Southern Housing Group Limited (202117230)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117230

Southern Housing Group Limited

27 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The residents reports of water ingress into the property.
2. The associated remedial works.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a 5 year fixed term assured tenancy with a housing association landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom first floor maisonette.
The landlord has recorded the resident as having multiple sclerosis (MS).
On 26 October 2021, the resident contacted this Service to explain that there had been multiple leaks at the property over the previous 4 years but the landlord had not found the underlying issue of why the leaks occurred. The resident explained that her complaint was in respect of the most recent incidents of water ingress and the landlord’s response to this.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to investigation of historical issues as a resident is expected to raise issues with both the landlord and Ombudsman in a timely manner. As such, this investigation is focused solely on the events that progressed through the landlord’s complaints procedure that commenced shortly before 25 September 2020, and culminated with the landlord’s final response of 4 November 2021.
This Service acknowledges that in her correspondence, the resident has raised concerns in relation to the impact the issues experienced have had on her physical and mental health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). This is a legal process and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option.

Summary of events

An internal email dated 3 September 2020, explained that the resident had advised the landlord that an operative had visited the property to carry out checks and that he was returning the following day to carry out a CCTV survey to establish where the leak was emanating from. She wanted to know what the next steps were and a timeline for repairs. According to an email on the same day the stack pipe was leaking into the property.
The same day the landlord asked the contractor to provide the resident with 2 dehumidifiers.
On 17 September 2020, an internal email showed that there had been a request for a temporary light in the bathroom as the current one couldn’t be used due to the leak.
On 24 and 25 September 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to apologise for the delay repairing the leak and to explain that the plumber had fixed the leak that was coming from behind the kitchen unit and asked the resident to monitor it over the following days.
On 25 September 2020, the resident submitted a formal complaint regarding the leak at the property which had been ongoing since 1 September 2020. As a result of the leak the resident had been left without a light in the bathroom for several days. The complaint set out that the resident suffered with MS and asthma, and the delay in rectifying the leak had impacted on her physical and mental well-being. The resident explained that she felt ignored and dismissed by the contractor that carried out maintenance on the property. She further explained that whilst she acknowledged that the landlord had communicated with her in respect of the progress of repair, she was disappointed that it took until 17 or 18 September 2020 for the landlord to intervene.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 28 September 2020 and stated that it understood the complaint to be about:
1. The leak that had been ongoing since 1 September 2020.
2. The lack of lighting in the bathroom as a result of the leak.
3. The impact the delayed repairs had on the resident’s physical and mental well-being.
It stated that it understood that the resident wanted the leak identified and resolved as quickly as possible.
On the same day, there was an email exchange between the landlord and the resident in which the landlord asked the resident if there had been any further signs of a leak. It stated that the damage should dry over the following 10 to 14 days and that the dehumidifier would help with this. It confirmed that it would make good the damage but that it would monitor for a week to check that all issues had been resolved. The resident stated that the water damage had travelled to her bedroom. In response, the landlord apologised that it took so long to trace and repair the leak and assured the resident that the plumber had insisted that it had traced the only leak from the flat above.
An internal email the same day set out a timeline of the events until that date. It showed that:
1. An inspection was carried out on 18 September 2020 and the likely cause of the leak was found to be from a flat on one of the upper floors. The light in the bathroom was reconnected.
2. On 21 September 2020, the contractor visited the properties on the upper floors but could not gain access into one of them.
3. It reattended on 23 September 2020, gained access into the missed property and confirmed that it was the origin of the leak.
4. On 25 September 2020, the contractor investigated the leak at the property on the upper floor and found it to be emanating from a pipe behind the dishwasher. The pipe was repaired.
5. On 28 September 2020, the resident confirmed that the leak had stopped but that the water damage had spread to her bedroom and that it was impacting on her health.
The internal email also confirmed that the landlord would:
1. collect the dehumidifier
2. wash down and stain block/paint all affected areas in the kitchen, hallway, lounge, lobby cupboard and bedroom.
On 30 September 2020, the landlord confirmed in an email to the resident that the leak had been resolved and a contractor booked to complete the remedial work. It did not have a start date for the work, but as soon as the contractor confirmed the date it would also confirm with the resident. It stated that it would offer compensation to the resident for having used the dehumidifier at her own expense. But that it would first need to confirm the date the dehumidifier was provided and collected.
On 2 October 2020, the landlord confirmed the remedial work would take place on 19 October 2020. In addition, it stated that it would look to close the complaint alongside an offer of compensation.
The remedial work took place on 19 October 2020 as planned, and the surveyor visited the same day to inspect the works. In an email exchange between the resident and landlord, the resident explained that water spilled onto the carpet from the dehumidifier when the operative was moving it. The landlord confirmed that the dehumidifier should have been emptied before being moved, but the carpet should not be stained. The resident also expressed her dissatisfaction with the patch painting, which the landlord explained was usual policy if only part of the wall had been affected.
An internal email the following day listed outstanding works as:
1. threshold strip joining the lobby to the entrance to be renewed.
2. paint holes which had been filled
3. fix and paint cupboard that had been warped by water damage
4. second coat of paint in the kitchen
5. thermostatic shower mixer leaking (new job).
