Futures Homescape Limited (202000161)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000161

Futures Homescape Limited

17 December 2020


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 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 resident complains about the level of compensation offered by the landlord in respect of excess water charges following a leak at the property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a three-bedroom house (the property).
  2. The landlord has provided its contact records, which evidence the following:
    1. On 5 November 2018, the resident reported a “leaking immersion”. The landlord advised it would be in touch to arrange an inspection.
    2. On 30 May 2019, the resident called to log a repair.
    3. On 28 June 2019, the resident called following a “missed call” and a repair was rearranged for that day.
    4. On 7 October 2019, the resident called to log a repair.
  3. The landlord has also provided its repair records, which include the following notes:
    1. 25 September 2018: Identify and repair leak to water system; Customer didn’t allow access.
    2. 25 September 2018: Pipe leaking on hot water system.
    3. 26 September 2018: Renew temp pressure valve…Customer didn’t allow access.
    4. 2 October 2018: Leak on water tank (waiting for part) now.
    5. 2 October 2018: Check electrics to the property water leaking into electrics.
    6. 4 October 2018: Return visit following leak. Carry out electric test.
    7. 5 November 2018: Find fault and repair the leak to the boiler; Cancelled job raised in error.
    8. 5 November 2018: Find fault and rectify issue with thermostat/programmer to boiler; Cancelled Job raised in error.
    9. 5 November 2018: Repair/renew immersion heater; Cancelled job raised in error.
    10. 5 November 2018: Renew temp pressure valve; Cancelled job raised in error.
    11. 30 May 2019: Boiler keeps leaking due to faulty valve…ongoing issue.
    12. 5 June 2019: Renew temp/pressure relief valve to unvented cylinder.
    13. 13 August 2019: Repair leak to combi valve on cylinder – replaced in June – reported following service.
    14. 19 August 2019: renew 7 bar PRV to cylinder; Customer didn’t allow access.
    15. 11 October 2019: Renew expansion vessel and PRV.
  4. On 6 November 2019, the resident emailed the landlord stating that he had received a call from the water company in relation to his water usage over the last six months. He said that there was a leak in the property for close to a year, if not longer. He said he had reported it as soon as it was noticed and there had been several visits but with wrong parts and no solution had been found. The resident said that the water company had informed him that they were using over four times the expected usage over the last six months coming to around £900. The resident said that the leak caused constantly flowing water and was causing the high bill and there were cracks and discolouration on the ceilings in the property. He requested a conversation about compensating him for some of the bill.
  5. On 6 February 2020, the water company wrote to the resident stating that the water readings of 11 December 2019 and 6 February 2020 showed that his consumption had reduced to his normal level of consumption. The water company provided the calculations it used to work out how much excess water was recorded due to the leaks.
  6. The calculations provided by the water company set out the volumes and costs of water for both “Water Supply” and “Water Used” for the period 23 May 2016 to 11 December 2019, and compared this to the resident’s normal usage. The calculations show the total estimated volume of water leaked and the cost of this. The total cost for leaked water for the period 23 May 2016 to 11 December 2019 was £1,585.42.
  7. On 28 February 2020, the resident sent the landlord the calculations from the water company stating that it took a long time for the leak to be fixed so he did not feel he should be held responsible.
