Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202225343)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225343

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

11 April 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the leak from the flat above and the damage it caused to the resident’s home.
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has been the leaseholder of the property since September 2004. The landlord is the freeholder.
The resident said that in 2019, the property above had 2 water leaks, which caused some damage to her flat. She said the landlord repaired the leaks to the property above at that time.
On 24 October 2022, the resident informed the landlord that a burst pipe from the flat above had caused a leak and significant damage to her property. She informed the landlord that her bathroom ceiling had collapsed. The landlord attended and repaired the leak to the flat above within 2 hours.
On the same day, the landlord provided her with advice on making a claim on the landlord’s insurance. It explained that as a leaseholder she may need to carry out the most urgent repairs, such as addressing the electric, and claim the cost back from the insurer.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 5 November 2022, the complaint was about:
1. a leak into the resident’s property on 24 October 2022. The resident said the leak was as a result of poor workmanship from the landlord when it had fixed a leak from the above flat in July 2019;
2. The accommodation offered by the insurance company did not meet her needs;
3. the length of time it took for the operative to attend after she reported the leak;
4. the internal and external stopcocks had seized and could not be turned off.
The resident informed the landlord on 9 November 2022, that she was unhappy that it had not considered rehousing her. The landlord clarified its position 2 days later and explained that, as a leaseholder, it would not offer to decant her because this was covered under the insurance policy. It said the loss adjuster would support her finding a temporary accommodation.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 11 November 2022, it informed the resident it would respond by 25 November 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 25 November 2022. It was as follows:
1. it explained that it could not respond to the resident’s complaint about the handling of her insurance claim. It advised the resident to contact the insurers directly to discuss any issues with them;
2. it provided the repair history for the leaks from 2019. It said 1 leak was in the old airing cupboard and the other happened due to a damaged bath shower mixer. It said both leaks were fixed at the time;
3. it confirmed that it responded to an emergency call out on 24 October 2022 to repair a leak. It said that ,in keeping with its policy, it attended within 24 hours;
4. it acknowledged that the resident said that, on the day, the stopcocks could not be opened. It confirmed the stopcocks worked correctly when it arrived on site;
5. it recognised that the damage to the resident’s property was caused by a leak from one of the properties it managed. However, it denied that the leak in 2022, was due to poor workmanship from the repairs it did to fix the leaks in 2019. It explained that none of the leaks were connected as they had occurred in different areas of the property;
6. it did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it did not identify any service failure.
On 6 December 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2. It said it would respond by 11 January 2023. The resident said she made the request because:
1. she disagreed with the outcome of the Stage 1 complaint;
2. the landlord failed to inspect the quality of the work after it repaired the leaks in 2019 and because of this, the 2022 leak occurred. She also questioned the integrity of the materials used, such as the pipe work;
3. on 24 October 2022, the operative advised her to put the electric back on, when she did, she nearly had an electric shock;
4. she was dissatisfied with the loss adjusters handling of her claim.
5. she had to move from her home.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 January 2023. It was as follows:
1. it acknowledged that in order to resolve the complaint, the resident was seeking compensation for the losses, inconvenience and upset caused, acknowledgement of any identified failures and changes to the landlord’s processes to ensure repairs were checked.
2. it summarised the stage 1 investigation and its findings. It said the complaint was not upheld at stage 1 and explained why;
3. it addressed each point raised in her stage 2 escalation request;
4. it concluded that while it understood the inconvenience of having 3 leaks within 3 years, it found no evidence that the latest leak was connected to the 2019 leaks;
5. it reassured the resident that it used British standard rated materials and explained the nature of the repairs it carried out;
6. it confirmed that after it repaired the leaks in 2019, it had inspected the completed works;
7. it said its technician advised that the fuse board would have isolated any electrical accessories tripping as a result of water ingress. It acknowledged that its operative should not have advised her to switch on her electric and it apologised for this. It recognised that it should have advised the resident to seek her own qualified electrician to check the safety of the electric;
8. it said as a result of the resident’s feedback, it would provide additional training to the team, to ensure correct signposting was given for additional repairs outside of their trade. it reiterated that it could not advise on her complaint about the loss adjusters;
9. it acknowledged that the resident had to move out of her home as a result of the leak and recognised the impact this had.
The resident contacted this Service on 19 January 2023 and made a complaint about her landlord. Her complaint was about:
1. the landlord not accepting that it was at fault for the 2022 leak;
2. on 24 October 2022, the operative advised her to put the electric back on, when she did, she nearly had an electric shock;
3. the impact the issue had on the resident, who had to move out of her home.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident says the landlord should accept liability for the damage caused to her property. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on negligence nor the causation of, or liability for, damage to property. This would be usually dealt with either as an insurance claim or through the courts.
Additionally, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident was dissatisfied with the handling of her claim by the insurer. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the action or lack of actions of an insurer. Complaints concerning insurance claims are not within the Ombudsman jurisdiction. This is because the insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s actions.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The leak from the flat above

