding wild pigeons. She believed this was causing pigeons to gather above her balcony. She was unhappy about having to constantly clean up pigeon droppings and asked the landlord to tell her neighbours to stop feeding the birds.
In a telephone conversation with the resident on 24 May 2021, the landlord told the resident, that it didn’t deal with pigeons and couldn’t raise an order to monitor. It suggested that the possibility of plastic spikes being installed by the handy man. The resident’s enquiry was redirected to the neighbourhood team on 26 May 2021 and then again on 1 June 2021.
The resident told the landlord on 1 June 2021 and 7 June 2021, that the birds were now “burrowing into the eaves” and were “breeding in the gaps” between the pipes near the roof. She said that this was affecting her breathing and asked the landlord to close the gaps.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 June 2021. It explained that it would not write to residents about feeding the pigeons, as it did not consider this to be anti-social behaviour. It expected its residents to take responsibility and work together to reach a compromise. It suggested that she contact the local authority if she saw food thrown on the floor, as this could be treated as littering.
The landlord raised a works order on 24 June 2021, to fill any holes that pigeons could nest in around the balcony and drainpipes. According to repair logs, a target completion date for this work was set for 23 September 2021.
The resident raised a stage one complaint on 1 July 2021. She explained:
1. that despite several reports, pigeons were now “living in the structure of the building”
2. she was unable to sit on her balcony due to pigeon droppings and believed that cleaning up the pigeon mess was affecting her health. She mentioned that she had a heart problem and was finding it hard to breath
3. that neighbours were feeding the birds, which was making the problem worse. She had asked the landlord to write to neighbours to ask them to stop feeding the pigeons, but it had refused
4. the landlord had advised her to contact the local authority, however it had not been able to assist. Her local councillor had asked the neighbourhood officer to visit her, however this had not happened
5. the landlord had appointed contractors to fill the holes where the pigeons were getting in, but had not said when that would happen.
The landlord’s stage one response on 9 July 2021, indicated the following:
1. that it would not send letters to residents about bird feeding, since it did not consider this to be a breach of tenancy
2. that it had previously suggested that the resident contact the local authority if she could identify those feeding the birds
3. that it must be difficult if she was unable to sit on her balcony. However, it said that it had “no control over birds flying over the scheme”
4. that “the action taken by [the landlord] was appropriate and in line with our procedures”
5. that the resident had “identified areas where pigeons could be accessing the structure of building”, and confirmed that there was an outstanding job for contractors to attend to fill holes.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage two on 24 July 2021. The resident:
1. said the neighbourhood team had not met with her as requested by her local councillor, and it had not explained its non attendance despite chasing for an explanation
2. said that the contractor had set a date for 17 September 2021, to block up the holes above her flat. However, she was dissatisfied that this work would not begin sooner
3. suggested that localised bird stopping work would not resolve the wider issue of pigeons nesting in the building, and wanted to know the landlord’s reasons for not carrying out pigeon stopping to the wider building
4. she asked if the landlord would be sending someone on a regular basis, to clean the pigeon droppings off her balcony
5. said that she was waiting for a satisfactory conclusion to her concerns about water quality. She had still not had a satisfactory response as to whether any pipework checks had taken place
6. said that she had suffered with her skin since moving into the property and was spending a lot of money on bottled water, as she had little confidence in the water quality
7. asked the landlord to confirm “if any pipework checks have taken place. If so, when and what did this show? If no, why not and are they planned. If not planned, what is the basis of this decision”.
The landlord’s internal records from 12 August 2021, noted that the resident had raised new issues as set out in paragraph 26 e, f, and g of this report, which it had “decided to take through stage two, rather than as a new complaint”.
The landlord and contractor carried out a joint inspection with its contractor on 26 August 2021, to consider what practical work could be taken to resolve the issues with pigeons landing above the “guttering and getting into the void area above”. Arrangements were raised to “bring a cherry picker to site to inspect all areas above [the flat] and other localised areas of the building to make sure there are no ‘holes’ present that may be allowing pigeons to enter and nest. All holes found are to be filled in”.
The landlord wrote to the resident with its stage two and final decision response on 26 August 2021. It:
1. agreed the inspection booked for 17 September 2021 was outside of its usual timescales, but had brought forward its appointment and had inspected with its contractor earlier that day
2. explained that it had arranged a further inspection with a cherry picker, to inspect areas above the flat and other localised areas of the building. The contactor had been instructed to fill any holes found to stop pigeons entering the voids spots around the building
3. noted a void space above the balcony where pigeons were entering. It said that this would be looked at again on its next visit. It promised to provide an update once it had a date for the contractor to attend
4. had looked into the resident’s reports relating to poor water quality and was aware of the water utility company’s report. It relayed the surveyor’s observations from 26 October 2020 and apologised if this information had not been given to the resident previously. It accepted that its communications had been poor
5. stood by the actions taken at the time. However, after noting the resident’s concerns about her skin it had spoken to its compliance team and would arrange further water sampling. It accepted that this could have happened in October 2020 and apologised that this did not happen
6. explained that the water utility company tested the water as it came into the building, so it was fresh at the point of entry. It would need to instruct a specialist to test the water within the property. It recognised that this could have been arranged when concerns were first raised, for which it apologised
7. suggested that if the resident had not already done so, she may wish to seek medical advice about her skin. It said, if anything was determined as a result of water hygiene tests, she could submit a claim through its insurance team
8. promised to update the resident when it had more information.