On 29 October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she had no running water going into the property. She explained that she had contacted the appropriate water company which confirmed the issue was not with them. The landlord arranged for an emergency plumber to attend and suggested that the contractor check the out of hours report for the previous day to ensure the operative who had attended hadn’t turned anything off.
An email exchange between the resident and landlord between 13 November and 16 November 2020 showed that on 13 November 2020 the resident reported that there was no hot water in the property and no water pressure, which the resident stated was as a result of work a plumber did that day. She added that there was also a water leak in the hallway and a tap had been left unattached. She explained that she had attempted to contact the contractor but it was unobtainable. She added that another plumber had attended the property on 14 November 2020 to fix the issues caused by the previous plumber, but that due to the issue with the tap it had not been apparent that there was also an issue with the toilet leaking when flushed. The resident explained in her email to the landlord that a second plumber attended that same day to resolve the issue.
The resident expressed concern about the damage done to her carpet, which she explained was wet from the leak, and the wall, which she also said had been damaged. She added that water had been accumulating on her stairs and was worried that the leak had not actually been resolved. She stated that contractor had said it would arrange for a carpet cleaner but had not been contacted further in relation to that. The resident also explained that the water pressure had not improved.
The landlord responded that it had asked for the wet vac to be confirmed as soon as possible. It stated that it had advised the appropriate contractor to confirm an appointment with the resident. In addition it confirmed that an appointment to make good all the damaged areas had been requested again and the contractor would confirm the date with the resident directly.
The following month on 11 December 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to explain that a contractor attended unannounced and that due to her prior commitments she could not allow the visit to go ahead. She stated that the contractor had said it would not be able to offer another appointment until 24 December 2020, which she said was also inconvenient. She explained that there was already an appointment booked in for 16 December 2020 and she was concerned that this would not be able to go ahead as there was outstanding work needed at the property ahead of this. She added that in respect of damage done to her carpets, she had been told by the contractor that it would not agree to replace them and if the resident was unhappy with the decision, to raise it further with the landlord. She said that the contractor’s behaviour had been unacceptable and she wanted it escalated as a complaint.
In response the landlord said that the issue had been logged as a service dissatisfaction and a member of the relevant team would be in contact with her. It apologised, on behalf of the contractor, for the unannounced visit, which it said was an administration error, and explained that the contractor should have telephoned the resident before attending. It suggested that the resident keep the appointment booked for 16 December 2020 and said that the job to replace the skirting board could be done in the new year.
In respect of the resident’s carpet, it said that it had seen photos of the carpet after it had been cleaned and that the photos only showed minimal aesthetic damage, therefore the contractor would not agree to replace them. Nevertheless, the landlord said that it wanted to discuss this further with the contractor and that it would update the resident further by 17 December 2020. This Service has not seen any evidence that the resident was updated as proposed.
The resident disputed that the damage to the carpet was minimal and suggested the landlord speak with the carpet cleaning company who said that it had been permanently damaged. She added that it was unable to fix the damage done on the stair carpet or in the bathroom. The resident was disappointed that up until that point the contractor had not contacted her or offered their apologies for the damage caused.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 6 January 2021 as she had not had an update about the outstanding works, nor had she heard anything about the contractor failing to take responsibility for the damage caused. The landlord explained that it had not had a response from the contractor and would therefore escalate further.
Landlord notes dated 16 January 2021 showed that the resident had reported an uncontainable leak from the flat above. Notes showed that the same day an attempt was made to access the upstairs property but without success. 2 days later the resident contacted the landlord to remind it that she had still not had a response from the contractor in respect of the damage to her property following the leaks in November 2020. She reiterated her report of the current water ingress. In addition she listed the outstanding repairs as:
1. repair to rotten staircase
2. flooring in bathroom and staircase to be repaired or replaced
3. repainting in areas damaged by the previous leak and also the current leak
4. address the current leak.
The landlord responded the same day and explained that there were delays completing work due to the issues arising from the pandemic. It confirmed that it had been assured that the outstanding repairs had been escalated and were pending a visit from the flooring contractor.
It stated that the current water leak had been reported as urgent, but that it had not heard anything from the contractor and checked with the resident if she had reported it as an emergency or if she had had any contact from the contractor since 15 January 2021.
Notes dated 19 and 20 January 2021 showed that emails were sent to the landlord requesting access details for the flats. Whilst it is not clear who was requesting the access, based on the context of the notes it would appear that the request for access details came from the contractor.
Notes showed that on 21 January 2021 a job was raised to trace and remedy the leak in the property. It was attended the following day. The plumber found a leak from the tiles around the bath in one of the properties visited, which was repaired and no further issues found. Also, on 21 January 2021 a job was raised to renew the skirting boards in the property following the leak. Notes showed that this was completed on 10 February 2021.
Between 17 February 2021 and 2 March 2021, there were 3 other reports of water or drainage issues from the resident. On 24 February 2021, the resident reported that water was coming out via the kitchen cupboard, she explained that she had reported it to the contractor but was told that the earliest appointment would be in 2 days.
