Clarion Housing Association Limited (202000015)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000015

Clarion Housing Association Limited

27 July 2021

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 response to the resident’s report of water contamination at the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep the systems for supplying water in good working order.
It notes that it will carry out repairs it is responsible for, within a reasonable time of being made notified. The length of time it takes to complete is dependent on how urgent the repair is and its service standards in place.
The landlord’s Water Management Policy concerns the risk management of legionella bacteria and scalding. Section 3.2 of the policy stipulates that water management operations staff have a duty to arrange independent testing of water systems in the event of a suspected or identified legionella outbreak.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy explains that responsive repairs fall into two main categories – emergency and non-emergency.
It defines an emergency repair as “one that presents an immediate danger to the resident or the public, or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident”.
The landlord aims to attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and works to make safe or, temporarily repair should be completed at this visit.
In the case of non-emergency repairs, the landlord’s policy sets out that appointments are termed as ‘at the resident’s convenience’ and are offered within 28 calendar days of the report.

Summary of events

The resident called the landlord on 3 March 2020 and reported that they believed the water supply to the property was contaminated. The resident has said that following this, the landlord informed that it would attend the property on 16 March 2020.

The resident also contacted Thames Water about the matter, and it attended to the property on 10 March 2020. It collected water samples from the cold kitchen tap, so that it could test the main water supply. Following the test, Thames Water wrote to the resident on 19 March 2020 and confirmed that its tests found the water to be of good quality and compliant with regulatory standards.
On the 17 March 2020, the resident emailed the landlord with their formal complaint about its response to their concerns regarding the water supply. In the complaint they said that they:

a) Had been “seriously sick from the water poisoning” for the past two months.

b) Had called the landlord on 16 March 2020 regarding the appointment that was scheduled that day and was informed that the landlord would not be investigating the matter until Thames Water attended to investigate.

c) Had already contacted Thames Water, who informed them that it was the landlord’s responsibility to address the issue with the water.

d) Wanted to know what action the landlord would take to address the issue.

