Tower Hamlets Council (202219354)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219354

Tower Hamlets Council

4 September 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 the resident’s reports of a leak and request for compensation;
   2. complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a flat located within a block of flats. The building uses a communal water tank located on the roof of the building. A drainage pipe terminates above the resident’s front door/porch area.
3. The resident reported a leak coming from the communal water tank overflow pipe located outside his front door in June 2021. The landlord attended on 14 July 2021, where it found a hole in the communal water tank pipe. It determined that new piping would be required. Its operatives later attended on 6 August 2021 and replaced the defective pipework. No repair records for this report or the subsequent works have been provided.
4. The landlord attended the property on 26 August 2021, but was unable to trace and identify the leak at this time. It believed the fault may be with the communal water tank piping and needed more time to identify the cause of the leak.
5. It attended again on 17 September 2021 and successfully traced the leak back to corroded pipework from the communal water tank. It attempted to stop the leak but was unable to do so. It stated that new piping and further investigation to the communal water tank was required.
6. The landlord attended again on 1 November 2021. It found that the overflow pipe was not leaking and that the surrounding area was dry (though no record of this attendance has been provided). The landlord further attended on 5 November 2021, where it renewed the piping to the water tank and cleared the external guttering around the property. It attended once more on 9 December 2021, where it finally solved the leak.
7. The resident raised a complaint on 14 December 2021. He was dissatisfied with the length of time taken to stop the leak. He also raised concerns that he had previously been told the leak had been due to an issue with the roof and the poor maintenance of it. He was unhappy that he had not been able to speak to a manager during this timeframe and felt that the landlord’s staff were working unsupervised, resulting in poor service delivery. He was worried the leak could start again should it rain. He said that the water tank leaked into his property when it rained, and this caused water damage to his front door. He added that he felt traumatised and was left feeling sick by the issue and wished for the landlord to address his issues and compensate him accordingly.
8. On 20 December 2021, the landlord conducted an inspection of the resident’s front door. It agreed that the door appeared to have suffered water damage, but that further investigation was still required to the water tank and its piping to determine the cause.
9. It provided its stage one response on 5 January 2022. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It gave a breakdown of events, and said that, upon inspection, the resident’s front door and the surrounding area was dry. It was unable to evidence that the overflow pipe had been leaking, though it specified it could not gain access to the property to assess if any damage had taken place.
10. The resident escalated his complaint to stage two on 7 March 2022. He remained dissatisfied with the poor level of service received from the landlord, and that it had taken the landlord six months to stop the leak. He said that this caused him distress and inconvenience because his neighbours believed he was causing the leak, as the leak had affected other properties within the building. The landlord apologised to the resident on 28 April 2022. It offered £20 compensation as it did not escalate his complaint on time. The resident requested on 6 May 2022 that the landlord consider moving the overflow pipe away from his front door and porch to prevent it from leaking onto his door in the future.
11. The landlord issued its stage two response on 27 May 2022. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It stated that finding and tracing the source of the leak was complex and that this led to further unexpected delays in the repairs. It apologised for any inconvenience and distress this may have caused and highlighted that an offer of £20 was previously awarded and accepted for the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. As part of his complaint escalation, and again on 17 February 2022, the resident raised his dissatisfaction over the increases to his service charges. However, in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme, this service is unable to consider complaints that concern the level of rent, service charges, or their increases. As such, this aspect of the resident’s complaint will not be investigated as part of this report. The resident may wish to pursue legal advice if he remains concerned about this issue.
13. In his communications to the landlord, the resident raised concerns over the building’s main entry system not working, reports of drug use and anti-social behaviour, as well as reporting that the communally shared areas of the building had not been cleaned appropriately by the landlord. However, no evidence has been provided by either party that the above issues have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and therefore will not form part of this investigation. The landlord is given a recommendation below to contact the resident regarding these issues and raise this as a separate complaint where appropriate. This is because the landlord needs to be given the chance to resolve and formally respond to these issues before this Service can investigate accordingly.
14. The resident also attributed the repair delays to the decline of his mental health and wellbeing. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Leak

