Tower Hamlets Homes (202300406)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300406

Tower Hamlets Homes

30 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 the resident’s reports regarding:
1. Ongoing water ingress.
2. The conduct of its contractors.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder and the lease began on 24 January 2005. The property is a two-bedroom ground floor apartment.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs were to be completed within 24 hours. Routine repairs (non-urgent repairs such as a minor leak or blocked drain and pipes) were to be completed within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complex leaks policy describes a ‘complex leak’ occurring if one of the following applies:
1. The cause of the leak cannot be diagnosed by the contractor.
2. There have been recurring leaks from the same property and source (there has been at least one previous leak from the same source in the past 12 months).
3. A leak has generated a formal complaint (stage one or stage two complaint).
Complex leaks are logged in the landlord’s task management system in order to provide additional monitoring and tracking to ensure they are dealt with in a timely manner.
The complex leak policy states that in situations where it is difficult to work out the source of the leak, then the landlord will log the repair on its task management system as a complex leak and arrange a joint inspection with the contractor (supervisor) and a repairs inspector to identify the underlying cause of the leak. It will then take steps such as arranging a dye test, a camera survey or engage a specialist engineer to investigate.
For context, the resident had a history of leaks in her property which she says have been ongoing for a decade. A works order was raised on 27 October 2020 to trace a leak affecting the resident’s property from a communal pathway above. The landlord’s roofing team attended on 9 November 2020, but did not believe the roof was the cause of the water penetration and recommended that the pipework was inspected for the flat above. The contractors advised on 16 November 2020, that water ingress continued to affect the kitchen and bathroom to the front of the property. The leak appeared to be around the cold-water pipework.
The resident reported that the issues seemed to occur during the summer months, but the landlord said this did not coincide with rainfall and that the external walkway above the resident’s flat appeared in good condition. It was also noted that the external brickwork on this walkway was damp and looked like water was seeping in through an internal leak.
Further works were raised on 18 December 2020 and 7 January 2021 for a leak traced from the flat above (neighbour) coming from the bath tiled splashback area. The sealants were mouldy and some tiles were loose and the neighbour needed to renew their liner and carry out a plumbing check beneath the bath. The neighbour confirmed to a plumber that they would have this repaired. The landlord said that the neighbour had informed it that the work had been completed. This leak was different to the water ingress from October 2020.