Actions to note subsequent to the completion of the landlord’s internal complaint process

A contractor visited the scheme on 27 August 2021, to investigate a sump warning. On inspection it found the booster pumps and water tank isolated and recommended that the “tank be cleaned before going back online, depending on the test results”. The water supplied to the building was left on mains bypass.
A series of bacterial tests were carried out on 27 August 2021, within the resident’s home and on the underground portable cold water tank. Process water was tested from the resident’s kitchen sink and wall hung basin. Drinking water was tested from the underground potable cold water tank and the resident’s kitchen sink. The certificate of analysis stated that all samples “passed”. However, none of these tests picked up on the recommendations of the water utility provider.
The contractor completed agreed pigeon stopping works on 13 September 2021. It commented that it had “checked all areas and had identified four potential areas of entry, although it said these were found to be airtight”. It covered two areas with chicken wire. It suggested an alternative option would be to “run pigeon spikes along the metal gutter edge and dormer to prevent pigeons from sitting on the edge”.
The landlord’s records indicate that the cold-water tank was disinfected on 16 September 2021.
The resident asked the landlord for an update on 4 October 2021, about the action it was taking to address issues with pigeons at the scheme. The landlord responded on 29 October 2021, repeating what its contractor had said on 13 September 2021. It asked the resident to let it know if the problem had not been resolved, so it could see if anything further could be done.
The contractor gave the landlord the water sample results from the bathroom and kitchen taps on 11 October 2021. The landlord updated the resident on the same day. It said, “that the tank was cleaned and chlorinated, that all samples taken passed the required test and found to be safe and clear”.
The landlord’s email to the resident on 29 October 2021, suggested that the resident had asked for a copy of the water sampling results from before and after cleansing the tank. The landlord advised the resident that “we do not share these results with tenants”. It said these “are for staff use to ensure appropriate action is taken”. The resident asked the landlord to reconsider its position on this. She felt this was not an “unreasonable request”, considering it involved health issues. She expressed concern that the landlord was hiding something and could not understand why it would not share the results when it had shared the results of samples previously taken within the property.
The resident asked the landlord on 15 February 2022, to confirm whether the matter relating to water quality had completed the internal complaint process, and asked for it to be escalated to stage two of the complaints process if it had not.
The landlord contacted the resident on 1 March 2022. It said that its “decision not to share reports from water testing was not raised as a separate complaint, and was provided to you in stage two complaint [ref number provided – complaint about pigeons) and should be considered by the Ombudsman for consideration in their review that you have already taken to them. As this matter has been through the complaints procedure and you have stated it has been taken to the Housing Ombudsman service” it would “no longer communicate with you on this matter, as the final decision has been made and the complaint is closed”. The resident asked the landlord if it would share the test results [from 27 August 2021] on two further occasions following this.
The landlord’s records show that the resident phoned five times between 15 March 2022 and 27 April 2022, about ongoing issues with pigeons. She said that the birds were constantly on the roof, her balcony was unusable, and she was constantly cleaning pigeon droppings off her balcony. She mentioned this was problematic as she had a heart condition. She said that she was previously told that plastic spikes “would be placed” on the roof to prevent the pigeons from perching, however was later told that this work would have to be arranged through ‘planned works’, because the neighbourhood team did not have sufficient funds. This service has not seen evidence of an apparent discussion between the neighbourhood team and resident concerning this.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 August 2022. It said that it had considered the resident’s suggestion to install spikes on the roof. Its pest control contractor had had suggested there was no benefit in doing this because pigeons would fly over the spikes and then land to roost on the balcony. It said that its contractor had recommended the installation of a bird deterrent net and the area be cleaned with a biocide. It said, “as the balcony is for your exclusive use, this work is not [the landlord’s] responsibility. If you decide to go ahead, then please contact [the landlord’s contractor] directly to arrange for payment and for a convenient time for the work to be carried out”. It provided a quotation dated 27 July 2022, giving a price for the net and cleansing.
The landlord explained to this service following information requests, that:
1. the water tank was cleaned and disinfected after being by-passed by another contractor. As the tank was not in use for “a period of time”, it was cleaned and disinfected before being brought back into use. It said that no further checks on the tank were required at that time. Monthly checks continued to be conducted
2. it has a business ruling not to share test results with residents, as they are “not certifications paid for the resident to have”. However, it was able to share internal reports with residents. In this case, the member of staff who managed water quality at the time was unaware that there was an internal test, “so the advice was it could not share it”. The complaint handler said they “did not wish to overturn this decision”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of pigeons getting into the structure of the building