  8. On 19 March 2020, the landlord responded to the resident stating that it could offer £238.17 in compensation.
  9. In response, the resident asked how the landlord had calculated this stating that the document from the water company included a much higher figure. The resident said that he had always ensured that he could provide access and he had been in regular contact when the leak became more of an issue. The resident also said that if the repairs had taken place within a reasonable time, the costs would have been much lower. The resident said that in addition to the leak issue, he would have to make good the damage to the ground floor ceilings where water had come through, including one light fixture in the living room. He asked if this was something the landlord could rectify.
  10. On 8 April 2020, the landlord provided a final response to the complaint. The landlord explained that it had initially calculated the compensation by adding the amounts on the letter from 1 November 2018 to 1 November 2019 and subtracted the “Water Used” figures from the “Water Supply” figures, which gave £238.17. The landlord said it had since spoken to an agent for the water company who said this was not correct.
  11. The landlord referred to the repairs history relating to the leaks and calculated the number of days since the first repair of 7 November 2018 until the last repair of 17 December 2019 (447 days). The landlord then deducted the number of days between repairs and no access (323). The landlord offered £440.20, which was compensation for 124 days at the rate set out by the water company (£1,585.42 divided by 447). The repair records relied on by the landlord were as follows:
    1. 7/11/2018 – Job out‐carded no access. To fit temperature pressure relief valve (70 bar 90 degree).
    2. 11/10/18 ‐ Leak on water tank (part now ordered).
    3. 4/12/2018 – Renew temperature pressure relief valve (70 bar 90 degree). This is to fit the above part.
    4. 5/6/2019 – Leak on the boiler. Job closed down as completed by the Operative.
    5. 17/6/2019 – Attended and completed the works on 17th June. Renew temp pressure relief valve.
    6. 16/8/2019 – Repair leak to combi valve on the cylinder – replaced. Job attended and completed on 16 August.
    7. 11/9/2019 – Job out‐carded – no access 11th September. To renew 7bar PRV to the cylinder.
    8. 17/12/2019 – Job to replace expansion vessel and PRV completed.
  12. The resident’s MP referred the complaint to the Ombudsman explaining that the resident’s wife was at home throughout the duration of the leak and that the landlord gave little notice before arriving at the property and sometimes suggested they turn up on the off chance that someone was at home. The resident feels that the landlord has not shown empathy and that the landlord’s offer does not cover the water costs incurred. The resident considers that if the landlord had dealt with the leak more promptly, he would not have received such a costly bill.
  13. The resident has also informed the Ombudsman that the leak affected the hallway, kitchen and living room and that it was a fault with the boiler which led to a leak further down the pipework. He has stated that the landlord did not understand his boiler and kept ordering the wrong part.
  14. The Ombudsman asked the landlord if it had any evidence of providing notice of the appointments of 7 November 2018 and 11 September 2019. The landlord responded that the appointment of 7 November 2018 was not an appointment so it would not have contacted the resident; this was the date the work planner made a new appointment for 31 January 2019. There is no evidence in relation to the appointment of 11 September 2019. The landlord has also informed the Ombudsman that from the repair records the only leak that was substantial enough to cause additional works was a leak from the tank; this leak did not cause damage to the ceiling and therefore the amount of water lost would have amounted to very little (referring to the order of 2 October 2018).