Summary of events

On 4 November 2021, the resident reported a leak to the landlord that was affecting her kitchen and bathroom which she believed was coming from the roof.
The leak was inspected on 8 November 2021 and follow-on works were raised the following day. The landlord’s contractors attended on 19 November 2021 and confirmed they had completed all the repairs including adding a waterproof and anti-slip application to the communal walkway above. It also added a waterproofing compound to seal around the pipes and outlets.
The resident told the landlord on 9 March 2022, that the leak had reoccurred. The landlord’s roof repair contractors returned to check the previous work on 14 March 2022, they reported that the ongoing issues to the ceiling were around the cold-water feed pipework in the bathroom and kitchen. It was confirmed that the walkway above had been checked and was in good working order. The contractor recommended that another operative return to trace the cold-water feed pipe.
A new works order was raised on 14 March 2022 with the landlord’s mechanical and electrical contractors who attended the following day. The operative advised that they had checked the water tank and pipe work inside and did not find any evidence of leaks at the time of their visit. The landlord said that it did not hear from the resident after this, and as no leak was found, it did not progress the matter further.
On 6 November 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint about continuous leaks in her property. The resident disputed whether the leaks were coming from her neighbour’s property because if they were, then she would have expected leaks every day when they bathed. She said that the leaks coincided with the days and times when it rained. The resident said that she had also been told by one workman that the leaks were due to the concrete balcony and that it needed to be artexed to make it permeable. The resident said she was assured that the leaks from over a decade ago had been resolved, but she had to keep a small container in the bathroom to collect water from the ceiling constantly.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 November 2022 and provided its stage one response on 18 November 2022. It said:
1. It did not follow up with the resident after the visit on 15 March 2022, which it apologised for. This was because no leaks were found.
2. It outlined what had happened with the reports of leaks so far and what it had done in response.
3. That the resident had confirmed on 9 November 2022 that water did not penetrate into her property as expected with heavy rain, which she found surprising.
4. A ‘recall’ order was raised on 14 November 2022 requesting an operative re-check the cold-water feed pipe for an ongoing leak. The landlord said it had been unable to get hold of the resident, and so it asked that the resident contact it back to schedule an appointment.
An appointment was arranged for the 7 December 2022 to check the cold-water feed/pipework, as the resident was experiencing a recurring leak. On the same day the resident emailed the landlord to say that someone was supposed to attend between 10.30am and 2pm; however, by 4.50pm no one had turned up. Later the same day, an operative visited the resident’s property.
The contractor’s notes state that water stains were found on the ceiling close to the wall where the cold water feed was coming through. There was possible condensation, but the resident did not allow the operative to step on to the bath to see if the ceiling was wet. A false ceiling had been installed which needed to be cut to inspect the cold water pipe behind as this was not visible. An access panel would therefore be necessary.
On 7 December 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage two as there had been a lack of consideration by the contractors.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 December 2022, to say that an engineer arrived later than had been agreed (around 5pm). Further, the engineer had stepped into her bath with his outdoor boots on and without asking for some form of covering. The resident said that when this was pointed out, the operative apologised in an aggressive manner and the inspection was not completed as the operative left.
An internal email between the landlord and its contractors stated that as the resident was a leaseholder, it was her responsibility and she had installed a false ceiling. The notes said that it was unlikely to be condensation and more likely a leak.
Internal correspondence between the landlord and its contractor from 26 January 2023, confirmed that the contractor had spoken to the operative that attended the resident’s property and apologised if the resident had been offended.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 27 January 2023 (although it was incorrectly dated 27 December 2022) and partly upheld the complaint. It said:
1. An apology for the operative attending an appointment late and said they had been reminded to notify residents if they were not able to attend within the agreed time scales.
2. An apology for the poor conduct of the operative who stepped into the resident’s bath with their shoes on. The landlord stated that the operative had been reminded to use protective shoe covers and appropriate equipment to carry out inspections and to behave in a courteous manner.
3. The report from a recent visit suggested that the water ingress was condensation from the cold water pipe; however, this needed to be investigated further and access to the ceiling was required. The landlord asked the resident to contact its contractors to arrange an appointment.
The landlord stated that an appointment had been made for a supervisor to visit the resident on 3 February 2023.
The landlord’s notes from 2 March 2023, state that the false ceiling needed to be removed which was the resident’s responsibility. However, the resident refuted this, as she claimed the ceiling had been previously installed by the landlord to prevent a previous leak and the leak had reoccurred.
Notes from the landlord’s records dated 3 May 2023, stated it told the resident in a call that it would not have placed a false ceiling into the property. The landlord then considered whether it should remove the ceiling and plaster board and plaster a new ceiling as the resident was elderly.
An appointment was booked for 6 June 2023 for an inspection and for the landlord to remove the false ceiling to trace the leak and then to install plaster board. The appointment was then rearranged for 21 June 2023, as the resident was not available on the previous date. The landlord’s contractor planned to use a camera survey and dye test to the drains above the property to see what was the cause of the leak to the bathroom and kitchen. The contractor visited and as part of its explorations flooded the balcony above the resident. It noted that there was a defect between the wall and the pipe that could potentially have let water in and this was in line with the leak. There was no indication that a camera and dye test was undertaken and the landlord said that there was no CCTV footage or a dye test report.
The landlord chased its contractors for an update on 30 June and 5 July 2023. The contractor’s notes show that a survey was completed on 27 July 2023 to investigate the rain water and foul stacks. Following this, a repair was raised for contractors to attend.
The contractors found no leak with the stack pipe, however, some defective collars to pipes were observed during the inspection and these needed to be resealed. The repair was completed on 3 August 2023 and the operative sealed the area between the wall and pipe to make sure it was water-tight.
The landlord’s notes from 12 December 2023 stated that the issue was not a roofing matter as the roof was in good condition. It was recommended that a damp specialist attend the property and for drainage to check for internal issues.
The landlord has confirmed that the resident’s bathroom ceiling has not yet been removed and checked. Furthermore, recent correspondence from the resident dated April 2024 said that the source of the leak had not been identified yet or the issue resolved.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing water ingress