It is recognised that the situation was both distressing and unpleasant for the resident, given the impact of the pigeon infestation. The resident lost the full enjoyment of an amenity space during summer months. She was concerned about the impact on her health. She also experienced considerable inconvenience cleaning up pigeon droppings. She found this particularly difficult because of her heart condition.
The resident’s frustration with the landlord, in its reluctance to write to neighbours about feeding the birds was understandable. The resident saw a direct link between this act and the infestation of pigeons roosting and nesting within the structure of the building.
The landlord’s pest policy states that “if there is evidence to show that a tenant is responsible for infestations because of lifestyle or other choices, this may be considered anti-social behaviour”. Whilst the landlord may not have considered there to have been sufficient evidence to support a view that the feeding of wild birds amounted to anti-social behaviour, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have to considered and put in place any possible measures to alleviate the problem given the resident’s concerns. The landlord instead placed the onus on residents to reach a compromise around the feeding of birds and signposted the resident to the local authority.

Under the landlord’s pest policy, its neighbourhood team would be expected to offer advice and support to its residents to stop the propagation of vermin. It might have been reasonable to have expected the landlord to have made an additional effort, in the form of a written communication, with regards to the feeding of birds by other residents. This approach may have been more proportionate under the circumstances and consistent with the landlord’s pest policy.
The landlord has an obligation to remedy any category one hazards in its properties under the HHSRS. The HHSRS guidance states that holes through roof coverings, eaves and verges should be blocked to deny ingress to rats, mice, squirrels, and birds. Necessary holes should be covered by grilles. The landlord therefore had a duty to consider if the roosting and nesting of pigeons within void spaces around the resident’s private balcony, and the accumulation of pigeon droppings, amounted to a category one hazard that needed remedying.
The resident first reported issues with pigeons “burrowing into the eaves of the flats” on 1 June 2021. The landlord did not raise a works order to seal up void spaces surrounding the resident’s balcony until 24 June 2021. These works were completed 82 days later. The landlord’s repair and pest policies are silent about expected response times for pest proofing works. However, the repair logs indicate that the contractor was given a target date of 90 days for completion, which was in line with planned works targets.
However, the landlord missed an opportunity to bring forward its target completion date for bird proofing works, after it was made aware of the resident’s particular challenges on 1 July 2021. The landlord empathised in its stage one response, how difficult it must be if she was unable to sit on her balcony. However, it did not show that it had considered the impact on the resident in terms of her health, loss of full enjoyment of an amenity space, or the inconvenience of constantly cleaning up pigeon droppings. Whilst it noted that there was an outstanding job to fill holes, it did not give any timescales for completion of this work. This was unreasonable and would have caused the resident uncertainty.
In the resident’s complaint escalation request, the resident expressed dissatisfied that stopping up works were not programmed for completion until 17 September 2021. She was also concerned about the scope of the work, which she felt was too narrow to remedy the problem. In its stage two response, the landlord agreed “that an appointment for 17 September 2021 to inspect for entry points for pigeons was outside of our timescale for our contractors to attend”, but said that it had now inspected the property. It explained the scope of works, which now included other void spots around the building. This is evidence that the landlord was listening to the resident’s concerns and was trying to put things right.