Landlord notes dated 1 March 2021, showed that the water leak was from the stack. The report made on 2 March 2021, was attended as an emergency that day but the resident was unavailable and was advised to report it out of hours. The issues were not able to be resolved on first contact as the contractor needed to trace the leaks. On 4 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord as she had not had any contact to assess the damage caused by the most recent leaks and to remind it that she was still waiting for remedial works to be completed. The landlord responded that the contractor had been booked to complete the outstanding works on 12 March 2021.
In an email exchange between the resident and the landlord on 15 March 2021, the resident asked when the report completed by the operative who inspected her property on 12 March 2021 would be reviewed. The landlord advised the resident that although it had asked for the report to be reviewed by the contractor as a priority it would be a further 2 weeks before this could happen, due to annual leave. The resident expressed her disappointment explaining that there was still water dripping from one of the cupboards and an accumulation of mould. She also stated that she had thrown out belongings due to mould damage.
A quote to renew carpets and bathroom flooring was received on 18 March 2021 and put on hold until all other works in the property had been completed.
It is not clear from the evidence provided when the 3 issues raised by the resident between 17 February and 2 March 2021 were resolved, but it is noted that between 6 April and 22 April 2021 there was an ongoing discussion between the resident and landlord regarding the ongoing leak and the remedial works. The landlord confirmed that all work would be done when the leak had been resolved. It stated that it had identified a leak in a neighbouring flat and a temporary repair had been completed. The landlord had traced the leak back to the stack and aimed to remedy it fully on 20 April 2021.
The leak at the neighbouring property was completed on 20 April 2021 and according to notes remedial works took place at the resident’s property on the same day. It was noted that the walls and ceilings throughout the property were still damp. Nevertheless, the contractor was able to treat the walls in the hallway, the cupboard and paint the walls and ceiling. The new skirting board on the second stairs was primed and a dehumidifier placed on the landing. There was still damage on the stairwell wall and landing and the kitchen needed to dry out. The notes provided by the landlord showed that the works were completed on 14 May 2021.
The following week an internal email showed that following on from the report carried out on 12 March 2021, the following works were to be completed:
1. kitchen corner unit water damaged – internal mould wash/paintwork
2. renewal of the kitchen flooring
3. water damage remedial works in patches across the property
4. bathroom flooring lifted due to leak, needs to be renewed
5. stairwell decoration and carpet renewal – contractor to renew as fault
6. lobby paint work in patches.
On 4 May 2020, the resident asked the landlord for confirmation of when the flooring would be measured and fitted. The landlord advised that it was chasing a response from the contractor and would notify the resident as soon as it could.
The resident contacted the landlord on at least 5 occasions between 14 May and 18 June 2021, chasing a date for the flooring to be replaced. She also requested compensation for the cost of using a dehumidifier and the damage to her belongings as a result of the various leaks. Landlord notes showed that a quote for replacement carpets was approved on 14 June 2021.
The landlord contacted the resident on 18 June 2021 to apologise for the handling of her complaint. It stated that it had considered the outstanding issues and could see that leaks were still occurring. It confirmed that it had requested a detailed timeline of events from the contractor and that on receipt of that it would be able to calculate accurate compensation and a resolution to the complaint.
Approximately a week later the resident reported 2 additional leaks to the landlord. She explained that water was leaking through the bathroom light and that there was a leak in her bedroom. She acknowledged that the landlord had inspected the property above but maintained that the leak hadn’t been resolved resulting in her belongings being ruined. In response the landlord stated that the issues had been escalated to the property manager to be treated as a priority. In addition, the landlord advised that as discussed with the resident, whilst it would have like to have close to the complaint with an offer of compensation, it did not think this was the best option given the ongoing issues. It stated that it would resolve the issues first.
As well as reporting the water leaking through the bathroom light, on 29th June 2021 the resident submitted a stage one complaint regarding the delay in replacing the damaged flooring. She stated that she had been waiting since October 2020. She explained that an appointment had been booked for that day but was cancelled at the last minute. She stated that although a new appointment had been made for 7 July 2021, the cancelled appointment was an inconvenience as she had booked the day off work and moved furniture so the flooring could be fitted.
The landlord acknowledged the stage one complaint the following day. It stated that it understood the complaint to be that the resident was unhappy with:
1. the delays in replacing the flooring
2. the original appointment had been cancelled and rescheduled
3. the contractor does not communicate effectively.
As a resolution the resident wanted the appointment made for 7 July 2021 brought forward and wanted an explanation as to why she was having to constantly chase the contractor for updates. The landlord aimed to respond by 13 July 2021.
The carpet contractor attended the appointment as proposed on 7 July 2021. However, the carpet it had suggested as a replacement for the section of affected carpet was darker than the carpet that was remaining. The resident was unhappy with this proposal and refused to have it fitted, preferring instead to keep the original carpet. The contractor had already taken up the section of original carpet and underlay and was unable to refit it. Consequently, the contractor left the property with sections of floor that were uncarpeted. The surveyor advised that the underlay should be fitted and fixed and then deemed this safe.