When the resident reported water ingress in her kitchen and bathroom in November 2021, the landlord came out and inspected the leak within a few days. This was within the landlord’s timescales, as the situation was not an emergency. Repairs were undertaken to the communal walk way above the resident and the pipes and outlets were sealed. The actions taken by the landlord were reasonable in the circumstances in an attempt to resolve the water ingress.
There was a difference of opinion between the two different contractors who attended the property in March 2022. The roofing specialists stated the walkway was not the cause of the leak and that they suspected it to be emanating from the cold water supply. The mechanical and electrical contractors attended, and after checking the water tank and pipe work, it could not detect a leak. The landlord chose not to take any further action, however, at this point based on the leak being undetected, it is reasonable to conclude that the incident could have been classed as a ‘complex leak’ as per the policy criteria.
As such, under the landlord’s policy, further tests could have been done to locate the source of the leak at this stage. The landlord chose not to take any further action, but there was no evidence to suggest the issue had been rectified. Therefore, there was a failure here by the landlord as it could have done more to investigate the issue.
The landlord’s policy obliged the landlord to keep the resident informed and updated. Therefore the lack of communication amounted to a service failure by the landlord as it failed to explain its position to the resident. Furthermore, the landlord assumed that everything was fine because the resident did not contact it for nine months, however, in this instance it would have been reasonable if it was proactive and contacted the resident to check on the state of her report. During this nine month period, the resident sustained further inconvenience as the issue had not been resolved by the landlord.
The resident raised a formal complaint in November 2022, as the leak was still ongoing and she had not heard from the landlord. The landlord apologised in its stage one response for not following up with the resident after its visit in March 2022. As previously mentioned, the landlord should have communicated more effectively with her, especially as the leak could have been intermittent. The resident said she had to collect water from her ceiling in a small container, and considering the length of time the leak had been going on, the situation would have caused her distress and inconvenience.
When the contractor visited on 7 December 2022 following an arranged appointment, they noted that there were water stains on the ceiling and wondered if the issue was caused by condensation, however, this was never properly investigated as a dispute arose over a false ceiling and who’s responsibility it was to remove it to access the cold water piping beneath. This issue lasted for some time as the resident said that the landlord had previously installed it due to past leaks, but the landlord had no record of this.
In June 2023, the landlord arranged for an inspection of the resident’s property and to remove the false ceiling, trace the leak and then install new plaster board. Therefore, the landlord took around seven months to agree to remove the ceiling and trace the leak, which it could have reasonably have done in the first instance. The landlord’s policy is meant to resolve issues quickly and the leak would definitely have been classified as a ‘complex’ leak at this point given the resident’s complaint, and the difficulty in ascertaining the leak source. The lengthy delay in deciding to remove the ceiling was unacceptable, as there was evidence of ongoing water ingress. The landlord has also stated, as of March 2024, that the bathroom ceiling has still not been removed or checked.
The complex leaks policy states that a joint inspection with a contractor and a repairs inspector should be arranged to identify the underlying cause of the leak, however, there was no evidence that a joint visit occurred. If this did occur, then the landlord should have provided sufficient records to demonstrate this, but it has not, and therefore there was a further failing by the landlord to follow its processes to identify the underlying cause of the leak.
The complex leaks policy also states that the landlord and its contractor should take steps such as arranging a dye test, a camera survey or engage a specialist engineer to investigate. However, there was no evidence that these had been undertaken, despite the landlord not knowing the underlying cause of the leak since November 2021. The landlord should have arranged for these tests to be carried out sooner, as the leak should have been classified as ‘complex’ from much earlier, but by August 2023 there was still no records to show the tests had been completed and the issue was not resolved. There was a failure here by the landlord and the evidence does not support that it undertook a thorough investigation.
The landlord was unable to provide further records from its task management system for ‘complex leaks’ other than the repair notes, which did not indicate that the matter was being treated more seriously, or with more urgency, or that the resident was being kept updated on the progress any more than if it had been a less ‘complex’ leak. If the specific use of the task management system was to help monitor and track progress, then the landlord should have clear records to show this was the case. It was also not clear when the issue was transferred to the task management system and this indicates that there was a failing with the landlord’s record keeping.
There was maladministration with the way the landlord handled the reports of leaks, particularly given it failed to investigate the matter properly and it failed to follow the processes and timescales as set out by its complex leak and repair policies. This led to the resident having to sustain the presence of leaks in her property for an unacceptable length of time and that she reports the ongoing leaks are not yet resolved. Therefore the landlord is ordered to pay £300 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience caused by its identified failures.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding the conduct of its contractors