The landlord has provided evidence showing that pigeon stopping works were completed on 13 September 2021. This included inspecting potential areas of access and covering two areas with chicken wire. However, the landlord unreasonably delayed explaining to the resident what action it had taken. This information was not relayed until 29 October 2021, after being chased by the resident. The service notes that the landlord asked the resident to tell it if the problem had not been resolved, keeping the door open for further investigation as required.
This service also observes that the landlord’s repairs policy places responsibility on the resident for pest control and disinfection, “except in situations where this is caused by a design fault with the property”. It is further noted that the landlord did not offer to clean the resident’s balcony and furniture with a biocide at the time it identified void spaces within the structure of the building, which it later filled. Whilst the landlord may not have considered these to be defects in the building as such, it might have been constructive, as a gesture of goodwill, for the landlord to have offered to clean the resident’s balcony at the same time as it completed the stopping up works. This would have been reasonable in view of the resident’s health concerns, so as to ensure that she could regain full enjoyment of her balcony.
Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of pigeons getting into the “structure of the building”. Whilst the landlord took steps to respond to the resident’s reports, it did not adequately consider the detriment to the resident from the pigeon infestation, which included the loss of full enjoyment of an amenity space, health worries and the inconvenience of cleaning up pigeon droppings. The impact on the resident was particularly heightened on account of underlying medical conditions. The landlord missed opportunities to expedite stopping up works. It should also have considered offering advice to its other residents to help stop the propagation of vermin.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about water quality and requests for information relating to water test results

The resident experienced skin irritation soon after she moved into the property. She reported this to the landlord on 6 February 2020, and sought reassurance about the quality of the water being supplied. Whilst skin irritations can present for a variety of reasons, the resident had a legitimate cause for concern. The water utility company had recommended an investigation be carried out of “internal plumbing work” after noting green scale around her taps. Skin irritation is also one of several symptoms caused by exposure to copper contaminated water.

The landlord has an obligation to remedy any category one hazard in its properties under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), which includes the water supply. This is limited to the supply of water after delivery to the dwelling and is concerned with water for drinking, cooking, washing, cleaning and sanitation. The landlord was also obliged under its tenancy agreement, to keep in repair all installations for the supply of water provided by the landlord.

The landlord’s hygiene policy sets out the landlord’s intentions to have in place, a scheme specific water hygiene risk assessment and management plan. This involves regular inspections and testing. The landlord has provided this service with evidence of risk assessments carried out in 2019 and 2021. Maintenance inspection reports from 23 February 2019 to 3 December 2019, and 5 January 2022 to 22 July 2022 have also been provided. However, this service has not seen reports during the intervening period.