The following day the resident contacted the landlord to explain that the uncarpeted flooring posed a hazard and that she had fallen on the concrete and requested that someone attend immediately. The resident was disappointed that the carpet had been damaged as a result of a contractors mistake and as a result she had been left without a section of carpet.
An internal email dated 13 July 2021 explained that all affected areas that were carpeted were made safe by the carpet fitters prior to leaving the property on 7 July 2021 by installing underlay, and that there was minimal exposed concrete flooring. It explained that the proposed replacement carpet was the closest match to the original and the contractor could not find an exact match. The email explained that the landlord did not have direct involvement in the job to replace the carpet as it was being carried out due to an error made by one the of contractor operatives on a previous occasion.
Landlord notes on the same day showed that the resident was seeking legal documentation showing that the vinyl flooring in the kitchen and bathroom had to be replaced with polysafe flooring. The landlord wrote to the resident requesting additional time until 27 July 2021 to respond to the stage one complaint.
Following a visit by the carpet fitter to the property the following day, the resident contacted the landlord again expressing her disappointment with the landlord’s position on the carpet. She explained that she had been under the impression that all carpets would be replaced and she was not happy with the poor colour match proposed or that the contractor had ripped out the original carpet without having first shown her what it would be replaced with. She reiterated that she had fallen on the exposed flooring. She asked the landlord to clarify the process.
An internal email acknowledged the current ongoing issue with the mismatched carpet and that the landlord found itself at a stalemate with the resident. It acknowledged that the resident was vulnerable and that it needed to find an agreeable resolution.
On 20 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again as she had not received an update with regard the replacement carpet. The contractor explained to the landlord that the resident was seeking a full carpet replacement, which it could not agree.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage one on 27 July 2021. It reiterated its understanding of the complaint and the resident’s request for resolution as per its acknowledgement.
It explained that it understood the flooring was damaged as a result of a leaking boiler, which took some time to resolve. However, it stated that the complaint would deal solely with the issues regarding the replacement floor and not how the damage arose.
The landlord understood that the contractor had approved works to replace the damaged flooring and attended on 7 July 2021 as proposed. The landlord described the events that took place and accepted that the delay in replacing the flooring had been identified as a service failure, for which it apologised. The landlord noted that the contractor returned to the property on 14 July 2021 with a replacement carpet which was rejected by the resident. It stated that it understood the resident had been informed that the contractor could not source an exact match for the carpet as the colour had been discontinued. It added that the contractor had fitted the underlay on instruction from the surveyor, so as to make the area safe.
In its response, the landlord explained that in relation to the poly safe flooring, it was industry wide standard for flooring in bathrooms and kitchens for safety reasons.
In relation to missed appointments, it stated that it did not have any information with regard missed appointments but noted that there was a failed appointment on 7 July 2021, when the carpet could not be replaced and agreed that this was a service failure, for which it apologised.
It stated that it understood there had been some communication issues with the contractor but highlighted that an appropriate landlord officer had been liaising with the contractor had attempted to keep a dialogue open. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration with the lack of communication from the contractor and upheld the complaint as a service failure on the basis of a lack of information from the contractor.
The landlord concluded that it was unable to agree to replacing the carpet throughout the property, as it was not essential. It could not replace flooring that was not affected by the leak. With regard the polysafe flooring, it stated that whilst the resident was not required to have polysafe flooring in the bathroom and kitchen, it did need to be non-slip and selected from the samples the contractor could provide. In response to the resident’s request to anticipate the date for the flooring replacement from 7 July, the landlord acknowledged that events had overtaken this. The landlord partially upheld the complaint.
The resident responded the same day explaining that she had agreed to the polysafe flooring but had not heard any more about this. She explained that given that measurements were taken of the entire property, she was under the impression that in the event an exact match could not be found, all the carpet would have been replaced. She stated that her main complaint was that the contractor had ripped up the existing carpet without first showing her a sample of the replacement carpet. In addition, she explained that as a resolution she had proposed that the contractor fit a completely different colour and pattern carpet on the staircase so that the mismatch would look deliberate, but this had not been progressed.
The resident stated that she had contacted the landlord regarding this and an update on works but that no one had been in contact with her. The resident was disappointed that she did not know when the carpet would be fitted. She explained that she did not want this complaint or the other outstanding complaint, which she said the landlord had not contacted her about, to be closed. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2.
The resident sent 2 further emails on 6 August and 12 August 2021 regarding the ongoing complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 7 September 2021. It said that it understood the complaint to be that the resident was unhappy that:
1. The flooring was removed before being shown the replacement.
2. Despite contacting the contractor on several occasions with a proposal for an alternative flooring, the work was still incomplete.
3. She had fallen on the exposed tiling and been hospitalised due to the stress of the situation.
The landlord understood that the resident was seeking the following resolution:
1. The flooring in the kitchen and bathroom to be completed as agreed.
2. A different pattern and colour carpet on the staircase so that the mismatch looks deliberate.
It explained that the resident could ask for a telephone conversation with the officer responding at stage 2 and in any case, she should expect a formal response by 5 October 2021.
Landlord notes dated 16 September 2021 showed that the landlord spoke with the resident, who explained her position in relation to the flooring complaint and added that there were still other outstanding works.
