Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202125231)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125231

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

29 November 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 handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of ongoing leaks in the property.
   2. Outstanding repairs in the property caused by the leaks.
   3. The resident’s complaint.  

Background

2. The resident is the tenant of a 3-bedroom mid terrace house where she lives with her spouse and children. She moved into the property in May 2015. In June 2015, February 2016, October 2018, and March 2019, the resident reported leaks coming from her bathroom through her kitchen ceiling. In August 2016 and February 2018, she reported leaks from her kitchen sink; in May 2017 a leak from the external waste pipe; and in October 2018 and January 2021, leaks from her boiler.
3. On 25 August 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that there were currently three leaks in the property. One had become apparent under the flooring in the living room, another under the floor in the kitchen, and a third was once again coming through the ceiling from the upstairs bathroom.
4. The landlord’s operative attended the same day and repaired a leak coming from the washing machine in the kitchen but recommended a survey take place to assess the bathroom leak and the damage in the property. Following that inspection, the landlord arranged to reseal the bath, fix the shower and repair/repaint the kitchen ceiling. It advised the resident to take up the downstairs flooring as water was trapped underneath it causing mould growth. This was to allow a drying out process to take place. However, at a further attendance on 26 November 2021 the landlord discovered there was a further, long-term leak, coming from the stop tap in the kitchen.
5. The resident was not satisfied with the response time offered by the landlord and with its suggested solution(s) to the leaks in question. In her view, the recurring nature of some of the problems meant that more needed to be done, in particular, by way of the replacement of both bathroom and kitchen. In November 2021 she complained to the landlord about the situation.
6. On 28 July 2022 the landlord responded, maintaining it had attended to the leaks within the time limits set out in its Repairs Policy and it had been unable to identify any service failings. It agreed, however, that there had been delays in its complaint handling process and some poor communication in respect of the repairs. The landlord offered compensation of £275. It also offered to pay 50% of the cost of replacing the flooring in the living room area, which it calculated at £275. Finally, the landlord offered a decorating voucher of £25.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response and referred the matter to this Service. She was unhappy with the quality/nature of some of the repairs offered. She also felt the compensation offered did not adequately reflect the stress, anxiety, and loss of earnings that she had suffered during the time it took for the repairs to be resolved.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of ongoing leaks in the property.

8. The landlord’s response times for dealing with repairs is set out in its Repairs Policy. This states that issues are classified as either emergency or routine. The landlord commits to an attendance within 24 hours for emergencies, which it describes as situations where “there is a risk or potential risk of harm to customers or significant damage to a property”. All other repairs are categorised as “routine” with a timescale of up to 60 days for resolution. Where an inspection is needed to determine what work is required, the response time starts once the inspection has been completed.
9. The presence of three leaks in the property was reported to the landlord on 25 August 2021 and the landlord’s operative attended the same day. Its initial categorisation of the situation as an emergency was appropriate and it attended on time.
10. However, according to the landlord’s Stage 1 complaint response, its operative determined that the washing machine was the cause of one leak, but an explanation was not found for another two and an inspection was required. Under these circumstances the landlord might reasonably have been expected to arrange that inspection with some urgency. Two of the leaks that had already been categorised as urgent remained outstanding. Despite this, the inspection did not take place for 2 months, that is, on 25 October 2021. During this time water continued to permeate the resident’s property. The landlord’s delay was unreasonable in this regard.
11. At that inspection the landlord concluded that a leak from the shower was causing the upstairs problem and that resealing the bath and attending to the shower would resolve it. This was categorised as a minor repair with a timescale of up to 60 days on the basis it was a containable leak. However, this assessment is not supported by the fact water was permeating the ceiling below.
12. Further, the landlord’s surveyor noted an ongoing level of moisture in the downstairs of the property which suggested there remained a separate leak which was continuing at this point. The washing machine repair had not resolved it. The resident suggested there may be a leak from the stop tap in the kitchen (concealed by the cabinets). She has reported being told by the operative who attended on 25 August 2021 that there was a leak there, although the landlord’s records do not reflect that.  The resident was mindful that a previous leak repair had been carried out to the tap on 2 February 2021. The inspector agreed to have a plumber inspect it.
13. However, the landlord did not offer an appointment for the resealing of the bath/shower repair and inspection of the stop tap, until 26 November 2021 – a further month away, and despite the fact it had no definitive answer to the ongoing moisture level downstairs in the property. The landlord might reasonably have acted with more urgency at this point and as a result of the delay, the resident lodged a formal complaint.
14. The landlord stated in its first stage complaint response that at the November 2021 appointment the bath was resealed, and the stop tap “tightened”.  It is not within the remit of this Service to diagnose faults or specify the work required to remedy them. However, the landlord’s repairs spreadsheet notes that a washer needed to be fitted to the stop tap and that it had been leaking for a long time. It is reasonable to conclude that this was the cause of the ongoing downstairs leak – the original washing machine repair having failed to resolve it. The landlord has not offered any other explanation for the ongoing problem and no other work was done to resolve a leak in this part of the property – and yet it eased off after the tap was looked at. Further, some six months later, in June 2022, the landlord agreed a further repair was needed to the tap and it needed to be repositioned to make it more accessible.
15. Under these circumstances, it is also reasonable to conclude that the work done to the stop tap in February 2021 played a part in the ongoing leak. This is because it was described as longstanding, and the repair was 7 months prior to these events (since when it had not been touched or disturbed). Either the repair undertaken at that point failed to address an existing problem, or it caused a new one. Either way, the resident is entitled to hold the landlord responsible for its failure to ensure the tap was leak free moving forward.
16. The Repairs Policy states that where repairs qualify for the 60-day time period, an appointment will be given which “reflects the urgency of the work needed”. Given neither leak was contained, the landlord might reasonably have been expected to attach more urgency to the situation. As set out above, the delay of a further month (to 26 November 2021) was unreasonable. It also meant that damage was accumulating and the impact on the resident will be considered below where the landlord’s handling of the repairs has been assessed. 
17. In conclusion, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks at the property did not reflect the urgency of the situation and represented a failing in the service it offered to her. The landlord did not identify the service failings noted here when addressing the resident’s complaint. It offered no resolution/remedy for them. It offered compensation in respect of poor communication, but this related to the subsequent repairs and has been considered below. The landlord might also have considered offering compensation for these delays and the impact they caused.
18. The resident reasonably reports that the delays in curtailing the water permeating her property were stressful and caused her significant anxiety. She was concerned at the ongoing damage being done to the property which housed her family. She had recently laid a new floor in the kitchen which was getting progressively spoiled.  An order for compensation of £300 has been made below to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident during this time. This has been calculated in accordance with this Service’s Remedies Guidance.