The resident gave the landlord a copy of the water utility company’s report on 7 October 2020, detailing the results of water sampling and its further recommendations. A member of the landlord’s staff who lacked relevant experience, interpreted the results and decided that no further action was required. This is a concern, considering the resident was complaining of skin irritation and had stated that she was unable to bath in the water. It would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have referred the report to specialists within its compliance team, whose role it was to manage water safety, thereby ensuring that appropriate action was taken. This was accepted by the landlord in its stage two response.

It was also a concern that after being made aware of the water utility company’s recommendations, the landlord unreasonably delayed in telling the resident that it have decided not to take any further action. This was particularly unreasonable given the health issues reported by the resident. This was not communicated to the resident until 10 months later, when the landlord provided its stage two response.

In its stage two response, the landlord set out to put things right, by apologising for its poor communications, by liaising with its compliance team and arranging further water sampling. It was positive that the landlord recognised that it could have arranged testing when the resident first raised concerns, for which it apologised. Given that the resident had reported health issues, it appropriately suggested that the resident seek medical advice about her skin irritation and provided advice about making a claim under its insurance policy, dependant on any findings from its water sampling. This is evidence that the landlord was listening and was trying to put things right, having initially delayed to respond to the resident’s concerns about her water supply.

Whilst the compliance team arranged further water sampling, this solely sought to consider potential bacterial infection and did not respond to the recommendations of the water utility company. Consequently, the landlord did not reach a fully informed position.

The landlord did not give the outcome of its water sampling carried out on 27 August 2021 to the resident until 11 October 2021, after being chased for a response on 4 October 2021 by the resident. The landlord advised that the water tank had been cleaned and chlorinated and that all samples had passed the required tests. Aside from the landlord not addressing the potential issues of copper in the water, this service again notes the unreasonable delay in the landlord’s communications. This would have been particularly frustrating for the resident who was waiting on the outcome of results before deciding whether to make a claim on the landlord’s insurance, and who according to her complaint was not bathing in the water supplied to the property and was purchasing bottled water.

The landlord later advised the resident on 29 October 2021, that it was unable to share copies of the test results from before and after cleaning the water tank. It said that these results were for “staff use”, to ensure that appropriate action was taken. The landlord’s response was misleading. Whilst the landlord had carried out water hygiene sampling on the tank prior to cleaning, no water sampling had been carried out on the tank after it was cleaned, despite saying that it had retested. This is because the tank was being brought back into use after disinfecting, so additional testing was not necessary.