On 5 October 2021, the landlord explained to the resident that the response would be delayed until 19 October 2021. Then on 19 October 2021 it stated that the response would be delayed until 2 November 2021.
An internal email exchange dated 19 October 2021, confirmed that the resident had not had a response in relation to her other complaint about the leak, it explained that the leak had been fixed but that the resident was seeking compensation for the delay. It reiterated that the stage 2 response being dealt with was only in relation the flooring issues. It stated that the resident’s flooring of choice had been ordered and the landlord had asked the contractor to prioritise the resident.
A week later the resident emailed the landlord expressing her disappointment that she would have to wait until 16 November 2021 for the flooring to be fitted. She explained that it was over a year since she first complained about a leak in her property and that the delay was affecting her mental and physical well-being. The resident stated that she had 2 open complaints and had not heard anything in respect of one of the complaints.
The landlord responded that it had contacted the resident on 12 October 2021, with a date of 12 November 2021 for the decorative works, but that the resident declined the appointment due to having a hospital appointment booked for that day. The landlord noted that they had agreed on 16 November 2021.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 November 2021. It confirmed that it had upheld a service failure at stage one due to the failure to offer an acceptable carpet on 7 July 2021 and the lack of communication from the contractor. It added that it acknowledged that the complaint had been compounded by a series of leaks from neighbouring properties and although the stage one response noted that there were issues accessing the neighbouring properties, the landlord did not see any evidence to support an approach that would enable speedier access, nor could it see that the resident had been notified of the access issues. Nevertheless, it added that this was not within the scope of the stage 2 complaint as it formed part of a different complaint.
The landlord confirmed that the stage 2 response would deal with the issue of the mismatch carpet. It added that the landlord’s position was that only the damaged carpet would be replaced but acknowledged that this could have been mitigated and better managed by entering a dialogue with the resident. It understood that the resident felt that the missing carpet posed a safety hazard but stated that it believed it took reasonable steps to ensure the area was made safe on the instruction of a surveyor to secure the underlay.
The landlord further confirmed that the contractor had agreed to replace the carpet throughout the property and that samples had been provided to the resident for selection. It added that the replacement carpet would be scheduled in once the re-decoration works had been completed, which It stated was not part of the complaint at hand.
The landlord found service failure in respect of the lack of communication from the flooring contractor but did not find any failing in regard the area exposed by the lack of carpet as it took reasonable steps to make this area safe prior to contractors leaving the property. It added that the resident could have allowed the mismatched carpet to have been laid as a temporary measure whilst engaging with the complaints process.
In conclusion the landlord stated that it had learned that it needs to improve its communication with resident’s to ensure they are given the opportunity to be heard. As well as the flooring being replaced throughout, it awarded £25 compensation for the service failure and a further £50 for the delay in responding at stage 2.
The resident responded the same day, rejecting the compensation on the basis that up until that point the carpet had not been replaced, and that she did not agree that the monetary compensation offered reflected the impact on her health. In addition, she stated that she had still not had a response in relation to her complaint about the leak, which she submitted over a year ago.

Post complaints process

In an email exchange between the landlord and resident on 17 and 18 November 2021, the landlord stated that the complaint in relation to the leak had been closed as it was considered to be a duplication of the complaint relating to the flooring, which had been dealt with a stage 2. Consequently, it would not issue a stage one response for the complaint about the leak. It stated that although that part of the complaint was not specifically dealt with in the stage 2 response, there had been ongoing remedial works in place and therefore both complaints had been dealt with as one.
The resident responded that they were two separate complaints dealing with two different things. The landlord then clarified that the complaints were not merged but did address the issues that linked them and consequently it provided a joint response. Nevertheless, it noted the resident’s previous requests for compensation, specifically for damaged belongings and electricity to power the dehumidifier, which had not been addressed. The landlord stated that it did not offer compensation for damaged belongings, but in relation to the complaint about the leak, it offered £150 compensation:
1. £100 for the service failure for complaint handling.
2. £50 for the initial delay to repairs.
With regard the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the electricity cost of running a dehumidifier the landlord stated that it would only offer to reimburse the cost if it had provided or instructed the use of a dehumidifier, and from the information it had available, that did not apply. Nevertheless, it stated that it would request additional information so to be able to consider the request.
On 23 March 2022, following a review of the case, the landlord offered an additional £25 for service failure linked to the delay and £38.82 for the dehumidifier running cost. As part of the complaint process and post complaints process, in total, the landlord offered £288.32 compensation as follows:
1. £100 for the service failure for complaint handling, linked to the residents complaint about the delay in repairing the leak reported in September 2020.
2. £50 for the initial repair delays, linked to the same complaint.
3. £25 for service failure, linked to the same complaint.
4. £38.32 for the costs associated with the use of a dehumidifier.
5. £25 linked to the service failure regarding the flooring complaint.
6. £50 for the delays providing the stage 2 response to the flooring complaint.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s policies and obligations

The landlord takes account of the legislation set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Homes (fitness for human habitation) Act 2018.