On 24 October 2022, the resident reported a leak from the flat above. She said hot water was “pouring” from the ceiling. Within 2 hours, the landlord had stopped the leak. It is acknowledged that under the circumstances, 2 hours must have felt like a long time to the resident. However, the evidence shows that the landlord’s response was reasonable and in keeping with its repairs policy to attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. The landlord appropriately explained this to the resident in its stage 1 response.
Serious incidents such as a large leak in your home, are often unexpected and traumatic events. During those times, feeling supported and having access to the relevant information in a timely manner is essential in dealing with, and resolving the subsequent issues. The evidence shows that the landlord communicated effectively and provided relevant information to the resident in a timely fashion. On the day of the incident, the landlord advised the resident on making a claim to the insurance company, this enabled the resident to promptly start the claim process. This was reasonable and timely advice from the landlord. It was also in keeping with the guidance from its insurer to make a claim as soon as possible.
The landlord’s decant policy states that, in case of emergency, it might offer to decant a resident. However, it also states that the policy applies to residents renting a property from the landlord, which is also owned by the landlord. In keeping with its policy, the landlord appropriately advised the resident on 11 November 2022, that as she was a leaseholder it would not consider decanting her. It also said that, in her case, the loss adjuster was responsible for finding her alternative accommodation as this was covered by the insurance policy. This was appropriate for the landlord to promptly clarify its positions about decanting the resident. It also managed the resident’s expectations and clarified who she should speak to about finding her suitable temporary accommodation. .
The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord in November 2022, she said the landlord was responsible for the latest leak. It is acknowledged that, on 3 occasions between 2019 and 2022, leaks from the above flat caused some damage to the resident’s property. She believed that poor workmanship from the landlord and its use of poor quality material caused the issue. She also believed that the previous leaks caused the latest one, which is understandable when considering there had been 3 leaks in 3 years.
The landlord provided a reasonable response to this element of the resident’s complaint in its stage 1 response. It explained that the 3 leaks, from the flat above, were not linked as they all happened in different locations. It explained that it carried out the appropriate inspections when the repairs were completed. It also said it used materials compliant with British standards. Those were reasonable explanations from the landlord. No evidence was seen to suggest that the repairs completed by the landlord in 2019, caused the latest leak or that there was a service failure.
In the event of a leak, a resident should be able to stop the water by closing the stopcock, which is a valve used to control the flow of water. In this case, neither the resident or her neighbour could close the stopcock and as a result, the water continued to leak into her property until the landlord arrived. The landlord said that the stopcock was in working order when it arrived at the property. Stopcocks can be difficult to operate as they are not used regularly. No evidence was seen to suggest there was a service failure on the part of the landlord in regard to the stopcock and its response to the resident.
In December 2022, when the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2, she said that she was nearly electrocuted. She explained that, after it fixed the leak on 24 October 2022, the landlord then advised her “to put the electric back on” in her flat. She said when she switched the electric back on, she was “nearly electrocuted”. The evidence shows that the landlord promptly investigated the incident once it became aware of what happened. It explained to the resident how the electric fuse board would have isolated any electrical accessories tripping as a result of water ingress. It provided a reasonable explanation to the resident to support that the electricity had been safe to switch on. However, the resident maintained that she saw sparks when she tried to switch the electric back on. While this service cannot determine whether the resident had been at risk of electrocution at the time, it recognises that this was an unpleasant and scary experience for the resident.
It is acknowledged that the landlord accepted it should not have advised her to turn the electric back on. It apologised to her, it recorded the incident and delivered training to its teams to prevent a reoccurrence. It is recognised that the landlord should not have provided the advice to the resident, however its actions did not amount to service failure. The landlord demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to prevent this from reoccurring and the evidence shows that the incident had no lasting impact on the resident.
When the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for compensation in its stage 2 response, it did not offer the resident any. This was in keeping with its compensation policy to consider offering compensation when service standard had not been met. In this case, it is understandable that the landlord did not offer compensation to the resident as a form of resolution. This is because it did not identify any significant service failures in its handling of the leak. It was reasonable and proportionate that the landlord did not offer compensation.
As mentioned above, this Service cannot determine liability and can only consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and concerns. In this case, the landlord communicated effectively with the resident, it acted promptly to repair the leak, it appropriately answered her queries and managed her expectations. The resident experienced an unwelcome and unexpected event, which had a significant impact on her. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest there was service failure on the part of the landlord in its handling of the leaks from the flat above and the damage it caused to the resident’s home. Therefore, it determines there was no maladministration on the part of the landlord.

Associated complaint

The resident made a complaint to the landlord in November 2022. The evidence shows that the landlord promptly acknowledged the resident’s complaints, it clearly explained the investigation process and when it would respond to the resident’s complaint at each stage. The evidence also shows that the landlord provided its stage 1 response within its published time frame. Those were appropriate actions from the landlord and in keeping with its complaint policy.
The landlord has a 2 stage policy, it states it will respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 in December 2022, the landlord informed her it would respond on 11 January 2023. It did not explain its reasons for planning to respond 3 days outside its published time frame. It is recognised that the landlord’s response was slightly out of its published time frame. However, the resident did not challenge this or request a sooner response. Therefore, this did not amount to service failure as it had no evident impact on the outcome for the resident.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will not consider issues subject to an insurance claim as part of its complaint process. Therefore, it was reasonable, and in keeping with its complaint policy, for the landlord to say it could not respond to the resident’s complaint about the insurers’ handling of her claim.
After considering the evidence of the case, the Ombudsman determines there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s handled the resident’s complaint in keeping with its complaint policy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration on the part of the landlord in its handling of the leaks from the flat above and the damage it caused to the resident’s home.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration on the part of the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.