Assessment and findings

Landlord policies

  1. The landlord’s Repair policy states that standard repairs are to be completed within 10-25 working days. Its list of standard repairs includes various types of containable leaks including a boiler leaking and leaking heating pipes. An uncontainable leak is listed as a priority repair for which the landlord will respond the same day within hours or make safe on call. Its examples of fast repairs which have a zero to four-day response time include checking electrics following a leak.
  2. The landlord’s Compensation policy refers to three types of compensation payment: mandatory, quantifiable loss and discretionary payments. Under the section about quantifiable loss payments, the policy states that the landlord may be required to make compensation payments for losses which can be assessed as having financial value placed upon them and which have been caused by a service failure. For example, exceptionally high water bills as a result of an internal leak from the day the leak was reported. The policy states that any costs claimed under this heading must have been reasonably incurred and the customer must provide evidence of the losses incurred before any request can be investigated and considered under this policy.
  3. The policy states further that the landlord will not consider compensation where, for example, the landlord is not responsible for the inconvenience or financial loss; or where the incident or service failure is due to circumstances beyond its control; or the resident is responsible for causing the inconvenience or financial loss.

Assessment

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s Repair policy, the landlord should have attended to address a containable leak in the property within 10-25 working days.
  2. The records provided to the Ombudsman evidence that the landlord was aware of a leak to the water system at the property from 25 September 2018. The landlord’s notes refer to it not being able to gain access to the property on 25 and 26 September 2018. In early October 2018, the landlord ordered a part required and was waiting for this. An appointment was made to check the electrics in the property on or around 4 October 2018. On 5 November 2018, the resident reported the leak to the landlord. The landlord raised repair orders at this time but these were cancelled. There is no explanation in the notes as to why.
  3. Internal correspondence provided by the landlord refers to an appointment for 4 December 2018 to fit a part which was partially completed, but there is no contemporaneous evidence of this. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that an appointment was booked for 31 January 2019 but there is no evidence to confirm this or whether this appointment went ahead.
  4. On 30 May 2019, the resident reported that the leak was ongoing. An appointment was made for 28 June 2019. A further repair to the leak was raised on 13 August 2019 following a service appointment. The landlord’s note of 19 August 2019 refers to the resident not providing access. The landlord was aware of an outstanding repair from 11 October 2019 and the landlord has stated that the final repair took place on 17 December 2019.
  5. When responding to the resident’s request for compensation for water charges caused by the leak, the landlord accepted the daily rate of water loss calculated by the water company but only agreed to compensate for a period of 124 days. It is difficult to confirm precisely the dates for which the landlord agreed to compensate, but it is assumed that the landlord deducted the periods including 7 November to 4 December 2018; 4 December 2018 to 5 June 2019; and 11 September 2019 to 17 December 2019. This is based on the records referred to in its final complaint response of 8 April 2020. 
  6. However, this response does not entirely accord with the records provided to the Ombudsman. The records provided confirm that the landlord responded appropriately to the initial reports of the leak in September 2018 by making appointments and subsequently ordering parts. While the resident disputes not providing access at this time, there is no evidence to enable the Ombudsman to conclude why the appointment of 25/26 September 2018 did not go ahead or whether the landlord gave appropriate notice of the appointment.
  7. However, there is evidence that the landlord ordered a part in early October 2018 and the resident informed the landlord that the leak was ongoing on 5 November 2018. Despite this, there is no evidence of the landlord attending or completing repairs in November or December 2018. While the landlord’s complaint response refers to there being no access on 7 November 2018, the records provided to the Ombudsman do not refer to this and the landlord has also confirmed to the Ombudsman that there was no appointment made on this date. The landlord’s complaint response referred to an appointment of 4 December 2018 and the landlord referred to an appointment of 31 January 2019 in correspondence to the Ombudsman, but there is no contemporaneous evidence of either of these appointments, only the reference to a partial repair on 4 December 2018 in the landlord’s internal correspondence.
  8. There was therefore a shortcoming in either the landlord’s repairs handling or record keeping, as there is no evidence of it completing a repair following the resident’s report of a leak on 5 November 2018. The landlord relied on its assertion that the resident refused access on 7 November 2018 when calculating the appropriate level of compensation, but the evidence provided does not support this and therefore it was not appropriate for the landlord to deduct the entire period between 7 November 2018 and 5 June 2019 when calculating the compensation.
  9. Following the resident’s report of 30 May 2019, the landlord acted appropriately by making an appointment and attempting a repair as an appointment was made for 28 June 2019. However, this repair was not effective since further issues were identified in August 2019. The landlord attempted to gain access on 11 September 2019 but was unable to. The resident disputes that he failed to provide access and describes the landlord attempting access without giving reasonable notice. There is no evidence to confirm how much, if any, notice was given for that appointment therefore the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the cause of the delay at this time.
