Citizen Housing (202115368)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115368

Citizen Housing

16 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. response to a leak from the water tank in the loft of the property, and;
    2. complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and the landlord is the freeholder of the property. The property is a two bedroom flat. The resident had tenants living in the property at the time the complaint was raised. 
  2. On 24 September 2021 the resident reported a leak coming from the water tank in the loft of their property. The landlord attended the property the same day and isolated the hot water feed from the valve, stopping the leak. An appointment to reattend the property was made for the 27 September 2021.
  3. On the 27 September 2021 the landlord advised the resident that the appointment for that day was an error, and that the repair to the water tank was their responsibility as a leaseholder. The following day the resident received an email from the landlord’s leasehold team, confirming that the repairs to the water tank were in fact the landlord’s responsibility. On 28 September 2021 the landlord reattended the property and identified that the tank was overheating and so turned down the temperature. The resident subsequently reported to the landlord that their shower temperature was too low.
  4. On 6 October 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to their landlord. The resident said that the shower temperature was too low, and the landlord had told them that the shower bar had been fitted upside down, causing the issues with the shower temperature. The resident said that the shower had worked perfectly before the tank had been turned down. The resident said that their tenants had not been able to shower and that they had to relocate them.
  5. During this period the landlord made enquiries with its solicitors regarding the responsibility for the water tank.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 October 2021, with a response due by 20 October 2021. The resident added additional points to her complaint on 11 October 2021. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had initially told them that they were responsible for repairs to the water tank, disputed that the shower had been fitted incorrectly, and said that their tenants had been without a working shower for 24 days.
  7. The landlord installed a new water tank on 24 October 2021 and the issue was fully resolved.
  8. On 17 January 2022 the landlord responded to the resident at stage one of its complaint process. In summary, the response said:
    1. it had initially told the resident that the leak from the tank was their responsibility to repair
    2. it arranged for a plumber to attend on 28 September 2021, and as it was overheating he turned the temperature down on the tank to five
    3. the repair was completed within its target time for non-urgent repairs
    4. it had then been making enquiries with its solicitors about responsibility for the water tank
    5. the problem with the shower was due to issues with controls on the panel, and that the advice provided by the landlord’s plumber was correct
    6. it advised the resident to contact their insurance provider in relation to any costs associated with decanting their tenants
    7. it offered £100.00 compensation for delays to its stage one response.
  9. On 18 and 19 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and raised a query about the stage one response, and asked for copies of all the complaints they had registered. The resident contacted the landlord again on 26 February 2022 and said that they were being ignored and asked for a total of £1014.65 in compensation, comprising of £168.00 for their tenants not being able to shower; £69.65 for personal loss of time; £247.00 for communication with the landlord; £80.00 for the cost of two plumbers; £50.00 for the cost of a new shower bar, and; £400.00 for stress and disruption.
  10. In light of the resident’s communications, on 8 March 2022 the landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage two of its complaints process and asked the resident for any proof of out of pocket expenses. The landlord emailed the resident on 5 April 2022 and informed them that there would be a delay in its stage two response. The landlord issued its final response on 14 April 2022. In summary, its response said:
    1. there were unexpected delays following ‘intensive investigations’ about the responsibility of the water tank
    2. there had been multiple communications between the landlord and the resident since the issue was reported
    3. the visits to the property were necessary to resolve the issues
    4. the resident had been told that there was a problem with the shower bar causing the water temperature issues, but following the replacement of the water tank the water temperature issue had been resolved.
  11. The response provided a revised offer of £300.00 compensation in recognition of the impact of the service failures in the case.
  12. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. They felt that the water coming from the shower wasn’t hot enough, that their tenants were without water of a reasonable temperature, and that the responsibility for the water tank was clear early on.
  13. The resident has noted that they made a number of complaints about the matter via the landlords ‘portal’, however the landlord has said it has no records of these. The Ombudsman isn’t able to reconcile these conflicting accounts.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: 
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; 
    2. put things right, and; 
    3. learn from outcomes. 
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse affect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse affect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

 