The landlord responded to the resident’s email on 24 March 2020, as a repair report and said that due to covid 19 guidance, it was not completing repairs unless it was an emergency. The resident called the landlord the same day and notified it that Thames Water had already attended the property and tested the water. During the call, they said that they were expecting the report from Thames Water, within seven working days. They also emailed the landlord and reiterated their concerns about the water supply and disputed the landlord’s decision to not consider the repair an emergency.
The landlord confirmed to the resident on 30 March 2020, that an emergency appointment had been booked for a plumber to attend the property. Shortly after, it notified the resident that it would no longer attend, as it wanted confirmation that Thames Water had attended and tested the water first. It said that it would need a copy of the tests results from Thames Water, as it could not undertake major works on “hearsay”.
The resident requested that the complaint be taken to stage two of the complaints procedure, as they were unhappy with the landlord’s decision. The landlord did not log the complaint but responded with an apology and reiterated that it would not carry out any work until Thames Water attended and confirmed that the water is contaminated. It explained that this was because, the water supplied several properties in the block, and it wanted to understand why no other resident was affected by the issue the resident reported. In response to this, the resident made another request that the complaint be escalated further in the complaints procedure.
On 27 April 2020, the resident approached this Service for assistance with progressing their complaint, as they had not received a response to their complaints. We contacted the landlord and asked that it provide its response to the resident’s complaint, and it subsequently raised a stage one complaint. The landlord booked an appointment for its gas contractor to attend the property and investigate the issue, on 12 May 2020. It agreed to consider a decant for the resident while it waited for the outcome of the investigation and offered them a property on 7 May 2020. The resident declined the offer, due to its distance from their home. The landlord then arranged for 20 litres of water to be delivered to the property on 12 May 2020.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 12 May 2020 and completed an inspection. It tested the water flow rates and water pressure to the taps in the property and it tested the functionality of the boiler. The contractor made the following recommendations:
1. A return visit to the property to gain access to all flats within the dwelling, to trace a possible shared mains supply and to check the water tank in the top floor flat.
2. The removal of dirt, so that the outside mains stopcock could be accessed.
3. A return visit to take samples from the hot and cold-water supplies, so that they could be sent for testing.
The landlord emailed the resident on 29 May 2020, and said that the inspection on 12 May 2020, confirmed that the water was not contaminated. It said that the contractor did, however, make recommendations for it to check the water tank and said it would arrange this. The resident requested an escalation of the complaint. They said:
1. The contractor only tested the water pressure, the connection of the pipes supplying the boiler and the water temperature.
2. That the water had not been tested for contamination.
3. That the landlord agreed to move them but offered a decant located over 10 miles away from their home. They asked the landlord to offer a property located closer to their home.
The landlord scheduled an appointment for the 3 June 2020, for a specialist water contractor to attend and check whether the water tank supplied the resident’s property. It instructed the contractor to only take samples, if it was found that the tank supplied the water to the property. It informed the resident that the surveyor would be in attendance with the contractor. The report from the contractors visit on 3 June 2020, confirmed that the water was found to be mains supplied and therefore, no samples were taken. The report also said that the operatives who attended, did not see any cross contamination due to incorrect plumbing connections and found no evidence of any discharge from the outlets.
Following the appointment, the resident emailed the landlord and complained about the conduct of the contractor who attended. They also mentioned that the surveyor was not present as the landlord had informed. Regarding the inspection carried out, the resident said that the contractor “self-confirmed” that the water was not contaminated and did not undertake tests or check whether there was any sharing of cross over pipes between theirs and the neighbours flat.
The landlord apologised that the resident was not made aware prior to the appointment that the surveyor would not be attending. It said that the surveyor’s absence would not have impacted the findings of the inspection.
It issued its stage one complaint response on 11 June 2020 and concluded that it believed it had taken the appropriate steps to address the resident’s concerns. It explained:
1. The actions it had taken in response to the repair report since it was reported in March 2020. It acknowledged that there was a delay in it responding to the resident’s initial reports of the issue and also delays in it recording the formal complaint that the resident submitted in March 2020. In recognition of the delays, it offered £50 compensation.
2. That the gas contractor who attended on 12 May 2020, had recommended that it: check whether the water was mains supplied or from the tank, access outside mains stopcock or, take samples of the water for testing. It said that the stopcock was Thames Water’s responsibility so it could not complete the recommendation made in this regard.
3. It confirmed that since the visit on 12 May 2020, it had become aware that Thames Water attended the property and found no contamination and therefore, did not believe a further test was necessary given those findings, unless the water was found to be supplied by the water tank.
4. That the specialist contractor attended on 3 June 2020 with a view of taking samples, only if the water tank was found to be supplying water to the property. It said that the contractor established that the water was mains supplied and found no evidence of discharge from the water outlets.
5. The investigations completed by Thames Water and its two contractors had confirmed there was no contamination of the water in the property and therefore, it considered its investigation of the complaint to be concluded. It said that it was confident that it appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns and as an added measure, offered them a decant on two occasions and provided bottled water.
The resident requested that the landlord escalate their complaint to stage two of the complaint’s procedure, as they disputed its findings. They noted in their complaint that:
1. Thames Water had only tested the kitchen cold water tap and informed them that the remaining pipes would need to be tested by the landlord.
2. After receiving the report from Thames Water, they had contacted the landlord on several occasions requesting that it test the water however, the landlord had not carried out adequate tests to determine whether the water was contaminated.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 19 August 2020. In the response it:
1. Acknowledged that Thames Water undertook its own investigation and found water tested from the kitchen cold water tap was fine however, said that it recognised that the resident still had concerns about the bathroom water supply.
2. Had been informed by the local authority’s environmental health team on 18 March 2020, that the resident reported that the issue was mainly with the hot water taps and, the appointment the landlord booked for 16 March 2021, had not been attended to. It confirmed that the resident was not made aware why an appointment had been scheduled for the 16 March 2020 and apologised for the misunderstanding.
3. Said that the property was considered to be mains fed and, on this basis, the findings from Thames Water’s investigation, were considered to confirm that the hot and cold-water supply to the property was “fit for purpose”. It also said no other reports of similar problems had been received from other residents within the block.
4. Regarding its offer of a decant, it explained that this was a gesture of goodwill and was offered while the investigations were being carried out. It said that there were limitations in the offers it could make and it apologised that its offer did not meet the resident’s expectations.
5. Confirmed that the reason for the contractors visit on 3 June 2020, was to inspect the pipework and clarify the source of the water supply. It said that no samples were taken, as the water was found to be mains supplied, and this supply had already been tested by Thames Water.
6. Said that following the recommendation from the contractors visit to the property on 12 May 2020, it would arrange for a follow up appointment for its specialist contractor to take water samples for testing. It noted that the resident declined the appointment offered, as they wanted an alternative contractor to attend. It agreed under these circumstances, that it would arrange for a surveyor to attend with the contractor.
7. Acknowledged that the resident had raised dissatisfaction with the surveyor overseeing the investigation into the reported issue at stage one but said it did not uphold that aspect of the complaint. Though, it agreed to appoint an alternative surveyor to oversee the case going forward. It said the newly appointed surveyor would contact the resident to agree a way forward so that they could arrange for the water samples to be taken.
8. Confirmed that it was happy to re-offer a temporary decant to the resident while the sample tests were being carried out.
9. Offered the resident an additional £185 compensation, in recognition of its delivery of service in dealing with the matter and its complaint handling.
Following the completion of the landlord’s complaint procedure, the landlord arranged for an alternative contractor to attend on 9 October and 7 December 2020, to take water samples for testing. The test results confirmed the presence of Pseudomonas bacteria at every outlet sampled. Pseudomonas is a type of bacteria that is found commonly in the environment, like in soil and in water.
The landlord reported that the contractor recommended follow on works for the disinfection of the kitchen and bathroom taps, and other plumbing in the property. From the information this Service has been provided, it is understood that that the landlord discussed the findings of the water test and the recommended follow-on works, with the resident on 4 February 2021. It subsequently offered the resident a temporary decant which they accepted. Follow-on remediation works to the property, are ongoing.
The resident confirmed they wished to pursue their complaint with this Service on 12 January 2021, as they considered the complaint unresolved.