The landlord’s repairs policy lists an emergency as something which poses an immediate risk to safety, security or health and it aims to make safe as soon as possible, and always within 24 hours of being notified. Within its list of emergency repairs, the landlord includes burst pipes or other major plumbing repairs and no heating or hot water between 31 October and 1 May.
The landlord aims to deal with routine repairs as quickly as possible and at a time that suits the resident. The landlord aims to complete routine repairs the first time.
Section 6.5 of the landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it understands that there may be an adverse impact on some resident’s with medical vulnerabilities or conditions. In cases like this the landlord states that it aims to investigate the issue promptly and work in partnership with its contractors and in liaison with the resident to resolve the matter.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process aiming to resolve the issue at the earliest opportunity and responding at stage one of its complaints process within 10 working days. The landlord explains that its stage 2 process comprises of three options: a compensation review; a complaint review; or a senior manager review. The outcome the resident is seeking will determine the most appropriate route. Apart from the compensation review, which will be decided within 10 working days, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage two of its complaints process within 20 working days. In addition, the policy explains as part of the stage two escalation, the resident can request to speak to the reviewing manager to explain their position. The call would also enable the manager to clarify any elements of the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress into the property

The resident reported a leak at the property on 3 September 2020. A contractor attended that day and advised that a CCTV survey was needed to locate the cause of the leak. The evidence showed that this request was not actioned and a further request made 12 days later. An inspection was completed on 18 September 2020 and found that the leak was emanating from a property on an upper floor. The leak was remedied on 25 September 2020. The landlord responded appropriately to the report of the water leak and an operative attended the same day. However, despite this it took the landlord a further 22 days to locate and fix the leak. In addition, the landlord failed to communicate with the resident regarding the progress of the repair until at least 24 September 2020. This was not reasonable and caused the resident additional distress. The landlord failed to achieve its policy position. It was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. Consequently it should have dealt with the issue promptly as per its repairs policy.
The evidence provided showed that the landlord had identified an issue with water entering the property via the stack on 3 September 2020, when the resident first reported the leak. There is no evidence that this was investigated further, until it was highlighted again on 1 March 2021 and eventually remedied on 20 April 2021. It is not clear to this Service why the issue with the stack was not investigated when it was first noticed, but it is clear that by failing to remedy this at the earliest opportunity, it caused further issues months later.
The landlord failed to apply its policy, it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities but failed to remedy the leak promptly and failed to work in partnership with its contractor or liaise appropriately with the resident. Not only did the resident contend with a leak into her property, but she was also without a bathroom light for several days as a result of this. The resident reported that this caused her distress and given her health concerns had a negative impact on her well-being. It was unreasonable that the landlord’s failure to act promptly added the resident’s distress. Given the health concerns highlighted, the landlord should have prioritised the repair.
The following month the resident reported no running water. The evidence showed that the landlord arranged for an emergency plumber to attend. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s report. Although it is not clear from the evidence provided if the issue was resolved the same day. The resident reported a further issue with hot water on 13 November 2020, the landlord attended on 14 November 2020, again this was an appropriate response and showed that the landlord responded to the emergency in line with its policy. Nevertheless, the issues with the water were ongoing and the resident reported that the water pressure had not returned to normal.
At the same time the resident reported a leak, which was linked to a repair not having been completed correctly. The leak caused additional damage to the resident’s carpet, which had already been subject to water damage the previous month. The repair was completed the following day. Whilst unfortunate that the resident was subject to an avoidable leak. By attending to fix the leak promptly, the landlord responded appropriately and in line with its policy.
The resident reported 4 water related repairs within the space of 3 months and whilst on each occasion the landlord appeared to respond to the report promptly, the repair was outstanding for some time. Consequently, the landlord failed to carry out the repair quickly and failed to act in line with its repairs policy.
On 16 January 2021, the resident reported another uncontainable leak from a property on an upper floor. The landlord assured the resident that the repair had been marked as urgent. However, the job to trace and remedy the leak was not raised until 21 January 2021 and subsequently attended on 22 January 2021. Having reported the leak and been told that it was being treated urgently, it was reasonable for the resident to expect the landlord to deliver on its promise. The landlord’s failure to react to the leak urgently was unacceptable.
In February and March 2021, the resident reported 3 water or drainage related repairs to the landlord. It is not clear from the evidence provided if these issues were dealt with as urgent. Evidence showed that between 6 April and 22 April 2021, there was an ongoing discussion between the landlord and the resident regarding the ongoing leaks and outstanding repairs. The landlord confirmed that the leak had been found and resolved on 20 April 2021. It took the landlord at least 6 weeks to locate and fix the ongoing leak. This is not an appropriate response and not in line with the landlord’s policy. Nor does it demonstrate that the landlord had taken note of the resident’s vulnerabilities or acted in line with its policy position
The resident had already experienced several leaks into the property in the months leading up to this and her property was showing signs of damp and mould, which added to her distress, and as reported by the resident was further impacting on her mental and physical well-being. Whilst this Service is unable to make a determination on the impact to the resident’s health and well-being. It is reasonable to assume that given the resident had existing health issues, the presence of damp in her property would have exacerbated her concerns.