Outstanding repairs in the property caused by the leak.

19. Following the appointment on 26 November 2021, the resident reported that the property smelt damp and there was mould on the kickboards and in a cupboard in the kitchen. Her new flooring was ruined, and the living room carpet affected. At the inspection on 25 October 2021, the landlord had advised her to take the flooring up to enable drying out to take place. She had done this but was reduced to bare flooring in both kitchen and living room (which was a concern with young children living in the property). The kitchen ceiling was water stained and the wall (to which a cupboard was attached) was waterlogged and damaged.
20. The resident also reported that upstairs, the bathroom needed replacing altogether (in her view). She stated that the problem had recurred several times and being offered ever more bath sealant and regrouting of tiles was not resolving the issue. Further she was experiencing low water pressure to all appliances.
21. In response to these reports the landlord arranged a further inspection for 16 December 2021 to settle upon a schedule of works. This was a reasonable response at that point although the landlord might reasonably have scheduled this itself before being prompted by the resident.
22. The landlord has not evidenced what works were identified at that inspection, but it arranged an appointment for 18 February 2022 for some repairs to be done. This was at the limit of the 60-day period and did not include all of the damage reported by the resident. Any work carried out after this time was outside of the time limits laid out in its policy and would therefore be inappropriate. In any event, the resident cancelled this appointment because not all of the work was included and what was proposed to be done was not intensive enough in her view. She invited the landlord to change its approach.
23. Rather than engage with the resident and discuss her concerns, the landlord then took no further action. It was contacted by this Service in March and April 2022 but did not respond. In May 2022 it was prompted again and provided a stage 1 complaint response, agreeing to carry out some work refitting cupboards in the kitchen but inviting the resident to claim on her insurance for the flooring and carry out any redecoration herself using a £50 decoration voucher.
24. The landlord noted in its letter that there were currently two further outstanding leaks in the property – a fresh one to the shower and one to an external pipe to the bathroom – which it would be attending to shortly. At that appointment (20 May 2022) a leak was found from the bath, an external pipe and the stop tap was found to still be leaking.
25. At a further inspection on 9 June 2022 the landlord agreed to undertake more extensive works to include repairing the stop tap (again); repairing the kitchen ceiling and replastering two areas in the living room affected by damp; redecorating; replacing the kickboards and a wall unit in the kitchen; and removing loose tiles and installing panels in the bathroom. These were works originally identified by the resident as necessary some 7 months prior to this and the landlord’s agreement to carry them out had been significantly delayed. Further, the landlord might reasonably have been expected to treat the ongoing leak from the stop tap with more urgency given the history of this matter. Instead, it took over 6 weeks to attend to it, which was both unreasonable and unfair given the worry this was likely to cause the resident at this stage.
26. By the end of June 2022, a further surveyor’s inspection had taken place, but nothing had been done. The resident then reported that the kitchen cupboard attached to the damaged wall had fallen from its fixing and landed on her husband causing him pain and discomfort. Following on from this the landlord scheduled all the work.  There were numerous appointments to deal with separate issues which the resident needed to accommodate. Eventually, the landlord agreed to replace the entire kitchen and its flooring when it became apparent its solutions were not working. These attendances continued during July, August, and into September 2022.
27. It can be seen that all of these works were completed substantially outside of the 60-day time limit for routine repairs even if the resident’s cancellation of an initial appointment is taken into account. It took over 12 months to repair all of the damage from the leaks. This was inappropriate in the circumstances.
28. The landlord offered compensation of £275 for its poor communication and delays during this time. This did not adequately reflect the impact on the resident of its actions. She was put to considerable inconvenience in accommodating all of the work; in living with the aftermath of the leaks; and in having to seek assistance from her MP and this Service to get any movement with these repairs. The resident reports that this had a negative impact on her health and her ability to work. Whilst this Service does not have the expertise to assess any injury to her, it is reasonable to accept that she would have been distressed and significantly inconvenienced by the situation.
29. An order will be made below for compensation of £1,000. This has been calculated in accordance with this Service’s Remedies Guidance which allows for such a sum where there has been a significant impact.
30. The landlord has completed some of the redecoration itself and has offered decorating vouchers totalling £150 which was appropriate and will be reinforced in the orders section below.
31. In respect of flooring, the landlord ultimately replaced this in the kitchen. However, it only offered to pay half the cost of replacing the rest of the downstairs flooring (estimated at £550 in total) on the basis it had been removed before it could inspect the damage. Given there is evidence that the landlord’s surveyor told the resident to remove flooring to aid drying out (25 October 2021 attendance) it is reasonable that the landlord should pay the full cost of this replacement. It has been found above that the leak was caused by the faulty stop tap and that that problem emanated from an inadequate previous repair. The landlord should take responsibility for the full consequences of that. It is not sufficient to invite the resident to claim on her own insurance or make a contribution towards it. An order will be made below for the landlord to pay the full amount of £550.
32. With regard to the bathroom, the resident considers that ideally it needs replacing. Alternatively, her view is that there needs to be a new bath as its current design aids the “pooling” of water which seeps behind it and is thought to be exacerbating a series of leaks. The landlord has declined, stating that the bathroom will be replaced in due course when it is scheduled as part of its planned works programme.
33. However, during this course of events there has been no sign of the landlord putting the latest leak into context and considering it against the history of this property. At the outset of this report a number of leaks of the same nature were detailed. Each would have caused disruption and expense to resolve. The landlord has applied fixes each time which have proved to be temporary. A recommendation will be made for the landlord to review the number and nature of leaks in this property and the likelihood and expense of any further occurrences so that it might properly consider whether to escalate a replacement bathroom at the property. An order will also be made for the landlord to advise the resident as to when a replacement is due, according to its planned works programme.

