Citizen Housing (202227308)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227308

Citizen Housing

27 February 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 the resident’s:
    1. Report of a leak in the bedroom.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy for a 1 bed flat which began on 15 August 2022. The landlord is a housing association. There are no recorded vulnerabilities.
  2. The flat above the resident is privately owned and is managed by a management agent (“the managing agent”).
  3. On 21 November 2022 the resident reported that water was dripping from his bedroom ceiling. The landlord visited the property within 4 hours and checked the electrics were safe. It found the water was coming from the property above. It told the neighbour at the property above (“the neighbour”) to report the leak to their landlord.
  4. On 28 November 2022 the resident reported the leak had not been resolved. The landlord contacted the managing agent who said they had sent out a plumber to investigate but they could not find a leak. The managing agent suggested the leak could be coming from the roof. The landlord spoke to the neighbour and attempted to contact the resident, but he did not answer.
  5. On 29 November 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and arranged to visit him with a surveyor on 30 November 2022. At the visit the resident could not talk to the landlord as he was working. On the same day the landlord arranged for a plumber to trace the leak and for the gutters to be cleared.
  6. On 3 December 2022 the managing agent contacted the landlord stating it had visited the resident and took pictures of the leak, however, it still could not find the cause of the leak.
  7. The resident raised a complaint on 15 December 2022. He said water had been leaking through his bedroom ceiling for a month despite several plumbers visiting the property. He was sleeping on his sofa and asked the landlord to move him into alternative accommodation and refund his rent. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and said it would respond within 10 working days. It tried to call the resident to discuss the issues, but it could not get through to him.
  8. On 20 December 2022 the landlord cleared all the guttering on the property.
  9. The resident chased an update about the leak 4 times in December 2022 and January 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 5 January 2023. The resident said the leak was still on-going. The landlord asked the managing agent to arrange for another plumber to investigate the leak.
  10. On 6 January 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
    1. The leak was reported on 21 November 2022. It attended the property within 24 hours. It could not fix the leak as it was coming from a privately owned flat above. It contacted the managing agent of the above flat and on 28 November 2022 the agent said its plumber could not locate a leak and suggested it could be coming from the roof. It cleared the gutters on 20 December 2022. The managing agent had confirmed it was sending out another plumber that day.
    2. A housing officer would contact the resident that afternoon to discuss temporary accommodation.
    3. It apologised for the impact the leak was having on the resident and for the delay in its stage 1 response.
    4. It was unable to offer compensation as it responded to the incident correctly.
  11. The landlord contacted the resident on 6 January 2023. The resident said the leak had stopped, he no longer needed temporary accommodation and asked for the dehumidifier he said the landlord said they would provide. The landlord said it would visit him with a surveyor to assess the damage caused by the leak and look at the ventilation in the property. The resident said the landlord would not be able to attend the property until the week of 16 January 2023.
  12. The resident was provided with a dehumidifier in the week of 9 January 2023.
  13. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 9 January 2023. He said he did not agree with the landlord’s response. It took 7 weeks to fix the leek, and during this time he suffered distress and inconvenience.
  14. The landlord visited the property with a surveyor on 18 January 2023. The resident asked the landlord to collect the dehumidifier. It collected it the following day.
  15. On 3 February 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
    1. It responded to the leak on an emergency priority response. The property was assessed and there was no immediate risk. No concerns were raised so it felt temporary accommodation was not warranted at that time.
    2. The leak has been resolved.
    3. It provided a dehumidifier and offered £5 per day for the costs for running it.
    4. It consulted a surveyor and the repairs had been raised for the bedroom ceiling and to install ventilation in the property. The resident would be contacted within 12 working days to confirm an appointment.
    5. It appreciated that there has been inconveniences and an impact on the resident.
    6. It was satisfied all processes had been followed correctly and it was unable to arrange any further compensation as it had not identified any service failures, liability or negligence.
  16. The resident referred his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman as he was unhappy with the level of compensation offered by the landlord.

Events after the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure

  1. On 6 February 2023 the landlord attempted to mould wash the bedroom ceiling, however, it decided the ceiling needed replastering. All the works including the installation of new vents throughout the property were completed on 17 February 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

  1. The landlord has a statutory duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, as well as the installation and supply of water, gas, and electricity. It is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 states a landlord must ensure the property is fit for human habitation on the day of letting and throughout the tenancy. When determining whether a property is unfit the landlord must assess any risk of harm to the health or safety of an occupier of the dwelling. This includes any hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will aim to attend and complete repairs in line with its published timescales. Its website states it will deal with emergency repairs within 24 hours or make them safe until a permanent repair is possible, which it aims to do in 12 days. It does not specify how long non-emergency repairs will take to complete. The landlord does not have a decant policy.
  4. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaint’s policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days, and it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will pay compensation of £0 – £250 where a service failure has resulted in some impact on the customer. It states in some instances, an apology or resolution alone is sufficient. The policy states it will pay £5 per day towards the running cost of a dehumidifier.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak in the bedroom

