Tower Hamlets Homes (202303030)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303030

Tower Hamlets Homes

23 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of a blocked sink and the resulting damage.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the property. She is of pensionable age and has a disability.
  2. The resident reported her drain was blocked on 14 February 2023. The landlord sent a contractor who attended as an emergency. This was in the early hours of the morning. The contractor attempted to unblock the drain, but the equipment it was using was noisy. Due to the unsociable hour, the contractor agreed with the resident it would come back the following day to resolve the issue. The contractor did not reconnect the pipes, which resulted in a leak in the resident’s property. The contractor fixed the issue the following day. The resident reported that damage to the property had already occurred at that point.
  3. The resident’s representative complained on 21 February 2023. The landlord responded on 7 March 2023. It confirmed the events that took place on 14 February 2023. It apologised that it did not put in a temporary fix on the first visit. It advised that any damage would need to be claimed through the landlord’s insurance and provided the details for this. The landlord offered £50 compensation.
  4. The resident’s representative requested an escalation on 14 March 2023. They felt that the compensation was too low, and that the resident had suffered distress and inconvenience. They requested £250. The landlord responded on 21 April 2023 stating that it felt the compensation of £50 was appropriate. It also reiterated that damage claims should be made through insurance.
  5. The resident’s representative remains unhappy. They feel that the compensation does not address the distress caused to the resident or acknowledge the damage. The resident had to keep her windows open for several days, due to the smell from the flooding. The resident paid to have the property professionally cleaned. The resident’s representative has also advised that there have been issues with drainage for several years in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. As per paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The potential ongoing drainage issue was not addressed in the complaints process. The Ombudsman has seen the stage 1 complaint and stage 2 escalation made by the resident’s representative and these did not mention the ongoing drainage issues. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider this matter.
  2. Although the Ombudsman cannot consider this as part of the investigation, we have seen evidence of a further drainage issue in June 2023, after the stage 2 complaint. We also acknowledge the resident’s concerns that this is an ongoing concern. Although we will not investigate this aspect, we have considered this matter in the recommendations section of this report.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a blocked sink and the resulting damage.

  1. On receiving the report of the blocked sink, the contractor correctly attended as an emergency appointment. The contractor did attempt to unblock the sink, but the equipment was too noisy. Due to consideration for other residents the contractor stopped work and agreed to come back the following day. This was a reasonable action from the contractor as it needed to ensure it was not causing any unnecessary disturbance to other residents.
  2. The contractor failed to leave the repair with a temporary fix. It did not reconnect the pipes, which resulted in a leak to the property. The contractor’s actions were incorrect. The landlord has acknowledged this in its complaint process, apologised and offered £50 compensation.
  3. The landlord returned later that morning, at a more reasonable time and completed the repairs. The landlord returned in an appropriate amount of time.
  4. The resident reports that the leak resulted in damage to the resident’s property. The landlord directed the resident to its insurance for the resident to make a claim. This is standard procedure for a landlord, when damage has occurred due to possible errors by it. The landlord advised the resident appropriately.
  5. The Ombudsman recognises that there was distress caused to the resident. It acknowledges that the resident was unable to sleep that night due to the leak. It also acknowledges that there would have been inconvenience to the resident due to the resulting damage, and actions needed to rectify this. Although we acknowledge this, the repair was fixed in under 24 hours by the contractor. The landlord responded with urgency, acknowledged its failings, and offered compensation. Due to the short amount of time of the incident, the Ombudsman considers the amount to be reasonable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of a blocked sink and the resulting damage.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended the landlord consider the resident’s concerns that there are ongoing drainage issues within the property. The landlord should consider if further investigation is needed, to prevent recurring issues.