On 7 December 2022, a contractor arrived late for an appointment and the resident had to contact the landlord to ask if they were still coming. The landlord acknowledged that the contractor was late and apologised to the resident. It said that the contractor had been reminded to notify residents if they were not able to attend within the agreed time scales. Therefore, there was a service failure here; however, the landlord has demonstrated it learned from that failure and took appropriate action to remind the contractor of their responsibilities.
When the contractor did turn up, the resident reported that the contractor stepped into the resident’s bath with their outdoor boots on and without covering them. The contractor apologised to the resident when challenged, in what the resident described as a rude/aggressive manner. The inspection was not completed, which effectively meant that the appointment was a waste of time and inconvenienced the resident. The landlord has not refuted the resident’s version of events and it apologised in its stage two response saying that the operative had been reminded to use protective shoe covers and appropriate equipment to carry out inspections and to behave courteously. There was a service failure here. The landlord has appropriately apologised for the operative’s poor behaviour and took steps to remind the operative of their obligations.
The landlord acknowledged that the contractor’s conduct was not acceptable and apologised, however, it did not offer any compensation to the resident to cover the distress and inconvenience caused. The resident had already raised a formal complaint and therefore this experience would not have improved the relationship between the two parties. To reflect the inconvenience caused by the service failure, in addition to the apology already offered, the landlord will be ordered to pay compensation of £50.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing water ingress.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding the conduct of its contractors.

Reasons

The landlord’s communication at times was poor, as the resident was not kept updated for long periods of time. The landlord did not comply with its complex leaks policy as it failed to take further steps to locate the source of the water ingress. As a result there were unnecessary delays to deal with the leak and it has taken longer than could have reasonably been necessary to ascertain a determinative source of the water ingress. Furthermore, the landlord’s complex leak management system did not have sufficient records to demonstrate how it monitored and prioritised the issue to try and resolve the matter.
The landlord accepted that its contractor’s behaviour was not acceptable and it apologised and said it had provided feedback to the contractor about their obligations and behaviour; however, it did not provide any redress to account for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure in service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is also ordered to inspect the resident’s property to:
1. Ensure there are no further leaks in the property by conducting any necessary tests in line with its policy;
2. If necessary, this may include the requirement to remove a false bathroom ceiling to complete checks and refit the bathroom ceiling.
The landlord is ordered to provide a copy of the inspection report to the resident and complete any repairs it is responsible for within four weeks of the date of the inspection.
The landlord is ordered to write to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to show the lessons it has learned from this case with particular regard to its communication, its record keeping and how it will handle similar repairs in the future.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 compensation within four weeks from the date of this report, made up of:
1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failings in its handling of her reports of water ingress.
2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the poor service provided by its contractors.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reinforce to its contractors their obligations under its policy and the importance of providing a good quality service to all residents.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.