Assessment and findings

The response to the reports of water contamination

On 3 March 2020 the resident reported that they believed the water supply throughout property was contaminated. The landlord’s surveyor asked the landlord’s Water Team to test the water at the property. The Water Team refused as it understood the property had water supplied direct from the mains, and the landlord was only responsible for testing communal water stores and tanks. The Water Team advised the landlord to arrange for a plumber to inspect the property.
The landlord’s Water Team’s response was appropriate. Its Water Management Policy sets out that it is responsible for testing water tanks but not mains supplied water systems. The resident’s property has mains supplied water.
The suggestion that a plumber attend to investigate the property was reasonable as it would have allowed the landlord to assess whether there was any damage or fault with the plumbing in the property. However, the landlord did not arrange this.
The resident submitted complaints on 17 March 2020, and 2 and 9 April 2020. The landlord did not accept these as complaints. It responded to the resident’s complaints as repair reports and initially said it would not attend to the repair, as it was following the Covid -19 guidelines and only attending to emergency repairs. The resident challenged this, and the landlord subsequently raised an emergency repair to attend and investigate the issue on 30 March 2020, but it later cancelled this explaining to the resident that it wanted confirmation that Thames Water had attended and investigated the issue first.
There is evidence to show that on 24 March 2020, the resident informed the landlord that Thames Water had already inspected the property on 10 March. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord had been provided with a copy of any report at this time.
The landlord eventually arranged for its contractors to complete inspections at the property. However, this did not take place, until May and June 2020.
Around the same time the landlord had arranged inspections of the water at the property, it agreed to offer the resident a decant. The Ombudsman notes that the decision to offer a resident a decant due to repair reports, would usually only occur if the extent of the work required was of such significance that the resident could not remain in the property as this was carried out; or, if the condition of the property was such that it posed a danger to the resident if they remained. The landlord’s decision to offer a decant, suggests that it considered this issue to be considerably more serious than previously thought. This is further supported by the fact that the landlord delivered bottled water to the resident, which also suggests that the landlord acknowledged there could have been an issue with the water supply.
The visits the landlord arranged to the property on 12 May 2020 and 3 June 2020, included visual inspections of the plumbing pipework, visual tests of the water flow and pressure. No contaminant tests were carried out to the water during these visits, nor were any samples of the water taken. The landlord concluded that the water was not contaminated based on the findings from visual inspections. Without completing a contaminant test of some form, the landlord had no evidence to confirm whether or not the water to the property was contaminated.
After the first inspection was completed on 12 May 2020, the contractor recommended that the landlord attend and take samples from the hot and cold water, so that they could be sent for testing. However, the landlord did not arrange for this to happen until October 2020, which was a significant delay.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about water contamination was not appropriate. It did not follow the advice of its Water Team, and unreasonably delayed arranging inspections of the property. It provided information that water was safe based on visual inspections and did not arrange for testing of the water until seven months after the original report. There are also concerns about the consistency of the landlord’s approach and its understanding of the severity of the issue, given that the landlord initially refused to attend, then, latterly, offered a decant and alternative water supply.

Complaint handling

In the stage one response the landlord recognised that there were delays in it addressing the resident’s concerns. The level of compensation it offered however, was not adequate.
Its finding that the water was not contaminated, was not supported by any evidence.
At stage two, it increased its offer of compensation and agreed to take water samples, as recommended in May. However, it unreasonably delayed carrying out the tests.

Determination (decision

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the water.
In accordance with 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s failed to act on the reports about the water within a reasonable time. It also drew conclusions about the safety of the water without any evidence.
In the complaint responses, it acknowledged that there were shortfalls in its service however, the offer of compensation was not proportionate. It delayed acting on a recommendation its contractor made to test the water, despite this being necessary to support its investigation findings.

Orders

In recognition of the above finding of maladministration relating to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the water, I order that the landlord pay the resident £250.
In recognition of the above finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, I order that the landlord pay the resident £100.

These orders should be completed within three weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

48. The Service understands that the remediation works to the plumbing system are ongoing. We recommend the parties continue to work together, so that the works required can be completed.