On 26 June 2021, the resident reported a further leak into the bathroom and bedroom from above. An email dated 1 July 2021 showed that the landlord had asked for the ongoing leaks to be treated as a priority. It is not clear from evidence when this leak was resolved or how it was treated as a priority. But it is noted that an appointment was made for new flooring to be laid at the property on 7 July 2021, so there is an assumption that leaks were repaired by that date.
The resident’s property was subject to several leaks over a period of approximately 8 months and it is clear from the information provided by both the resident and the landlord that not all repairs were completed within the expected timescales. The landlord failed to carry out the repairs in one visit or at the earliest opportunity and failed to demonstrate regard for the resident’s known vulnerability. This caused the resident undue distress and impacted on her ability to enjoy her home.
Whilst this Service acknowledges that the landlord offered £75 for the delays to repairs, and service failings it identified, this does not go far enough to recompense the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the ongoing leaks or the failure by the landlord to deal with them as quickly as possible. This Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress.

The landlord’s handling of the associated remedial works.

The landlord provided the resident with a dehumidifier in order to combat the effects of the leak reported in September 2020. This was a reasonable response. It was also reasonable for the landlord to ensure the leak had been repaired and the affected areas were completely dry before carrying out remedial work to the property. This Service acknowledges that the resident was not happy with some of the works, in particular the patch painting. Nevertheless, it is both usual practice and acceptable for the landlord to only decorate the affected areas. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord.
The leak was first reported on 3 September 2020 and repairs completed on 28 September 2020. Whilst this Service acknowledges that the repairs were completed in good time, it also notes that whilst the work was taking place, the water from the dehumidifier leaked onto the carpet when it was being moved. This was an error on the part of the contractor and left the resident with a wet carpet.
The resident’s carpet was subject to further water damage in November 2020, for which the landlord arranged a wet vacuum service. This took place sometime between the damage occurring and the end of December 2020. The landlord inspected the carpet following the cleaning and was satisfied that it showed no serious signs of damage. Nevertheless, it agreed to discuss further with the contractor. This was an appropriate response.
This Service notes that a contractor attended the resident’s property without prior arrangement on 11 December 2020 in order to carry out remedial works. The appointment was unable to go ahead due to the resident’s prior commitments and the resident was told that it would be rescheduled for some time in the New Year. However, this job wasn’t logged by the landlord until 21 January 2021. While this Service acknowledges that some works were completed on 16 December 2020, it was disappointing that the resident was given the impression that further works would be completed in the soon into the New Year yet the job wasn’t raised until 21 January 2021. It was not acceptable for the contractor to attend unannounced. The landlord should have informed the resident of the appointment ahead of it taking place so that she could have arranged her time accordingly.
After she failed to receive any details for when the additional work would take place, on 18 January 2021, the resident provided the landlord with a list of issues associated with the various leaks that had occurred up until that point. The resident contacted the landlord again in February 2021 for an update on the remedial works.
The landlord arranged for a report to assess the damage on 12 March 2021. However, the resident was advised that due to annual leave, it would be a further 2 weeks from that date until the landlord could review the report. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident. It was not acceptable that the resident had to remind the landlord that she was still waiting for the remedial works, nor was it appropriate that she was expected to wait the additional 2 weeks for an officer to review the report. Given the length of time the resident had already waited for remedial works to be completed, it would have been preferable for the landlord to assign the report to a different officer to review. Based on the evidence provided the report wasn’t considered by the landlord until at least 14 May 2021, 2 months after it had been completed.
At some point between December 2020 and 27 April 2021, the contractor agreed that as a result of damage caused it would replace the resident’s bathroom flooring and stairs carpet. This job was initially booked in for 29 June 2021, but was cancelled by the contractor at the last minute, which left the resident at a disadvantage as she had taken a day off work and moved furniture to accommodate the new carpet.
The evidence has shown that the resident was not consulted with regard the replacement carpet, which resulted in further distress and delays. Whilst it is acceptable to only replace the section of flooring that was damaged it would have been prudent of the contractor or landlord to notify the resident ahead of the carpet being removed that it was unable to find an exact match and that it proposed to fit the closest match available. The landlord’s failure to communicate effectively with the resident caused further distress and unnecessary delays.
This was further highlighted in the landlord’s stage 2 response in which it acknowledged that if it had communicated with the resident, it would have understood that the resident would have accepted an entirely different colour and pattern carpet on the stairs so that the mismatch appeared deliberate.
Evidence has shown that on occasion the landlord was not up to date with its contractor’s actions. Whilst it is usual and acceptable for landlords to contract out its services, the landlord must ensure that it keeps abreast of the work its contractors are doing and ensure that it has an effective system in place for managing and recording repairs and outcomes. As set out in the Spotlight report on repairs published by this Service in 2019, the landlord and its contractor’s should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of disrepair and their responses, including details of appointments and any pre and post-inspections.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord offered the resident £25 for the service delay linked to the replacement flooring. However, this does not go far enough to acknowledge the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble for the resident in chasing progress on remedial works which included the replacement flooring. This Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of associated remedial works.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident submitted a formal complaint on 25 September 2020 which was acknowledged by the landlord on 28 September 2020. Whilst works associated with this complaint did take place, the landlord never formally responded to the complaint. It is noted that the landlord referenced this complaint on 26 June 2021, when it acknowledged that leaks were ongoing and that it wanted to get the issues resolved before responding to the complaint.