  10. Overall, while the evidence available is limited in some areas, the time taken to repair the leak fully (7 November 2018 to 17 December 2019) was unreasonable and not in accordance with the landlord’s Repair policy. Other than the reference to a partial repair on 4 December 2018, there is no evidence of the landlord completing repairs to stop the leak between early October 2018 and 28 June 2019. The repair of 28 June 2019 was unsuccessful.  The period between 11 October and 17 December 2019 was also longer than the timescale set out in the landlord’s repair policy (of 10 to 25 working days), therefore there was a further delay by the landlord at this stage. 
  11. The Ombudsman has considered the calculations provided by the water company which totals the cost of leaked water for the period 23 May 2016 to 11 December 2019. Given that the leak complained of was first reported on or around 25 September 2018, it is unclear why the landlord had used the figure for the entire three-and-a-half year period starting in 2016 when calculating the compensation due. However, the total cost of leaked water between 14 May 2018 and 11 December 2019 was £1,475.63 out of the total of £1585.42. This confirms that most of the excess water charges occurred during this period.
  12. It was reasonable and in accordance with its Compensation policy for the landlord to consider the repair records available and only offer compensation for delays for which it was responsible. The policy refers to compensation for high water bills resulting from a leak from the day the leak was reported, but it also refers to the landlord compensating for losses cause by service failure and only where the landlord was responsible for financial loss. Therefore, the landlord was only responsible for the excess water costs for periods where it delayed in completing the repair and it was reasonable for the landlord to consider if there were also delays caused by the resident not providing access.
  13. It is acknowledged that there is no evidence of the resident chasing the repair between December 2018 and May 2019 and therefore it was reasonable for the landlord not to compensate for this entire period. However, it is of concern that the landlord’s explanation for the compensation in its final complaint response is not fully supported by the evidence available. The landlord has not recognised the full extent of the delays for which it was responsible or the length of time the property was affected by the leak. It is noted that the landlord’s internal correspondence in relation to the leak states that these types of leak can occur anywhere in the property including overflowing toilets which run directly into the pan. Given this, the extent of the ongoing leak may not have always been evident to the resident and the landlord should have taken care to ensure that any repairs it completed were effective.
  14. The landlord offered compensation for a period of 124 days (approximately four months), totaling £440.20. This went some way to appropriately compensate the resident for excess water charges and it is not possible to confirm precisely how much of the excess water charges the landlord is responsible for from the evidence available. However, overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the offer of £440.20 was not proportionate given the length of the delays in repairing the leak and cost of excess water incurred as a result.
  15. It is also of concern that the evidence available does not fully support the landlord’s calculations (as set out above at paragraph 26) and the landlord did not fully identify the delays for which it was responsible. Ultimately, the landlord was responsible for repairing the leak and while there were two possible dates when access was not gained (25 September 2018 and 19 August 2019), these failed appointments did not lead to substantial delays and there is no evidence to confirm the resident was given reasonable notice of the appointments.
  16. Given that the landlord’s records are limited in evidencing when works were completed and that the records provided do no match up with some of the landlord’s comments, the Ombudsman has included in the Orders below an Order relating to the landlord’s record keeping.
  17. In addition to this, it is noted that the resident also complained to the landlord about the outstanding works required to the property as a result of the leak and there is no evidence of the landlord responding to this aspect of the complaint. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that this work is outstanding. It is noted that a landlord’s obligation to repair carries with it an obligation on the landlord to make good or redecorate on completion of repair works (McGreal v Wake [1984]) and it is unclear from the correspondence whether this has taken place. The landlord should have responded to the resident’s request to complete any making good and decoration for which is it responsible following the repairs it completed in relation to the leak at the property.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the level of compensation offered by the landlord in respect of excess water charges following a leak at the property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acted appropriately in considering the evidence provided by the water company and its own repair records to determine how much compensation for excess water charges was appropriate. There were periods where the landlord was making reasonable efforts to complete a repair. However, there were also delays in the landlord completing an effective repair and overall the time taken to resolve the leak was unreasonable. While the landlord accepted responsibility for some of the delays, the evidence provided does not support the time periods or explanation provided in the final complaint response as to the amount of compensation offered. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s request to make good damage to ceilings, which it should have done.

Orders

  1. The landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him compensation totalling £900 (inclusive of the £440.20 offered previously) (within four weeks of the date of this Order), comprising:
    1. £800 towards the excess water costs; and
    2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failure to respond to the request for ceiling repairs.
  2. The landlord to complete any outstanding repairs for which it is responsible within 8 weeks of the date of this Order.
  3. The landlord to take steps to ensure it is keeping complete records of communications with residents in relation to repair appointments and evidence of works completed (within 8 weeks of the date of this Order).
  4. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.