The resident’s complaint.  

34. The landlord operates a Complaints Policy and Procedure which sets out a 2-stage approach to handling complaints. It commits to acknowledging complaints within 5 working days with a written response within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate the complaint to stage 2 where it will be reviewed by a more senior staff member. A response is then to be given in 20 working days. The policy anticipates that if these timescales are to be extended then it will let the resident know and explain why.
35. The resident made her complaint on or around 22 November 2021. The landlord acknowledged it the next day and a written response would have been due by 3 December 2021. In fact, this was not provided until 12 May 2022 and this was after 3 reminders from this Service. This was over 5 months late. No extension of time for the response was agreed with the resident in the meantime.
36. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the procedure on 15 May 2022. She was entitled to expect a response by 10 June 2022, but it was not provided until 28 July 2022, a delay of 7 weeks. Again, no extension of time was agreed.
37. These delays were inappropriate and represented a failing in the service offered to the resident, who was put to significant time and trouble chasing for responses. She was left without clarity during these delays. It is reasonable to conclude that the complaint would not have been addressed at all had the resident not persisted.
38. The landlord accepted that there had been delays in its complaint handling process and offered compensation of £200 in its stage 1 response. At that point the second delay had not yet taken place. The landlord did not increase the offer in its stage 2 reply. It might reasonably have been expected to do so as the repeat occurrence indicated that it appeared to have failed to learn from its earlier handling of the situation.
39. An order will be made for compensation of £300 which is calculated in accordance with this Service’s Remedies Guidance and includes the £200. This reflects the fact that no permanent impact has been caused, but the resident was put to extended time and trouble in pursuing the matter.

Determination

40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of ongoing leaks in the property.
    2. Outstanding repairs in the property caused by the leaks.
    3. The resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

41. The landlord should pay the resident total amount in compensation of £2150 (including its previous financial offers if not already paid) calculated as follows:
    1. £300 for distress and inconvenience caused by delays in curtailing the leaks.
    2. £1,000 for maladministration in its handling of the repairs.
    3. £300 for complaints handling.    
    4. £550 for floor covering replacement.
42. The landlord should provide the resident with the previously offered decorating vouchers of £150 (if it has not already done so).
43. The landlord should advise the resident of the approximate date when the replacement of the bathroom in the property is due to take place as part of its planned works programme.
44. It should confirm with this Service that it has complied with the Order within 4 weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

45. The landlord to review the number and nature of leaks in this property, the amount already spent on repair and the likelihood and expense of any further occurrences so that it might properly consider whether it should escalate a bathroom replacement.