  1. The resident reported the leak in his bedroom on 21 November 2022. The landlord acted appropriately by treating this report as an emergency repair and attending the property within its 24-hour target response timescale. It investigated the leak and made sure the property was safe. The landlord did not have permission to access the neighbour’s property to investigate the leak or carry out repairs. It spoke to the neighbour and asked them to report the leak to their landlord. No evidence has been provided to this Service that the landlord contacted the managing agent at this time to report the leak and ask them to investigate. The landlord acted unreasonably by not contacting the managing agent at the earliest possible opportunity as it caused delays with the leak being resolved.
  2. The leak was resolved on 6 January 2023, this was 32 working days after the resident reported the leak. The evidence provided to this Service shows that there were delays, however, these were mostly outside the landlords control. Throughout this period the landlord chased the managing agent for updates and when the managing agent suggested the leak could be from the roof, the landlord instructed someone to inspect the roof and clear the guttering. The landlord acted reasonably by working with the managing agent to resolve the leak.
  3. The resident chased an update on the leak in November 2022. This Service recognises the impact the leak had on the resident as he could not use his bedroom, however, the landlord needed to give the managing agent time to investigate the cause of the leak and carry out the necessary repairs. When the resident reported the leak was still on going on 28 November 2022, the landlord acted reasonably by communicating effectively with all parties and it considered all options available to it to try to resolve the leak as quickly as possible.
  4. The evidence provided to this Service does show that there was a lack of communication with the resident towards the end of December 2022. The landlord contacted the resident on 15 December 2022, but it could not get through to him. After the guttering had been cleared the resident contacted the landlord for an update 4 times after this, however, there was no evidence the landlord responded until 5 January 2024. This was 13 working days later. While it is recognised that the Christmas period may have caused some delays, the landlord was aware the resident could not use his bedroom and the impact this was having on him. We would have expected the landlord to be proactive and contact the resident after the guttering was cleared to see if this had resolved the leak. The landlord acted unreasonably by failing to manage the resident’s expectations and failing to keep him updated for 3 weeks. This caused him distress and inconvenience.
  5. A landlord must consider loss of amenity and what interim measures could be considered and put in place. The landlord advised the tenant that when it initially investigated the leak no concerns were raised which warranted a request for temporary accommodation. When the resident asked to be moved due to the delays in the leak being resolved, the landlord acted appropriately by reconsidering a decant and discussing what temporary accommodation options were available with the resident.
  6. Once the leak was resolved the landlord acted reasonably by arranging a visit to assess the damage and it provided the resident with a dehumidifier. From the landlord’s record’s it is not clear when the landlord first discussed providing a dehumidifier. However, it provided one within a reasonable time after the leak had stopped and reimbursed the resident towards the cost of running the dehumidifier in line with its compensation policy. The landlord acted appropriately by taking steps within a reasonable period to restore the property to the condition it was in before the leak occurred.
  7. The resident asked the landlord for a refund of his rent and compensation for the distress and inconvenience incurred because of the leak. The landlord stated it would not award any compensation as it was satisfied all processes had been followed correctly and it had not identified any service failures, liability or negligence. Its decision to not award compensation for its handling of the leak was reasonable as it was in line with its compensation policy and it provided a detailed explanation of the reasons why. However, this Service feels the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for its lack of communication in December 2022 and the impact this had on the resident.
  8. In summary the landlord attended promptly in response to the resident’s reports of the leak. It maintained effective communication with the managing agent to resolve the leak. It considered offering a decant and after the leak was resolved it provided a dehumidifier and took reasonable steps to restore the property to its previous condition. However, the evidence provided to this Service shows the landlord did not always keep the resident updated which caused him distress and inconvenience. The landlord failed to acknowledge this failing and it did not take any steps to put things right.
  9. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak in the bedroom.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint and the amount of compensation offered

  1. The resident made a complaint on 15 December 2022. The landlord acknowledged this complaint within its 5 working day target response time. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 6 January 2023, this was 13 working days later which was outside the landlord’s target response time of 10 working days. The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that when a landlord cannot meet its target timescales it must provide an explanation and a date by when the stage 1 response would be received. Although the landlord failed to do this, this Service cannot see that the short delay caused the resident any detriment.
  2. The landlord acted appropriately and in line with the Code by attempting to contact the resident by phone and email to discuss his complaint. This showed the landlord was taking steps to understand the issues being raised and taking steps to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity.
  3. The landlord failed to notify the resident that there would be a delay in its response. Although it was only a small delay of 3 days and was likely due to the Christmas period, the lack of communication led to the resident chasing a response to his complaint in January 2023. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to manage the resident’s expectations.
  4. The landlord tried to put things right by apologising for the delay in its stage 1 response and it contacted the resident to talk through the outcome with him. This was a positive step which allowed the resident to raise his concerns and report further issues.
  5. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on the 9 January 2023, the landlord acknowledged this within its 5 working day target response time. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 3 February 2023. This was within its 20 working day target response time. The landlord acted appropriately by trying to contact the resident to discuss the outcome of the complaint.
  6. In summary, landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case there was a short delay with the landlord’s stage 1 response, it recognised this service failure and offered an apology. The landlord showed it learnt from this as it maintained effective communication with the resident throughout the rest of the complaint process. It is the view of this Service that the offer of an apology was proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation and is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
  7. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration for the failing identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak in the bedroom
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident.
    2. Pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by its handling of the resident’s report of a leak in the bedroom.