The resident has asked the landlord several times to reconsider its position on providing its water sample results, however the landlord has declined to do so. The landlord advised the resident on 1 March 2022, that it would no longer communicate on this matter.
In recent communications between the landlord and this service, the landlord confirmed that it had made a “business decision” not to share test results with residents. Whilst it could share internal reports with residents, the member of staff who managed water quality at the time was unaware that there was an internal test, “so the advice was it could not share it”. The complaint handler was reluctant to overturn this decision. This was a significant missed opportunity to promote transparency, reassure the resident and reach a resolution on the matter. This appears to have led to a breakdown of trust in the landlord and tenant relationship. Furthermore, if the landlord had not tested the water in the tank after cleaning, it should have made this clear to the resident. Without fully understanding the investigations carried out by the landlord, what tests had been carried out and their outcomes, the resident was uncertain as to how to proceed in respect of independent advice.
Overall, the landlord did not to provide the resident with adequate reassurance about the quality of the water serving the property, which she believed may be the cause of skin irritation. This service has not seen evidence to show that that the landlord adequately considered or responded to the recommendations of the water utility company. The landlord did not provide copies of water test results after it established that the results could be shared. The resident has been unable to rule out a possible link between the water in her taps and her skin irritation. The impact on the resident is that she said she stopped bathing in the water supplied to the property and incurred expenses purchasing bottled water. Cumulatively, these failures represent maladministration.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that its policy does not apply when the resident “has not raised their concerns within six months of the issue(s) occurring”. It is noted that the landlord considered newly introduced elements of complaint about water quality in its stage two response, although the landlord’s policy gave it the option not to do so. In view of the potential detriment to the resident, the landlord appropriately used its discretion and considered the resident’s complaint about water quality.
However, the landlord’s complaints policy states that “a complaint cannot be escalated until the stage one decision has been issued”. Whilst the landlord did issue a stage one complaint about pigeons, the new complaint element about water quality was not considered at stage one. This was raised by the resident within her complaint escalation about pigeons. The landlord’s decision to consider new complaint elements about water quality as part of its stage two response, resulted in a one stage complaints process, where the resident and landlord only had one attempt to resolve the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not adequately address or respond to several aspects of the resident’s complaint in its stage two and final response, including:
1. whether any “pipework checks” had taken place or whether any checks were planned
2. when the pipework had been checked and the outcome
3. in the alternative, reasons why pipework checks had taken not place and the landlord’s basis for that decision.
As the landlord was not in a position to provide an informed decision in respect of the resident’s concerns about water quality at the time of its stage two response, it closed the resident’s stage two complaint with outstanding actions. On 11 October 2021, the landlord told the resident that all water samples [taken on 27 August 2021] “had passed”. However, the landlord’s response did not reassure the resident as to whether adequate checks had been carried out on the pipework.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord did not show that it had fully understood the resident’s complaint. This led to an extended period of uncertainty and distress for the resident, as well as increased time and trouble progressing the complaint. The landlord’s decision to consider the resident’s complaint about water quality at stage two only, limited opportunity for dispute resolution. It is noted that the landlord did not acknowledge in its final stage two response, that the resident had stopped bathing or drinking the water and had been buying bottled water. Other aspects of the resident’s complaint remain unanswered relating to the landlord’s “checking” of pipework.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of pigeons getting into the structure of the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about water quality and requests for information relating to water test results.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord took steps to respond to the resident’s reports about pigeons getting into the structure of the building and meet its obligations under the HHSRS. However, it did not adequately consider the detriment to the resident from the pigeon infestation. As a consequence, it missed opportunities to expedite stopping up works to meet the resident’s evolving concerns.
The landlord did not provide the resident with adequate reassurance about the quality of the water serving the property This service has seen no evidence to show that the landlord adequately considered or responded to the recommendations made by the water utility company and this aspect of the complaint remains unresolved. As such, the resident has been unable to rule out a possible link between the water in her taps and her skin irritation. Furthermore, the landlord did not provide copies of water test results when it was established that the results could be shared.

The landlord did not show that it had properly understood the resident’s complaint about water quality. The landlord’s decision to consider the resident’s complaint about water quality at stage two only, limited opportunity for dispute resolution.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay the resident £570 in compensation, which has been determined with due regard to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and landlord’s compensation policy. This comprises:

£70 to acknowledge the distress caused to the resident, when it failed to reprioritise planned bird proofing works, once it became aware of the impact on the resident and her vulnerabilities.

£250 to acknowledge the distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of concerns about water quality, and in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble.

£50 in recognition of the resident’s financial loss in purchasing bottled water, between the 24 July 2021 and 26 August 2021. This is the period between the resident notifying the landlord she was buying bottled water, through to the landlord’s final stage two response.

£200 in recognition of failures in complaint handling.

The landlord is to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report,outlining its intentions, in respect of the recommendations made by the water utility company on 26 August 2020. The landlord should provide this service with a copy of its communication to the resident.
The landlord is to provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above orders, within four weeks of the date of this decision.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. review its complaint handling on this case, to identify any learning opportunities. In particular, such a review must consider the factors surfaced relating to the following:
  1. a review of the landlord’s internal guidance on considering new complaint elements raised following issue of a stage one complaint.
  2. a review of the landlord’s internal guidance on closing complaints, where there are outstanding actions. The landlord should consider how it ensures outstanding matters are resolved following complaint closure.
2. provide evidence to this service that it has undertaken such a review, including details of its intention to progress any identified learnings onto its operations within a three-month period.