The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

One Housing Group Limited (202225613)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225613

One Housing Group Limited

22 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about metallic elements in her water supply.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord and lives in a 2-bedroom, fifth floor flat.
  2. On 5 January 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord. She reported metallic elements in her water supply in September 2022 and was dissatisfied that this remained unresolved.
  3. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 6 February 2023. In summary it said:
    1. The resident’s water supplier advised the water was safe to drink.
    2. The landlord investigated the matter on 15 September, 11 October, 23 November, 5 December 2022, and 11 January 2023.
    3. The landlord completed works including replacing the bathroom taps. It partially upheld the complaint as the metal elements were still present in the water.
    4. It offered £50 compensation for the impact on the resident.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 7 February 2023. She was unhappy that previous repairs had not been successful. The metallic elements in her water remained and she felt there was not a plan to resolve the issue.
  5. On 13 March 2023, the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. In summary it said:
    1. A specialist contractor attended to complete thorough investigations and to test the water.
    2. A contractor had been instructed to clean and disinfect the communal tanks. This would take place in March 2023.
    3. It acknowledged there needed to be better management in response to water contamination reports.
    4. It increased its offer of compensation to £150. The additional £100 reflected the time taken to identify the cause of the metallic elements in the water.
  6. On 30 March 2023, the resident purchased a new washing machine which resolved the matter. The landlord offered to reimburse the resident for the new washing machine.
  7. The resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman as she remains dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about metallic elements in her water supply.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy outlines that it is responsible for ensuring all fixtures and fittings for the supply of water, gas, electricity, heating, and sanitations are in working order.
  2. The landlord classifies its repairs into 2 categories: emergency and routine. Emergency repairs are those which present an immediate danger to the occupant. The landlord will attend within 4 hours and complete the repair within 24 hours. Routine repairs are for all non-emergency matters. The landlord aims to resolve routine repairs within 28 working days.
  3. Records show that the landlord initially attended the resident’s property to investigate the report of metallic elements in her water on 15 September 2022. It completed further investigations in October and November 2022. During its initial visits, the landlord identified that other flats were not affected and that the issue was isolated to the resident’s washing machine and bathroom tap. It found no disrepair to the pipework and the matter was referred for further investigations. Its initial response was appropriate.
  4. However, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord delayed taking action during this time. For example, in September 2022 the landlord identified that the heat interface unit (HIU) should be checked as the resident’s water supply ran through it. This was not investigated until February 2023, when the landlord identified it was not the cause.
  5. The landlord suggested that the resident’s washing machine could have caused the metallic elements to enter the water. In response to this, the resident advised that the appliance was new. The landlord found no issues with the pipe connecting the washing machine and decided to complete further investigations into other possible causes. Based on the information available to it, this was appropriate.
  6. Whilst the landlord investigated the cause of the metallic elements in the resident’s water, it advised her to contact her water supplier to rule out any issues which may need to be addressed with the water company. This was reasonable.
  7. The landlord used a process of elimination approach to investigate the cause of the water contamination. This was suitable as such issues could be caused by a number of reasons. It replaced the resident’s bathroom taps, disinfected and cleaned the communal water tank, and instructed a specialist contractor to complete investigations which included a detailed water analysis.
  8. The metallic elements remained in the water following all repairs. As such, the landlord defaulted back to the washing machine being the cause. The matter was eventually resolved when the resident replaced her washing machine on 30 March 2023.
  9. The resident did not report a significant detriment caused to her whilst the repair was outstanding. Records show that the resident’s water was safe, and the water supply was continuous throughout the landlord’s investigations. Further, the metallic particles in the water were isolated to her bathroom. Her kitchen tap remained unaffected. However, the Ombudsman appreciates that the matter would have caused her some inconvenience and concern. To put things right, the £50 compensation offered by the landlord is considered a suitable offer to reflect the inconvenience caused.
  10. It took the landlord 6 months from when the repair was first reported until the cause of the metallic elements in the resident’s water was identified and resolved. Some of these delays were unavoidable whilst the landlord investigated the cause. However, there were periods where the landlord could have been more proactive. Records suggest that at times the landlord was unsure on what further actions to take.
  11. It was appropriate that the landlord identified the need to better manage water contamination reports. It apologised to the resident and offered her £100 compensation to account for its failure to resolve the issue in a timely manner. The Ombudsman considers this proportionate to reflect the time taken to resolve the issue. Further, the offer is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. It was positive that the landlord evidenced learning from the complaint. It said that staff members were reminded of the importance to respond to repairs involving water contamination in a timely manner.
  12. In addition, the landlord went beyond its obligations by offering to cover the cost of the resident’s washing machine. This was not the landlord’s responsibility, but it offered this as a good will gesture. The landlord confirmed that it paid the resident £349 for the cost of the new washing machine. In addition, it contacted the resident in the following weeks to confirm that the metal elements in her water had not returned. This was appropriate to ensure the matter was fully resolved.
  13. The above demonstrated that overall, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns. Where the landlord delayed resolving the issue, it appropriately compensated the resident to put things right and reflect the inconvenience caused. Therefore, there was reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about metallic elements in her water supply.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about metallic elements in her water supply.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to re-offer the resident £150 compensation if it has not already paid this. This is to account for the inconvenience and delays caused when the landlord investigated the reports of water contamination.