Response to a leak from the water tank in the loft of the property

  1. The leasehold agreement states that the landlord is responsible for water tanks and water supply pipes located in the common parts.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states that a leak from a pipe, tank or cistern is an ‘urgent or emergency repair’ and the landlord’s repairs timescales state ‘we complete emergency repairs within 24 hours or make them safe until a permanent repair is possible (within 12 days)’.
  3. Following the resident’s initial report of a leak from the water tank the landlord responded the same day, and took action to stop the leak in line with its repairs timescales. The landlord’s records show that there was then confusion over the responsibility of repairs to the water tank. The resident was told over the phone that they were responsible for repairs to the water tank, however a day later the landlord emailed the resident and advised them that repairs to the water tank were the responsibility of the landlord. The landlord’s internal emails from this period stated that the terms of the lease were clear in that the responsibility laid with the landlord, however the landlord continued to delay replacement of the tank while it made enquiries with its solicitors.
  4. The confusion over responsibility meant that the resident was provided with inaccurate information and there was a delay in the repair being completed. Although the leak was stopped, the concerns relating to the water supply to the shower were only resolved once the new tank was installed on 24 October 2021. While the delay was not significant, it was avoidable. The landlord should have acted sooner, upon confirmation from colleagues that it was responsible for the repairs to the resident’s water tank. The repair was not completed within the landlord’s 12 day timescale.
  5. Regarding the water temperature issue, the landlord initially advised the resident that the concerns with the shower temperature were due to issues with the shower bar and that it would be their responsibility to repair this. The landlord later repeated this position in its stage one response. However, the landlord’s records infer that the poor shower temperature was related to the leak from the water tank and the subsequent actions from the landlord.
  6. The comment on this matter in the landlord’s final response is not entirely clear, but does indicate that it accepted there was service failure on its part here. From the evidence provided it would be reasonable to conclude that the landlord was responsible for the issues with the shower temperature, following the repair to the leak from the water tank. Therefore, its initial response to the matter was inaccurate, and caused confusion, and inconvenience to the resident, who replaced the shower bar based on the landlord’s initial advice. 
  7. The landlord has acknowledged that there were failings in the handling of the matter and apologised for these.  It was appropriate that it offered compensation to ‘put things right’ for the resident. The landlord’s compensation matrix sets out the amount of compensation it will consider for service failure that causes inconvenience and distress, and categorises these as ‘low impact’, ‘medium impact’ and ‘high impact’. The matrix states that compensation of between £250-£699 will be considered at the medium level where there has been ‘some inconvenience or distress due to service failure or repeated failures where service delivery is below the standard’. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance sets out awards of between £100 and £600 where there has been a service failure that has adversely affected a resident, but there was no permanent impact. The offer of £300 falls broadly in line with both the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s own guidance.
  8. The service from the landlord was below standard in this case and the delays to the repairs of the water tank were avoidable, however the impact was not permanent and the delays whilst inconvenient were not considerable. The Ombudsman does not underestimate the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, however, the landlord’s acknowledgment of failings and offer of compensation provide a reasonable redress in the circumstances.
  9. The resident has explained that these failings also impacted their tenants who they say were left without adequate bathing facilities, however, the Ombudsman can only look at the adverse affect that the complaint had on the resident.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states ‘we will respond to a stage one complaint within 10 days of it being logged’. The resident had to wait over three months for a stage one response to their complaint. During this time the resident chased the landlord, and the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on two occasions asking it to respond to the complaint. When the stage one response was provided, it was unclear on how the resident could escalate their complaint to stage two if they were unhappy, which was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord did acknowledge complaint handling failures in its stage one response and offered £100.00 compensation, which was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. However, it did not detail the reason for the failings or how it would prevent a recurrence. Neither did it include this amount in its offer of compensation in its stage two letter (which only refers to £300 in relation to the failings with the repair).
  2. Following receipt of the stage one response, the resident contacted the landlord the next day via email and said that they were unhappy with the amount of compensation offered, and raised questions about the landlord’s response. They received an automated acknowledgement from the landlord, however, there is no evidence that the landlord replied. The resident emailed the landlord again on 26 February 2022 requesting compensation. The landlord acknowledged this email as a stage two request on 8 March 2022. The landlord should have responded to the resident’s initial emails and enquired further about why they were unhappy with its response. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s emails led to a delay of over six weeks in escalating their complaint. There was a also a further nine day delay in providing a final response to the resident. This would have caused the resident additional frustration, time and trouble.
  3. The landlord’s final response made a revised offer of £300 compensation for service failure for to its response to the leak from the water tank, but made no reference to its complaint handling failures and provided no offer of redress or learning outcomes from the complaint, and so was not in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. Therefore, a finding of service failure is made in relation to the complaint handing, along with orders for remedy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the complaint concerning its response to a leak from the water tank in the loft of the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within the next four weeks, take the following action:
  1. Pay the resident an additional £175 for the stress, inconvenience, and time and trouble caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report (this is in addition to the £300.00 offered in its response to the complaint, which should also be paid if it has not already done so).
  2. Review the complaint handling failures identified in this report and write to the Ombudsman with an action plan setting out what actions it will take to ensure this does not happen again.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord satisfy itself that the relevant staff members are aware of the landlord’s responsibilities for repairs such as the one detailed in this report, so that the failings in this case do not recur.