The Ombudsman encourages early and local resolution of issues between landlords and residents. However, landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay.
Landlords must ensure that a complaint response is sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident.
The resident submitted a second complaint on 29 June 2021, which was acknowledged within the prescribed timescales. The landlord failed to formally respond to the complaint on the date that it has said it would, instead it notified the resident that the response would be delayed for a further 10 working days. Whilst it is appropriate that the landlord notified the resident of the delay, it would have been preferable if the landlord didn’t wait until the expected response date to do this.
In its response, the landlord alluded to the complaint made on 25 September 2020 but made it clear that its complaint response would only deal with the issues regarding the replacement flooring and would not deal with how the damage was caused. The landlord was aware that the resident had an outstanding complaint and it is not clear to this Service why it failed to respond to that complaint. This was not acceptable. Not only does it demonstrate a poor understanding of the complaint handling code and a failure to apply its own policy, it shows a lack of customer care and poor customer service.
The landlord responded to all points raised by the resident on 29 June 2021 and the subsequent issues raised as a result of further landlord failings. It partially upheld the complaint and apologised for the failings it identified. This was appropriate and showed the resident that it had listened to her concerns.
The resident escalated the complaint, which was acknowledged promptly by the landlord, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a telephone conversation with the resident to ensure that it fully understood her complaint. This showed that the landlord was prepared to find a resolution.
Nevertheless, the stage 2 response was delayed twice. Instead of receiving the response on 5 October 2021, the landlord notified the resident that the response would be delayed until 19 October 2021. It then sent a further email on that day to advise that the response would be delayed until 2 November 2021. The formal response was sent on 4 November 2021, 43 working days after it was acknowledged. Although the landlord apologised for the delay and offered the resident £50 compensation, it offered no mitigation for it. The Code is clear that a response should not be delayed for longer than 10 working days without good reason.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord briefly referred to the complaint the resident had submitted in September 2020, it made it clear that the issues that resulted in the remedial works needed at the property did not form part of the complaint at hand as they were subject of a different complaint. Once again, the landlord acknowledged the existence of the first complaint, yet it still failed to offer a formal response to it. It is not acceptable that the landlord failed to provide a response, instead allowing the ongoing issues to take over.
The landlord responded to all points raised and apologised for the failures it identified and offered £25 compensation for its failings. In addition, it accepted that it needed to improve communication with residents.
Following on form the stage 2 response, the landlord advised the resident that her original complaint had been closed as it was understood to have been a duplication of the second complaint, which it dealt with at stage 2. However, this is contrary to what the landlord said in its stage 2 response, where it made it very clear that the first complaint did not form part of the stage 2 response.
The first complaint was acknowledged by the landlord, and the resident was right to expect a response to that complaint. It is not acceptable that the landlord allowed the ongoing leak and repairs issues to overtake the complaint and consequently not provide a response. When asked about the response to that complaint, the landlord’s advice to the resident was incorrect, causing further confusion and distress. This Service finds maladministration in the landlords handling of the associated complaints.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress into the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated remedial works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord responded promptly to some of the resident’s reports of water ingress, on several occasions the resident’s reports were not acted upon as promptly as they should have been and the landlord failed to have regard for the resident’s known vulnerability.
The landlord’s communication with the resident in relation to the outstanding remedial works was poor. It failed to ensure the remedial works were completed as promptly as possible and had no effective means for monitoring its contractors actions. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint within the prescribed timescales and provided incorrect information in relation to the complaints process, which caused further confusion for the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman has recently made a number of orders and recommendations in other investigations to this landlord about reviewing its complaint handling approach, repairs service and record keeping. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further recommendations around these aspects of service in this report but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall reviews of complaint handling and its repairs service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings highlighted in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £1088.32, which comprises of:
  1. The £288.32 already offered by the landlord. If this has already been paid to the resident it should be deducted from the total.
  2. £100 for the time and trouble to the resident chasing the landlord for updates on the repairs.
  3. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays completing remedial works.
  4. £300 for the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
3. Contact the resident to establish what repairs remain outstanding and develop a clear action plan to resolve the outstanding repairs. Any repairs required must be agreed with the resident within 20 working days and dates set for completion.
4. Provide the resident with the details of its insurers so that she can consider a liability claim for the impact on her mental well-being and loss of belongings.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its repairs records for its other properties in the building to establish if any other households have been affected by similar issues to the resident. If the landlord identifies any such households, it should proactively ensure that any outstanding issues in their individual properties are resolved and consider whether an offer of compensation would be appropriate if those residents have experienced similar failures by the landlord to take appropriate and timely action. The landlord is asked to report back to the Ombudsman on the outcome of this review.
This Service recommends that the landlord reviews its contractual arrangements with its contractor to ensure that it is aware of its responsibilities in relation to record keeping and response times for vulnerable residents.