15. This service relies on contemporaneous evidence in order to conduct a thorough, impartial, and fair investigation into the issues that occurred. In this case, it is unclear when the leak was first reported by the resident. In his communications to this service, the resident stated he reported the leak in June 2021. However, as part of its stage one response, the landlord’s timeline of events stated that the resident first raised the leak on 12 July 2021, although no evidence detailing this has been provided by either party. As a result, the Ombudsman is unable to determine when the leak was first reported.
16. The landlord’s record keeping regarding its appointments and repair logs are of some concern in this case. It is vital that the landlord keeps clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. When this service investigates a complaint, this service will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, the Ombudsman may not be able to determine whether the landlord acted appropriately or in line with its policies and procedures.
17. The landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property and building. This involves keeping in good repair and working order the external drainage systems to the building, including the communal water tank. The onus would be on the landlord to explain the severity of the leak and assign an appropriate repair category under its repairs policy. By doing so, the landlord would look to set the resident’s expectations of what is required to move the repairs forward and provide a permanent solution to his issue. Leaks are important to resolve, as if left unchecked, it presents a risk to both the structure of the property/building and the resident’s safety.
18. Upon receiving the resident’s reports of a leak at the property and resulting water ingress, the landlord would be required to attend within 24-48 hours as an urgent appointment, make a temporary repair to stop the leak (if possible), and attempt  to identify and trace the origin of the leak. This is in accordance with its repairs policy and what can be considered best industry practice. From the records provided, the landlord did not attend the property until 26 August 2021, some two months later than when first reported. Although it said it attended on 14 July 2021, it was unable to evidence this attendance. As such, the Ombudsman is unable to determine that the landlord acted within its contractual and policy obligations.
19. Although the resident’s dissatisfaction over the time taken by the landlord to resolve the leak is understandable, it should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks. It can be difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset and in some cases different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. As such, the disputed six months taken by the landlord to resolve the leak does not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. The Ombudsman cannot comment on what repairs would be appropriate and the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake.
20. While the landlord experienced difficulties in tracing and identifying the source of the leak, it would be expected to communicate any repair delays with the resident. However, it has not evident what actions it took, if any, to clearly explain and appropriately outline any delays in its repairs process. In its stage two response, the landlord admitted that tracing the leak was complex, and that there were delays. However, its omission of any evidence of this prior to its stage two response and an omission of its findings/records to identify and clearly explain the delays to the resident is of some concern. This resulted in the resident chasing his repairs on several occasions, causing additional distress and inconvenience.
21. The landlord would be expected to respond to the resident’s reports of water ingress into his property and water damage to his front door by conducting a thorough investigation. Where damages have taken place, the landlord would be expected to attend the property and investigate accordingly. It would be expected to assess whether it is liable for any damages and advise the resident on how to claim for this, either by providing its liability insurers contact details, or by referring the resident to his home insurance. Yet the landlord did not evidence what actions it took, if any, to inspect the resident’s home upon receiving his reports of water ingress to his property on 14 December 2021.
22. Furthermore, as part of his stage one complaint escalation, the resident requested that the landlord look to relocate/move the external communal drainage pipe so that it would no longer drain on his front porch, thus avoiding further damage to his front door. While this may not be part of the landlord’s repair responsibility, the Ombudsman would nevertheless expect the landlord to provide its position following such a request. While it conducted a visual inspection to the resident’s front door on 20 December 2021, and agreed that this suffered water damage as a result of the leaking overflow pipe, it did not evidence or specify what further actions it took to resolve both the damaged front door, nor did it respond to the resident’s request for the overflow pipe to be relocated. As such, these aspects of the resident’s complaint remain outstanding, and its failure to address these issues within its complaints process is considered a service failing on the landlord’s behalf.
23. As part of his desired outcome, the resident requested that he be appropriately compensated for the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience caused from pursuing his complaint. When a landlord is at fault, it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes, apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong, and what it will do to prevent the same mistake from happening again. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from the outcomes.
24. While the landlord looked to put matters right by ultimately repairing and stopping the leak, given the identified failings above, its lack of a fair and proportionate offer of compensation is a further failing on its behalf. As such, the Ombudsman makes an overall finding of maladministration regarding its handling of the above issues. An order for £350 has been made, which is broken down as £200 for its record keeping failings, £100 for the distress and inconvenience this caused the resident, and a further £50 for failing to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint.
25. The landlord is also ordered to conduct a thorough investigation and assess the resident’s front door, and any potential water damage to his property, and refer him to the relevant insurer if necessary. It is to clearly communicate any access requirements and make the relevant arrangements to ensure this inspection occurs. It is also ordered to conduct a review of its staff training in respect of both its repairs policy and record keeping. This is to ensure that, moving forward, all repairs are completed within a reasonable timeframe, or where this is not possible, any delays are clearly communicated with the resident.

Complaints handling

26. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord is obligated to respond to formal complaints at both stage one and stage two of its internal complaints process within 20 working days.
27. According to the records provided, the resident first raised a formal complaint on 14 December 2021. The resident said he requested an escalation to stage two of his complaint on 11 January 2022, though no evidence of this having been recorded by the landlord has been submitted. According to its records, the landlord sent its stage two complaint acknowledgement on 11 March 2022. However, its acknowledgement was only in relation the resident’s dissatisfaction over the increase in service charges, rather than his complaint escalation request. This caused delays in the landlord issuing its stage two complaint response.
28. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 5 January 2022, which was within its policy obligations. However, it issued its stage two complaint response on 27 May 2022; some 96 working days later far exceeding its policy obligations. Where delays are inevitable, the landlord would be required to communicate this with the resident, requesting a complaint response extension. However, the landlord failed to communicate these delays to the resident, resulting in him chasing on several occasions for the outcome to his complaint.
29. While the landlord identified its response had been delayed and made some attempt to compensate the resident for this, its offer of £20 was not a sufficient and proportionate remedy to the impact caused by the delay.
30. As such, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaints handling. It is ordered to compensate the resident a total of £150 for its complaint handling failings. This amount is to be paid directly to the resident as it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that compensation awarded by this service should be treated separately from any other financial arrangements between the landlord and the resident and should not be offset against any arrears. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer.
31. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord’s complaints policy allows up to 20 working days for a stage one response. However, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) to which the landlord is required to annually self-assess itself against, allows for up to ten working days for a stage one response. This is to avoid unnecessary delays in responding to complainants, ensuring a timely response and avoiding disappointment and failings regarding complaint handling delays. As such, it is given the additional order below to self-assess its complaints policy against the Code, and to consider amending its stage one complaint response times to 10 working days.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration found in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and request for compensation.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration found regarding the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

34. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £500, comprising:
    1. £350 for the failings identified with its response to the resident’s reports of a leak;
    2. £150 for its ineffective complaints handling.
35. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £20. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
36. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Contact the resident to arrange an inspection to his front door and investigate any potential water damage to the property or his possessions.
    2. It is to provide the resident with a copy of its liability insurers contact details where appropriate for him to register a claim.
    3. Conduct staff training in respect of both its repairs policy and its record keeping. This is to ensure that, moving forward, all repairs are completed within its policy timescales, or a reasonable timeframe, and ensure that the landlord keeps a written record of all repairs, attendance and communications moving forwards.
    4. Self-assess its complaints policy against this service’s Complaint Handling Code and look to implement a 10 working day response time to stage one complaints, and conduct staff training where appropriate to ensure this is adhered to moving forwards.

Recommendations

37. The landlord is recommended to contact the resident regarding his reports of anti-social behaviour, drug use, the door entry system not working periodically throughout the year and his reports of rubbish in the communal spaces of the building, and to raise these issues as a separate complaint should these issues persist. It is to respond to each complaint in a timely and appropriate manner in line with its complaints policy obligations.