GreenSquareAccord Limited (202108707)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108707

GreenSquareAccord Limited

7 February 2022


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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to her request for compensation for personal belongings that were damaged by a water leak and for the period during which she was unable to live in the property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and has an Assured (Non Shorthold) Tenancy Agreement.
  2. On 10 June 2021 a pipe in the property’s boiler cupboard burst and there was a water leak. The property was “completely flooded” and many of the resident’s personal belongings were damaged. The pipe was repaired on 14 June 2021. On 13 July 2021 wallpaper was reapplied and stain block applied.
  3. The landlord provided a stage one complaint response to the resident on 12 August 2021. In its stage one complaint letter the landlord stated that the pipe burst because the resident was using the boiler cupboard for storage and this caused the damage to the cold water main. The landlord provided a stage two complaint response on 29 September 2021. In its stage two complaint letter the landlord acknowledged that the wording of its stage one complaint letter “suggests that [the resident] may have been at fault” and it apologised for this. It stated that the cause of the leak cannot be determined. The landlord stated that it encourages residents to take out appropriate insurance cover which should pay for the resident’s damaged items. The landlord also stated that the resident’s property was only uninhabitable from 10 June to 14 June 2021 and it provided a dehumidifier after this time.
  4. The landlord’s position is that it does not have an obligation to pay compensation to the resident because the leak was accidental and not the result of its inaction, wilful neglect or disrepair.

Assessment and findings

Compensation for uninhabitability 

  1. The resident has submitted that she was out of the property, “on and off”, for three weeks whilst the repairs were undertaken. She submits that she felt that she could not stay at the property even though she had been supplied with a dehumidifier because she has COPD and the flat smelt and felt damp. Her position is that she should be compensated for the uninhabitability of the property for the full three week period. She seeks compensation of £200 – £300.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will pay compensation for repairs where they were not completed within the specific timescale and “where the customer is unable to use all the necessary facilities in their home.” The Ombudsman is satisfied that this is a reasonable policy which the landlord should be entitled to rely on where the relevant circumstances have occurred.
  3. The engineer’s note from 10 June 2021 records that “the property is currently uninhabitable”. The notes record that the problem was notified at 12:58 on 10 June 2021 and escalated as an emergency. The engineer attended that day at 15:45. The notes do not record how long it took to repair the leak. The next relevant account note is from 22 June 2021, which notes that the wallpaper and stain block was applied. The landlord states elsewhere in its submissions that the repairs were finished on 14 June 2021 and the wallpaper reapplication and stain block application occurred on 13 July 2021.
  4. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord attended the fault in a timely manner. The evidence indicates that it was treated as an emergency and an engineer attended within a period of hours. The substantive repairs were finished within four days. Whilst there was a longer period to undertake the decoration work, it is to be expected that a period of drying was required. The Ombudsman is sympathetic to the resident’s health challenges and acknowledges her submissions that she felt that she could not stay at the property for a number of weeks. However, the evidence does not show that the resident advised the landlord of her health condition and that she felt unable to stay and the evidence provided does not indicate that the landlord should have treated the flat as uninhabitable after 14 June 2021. Although some drying and redecoration works were still required, the landlord had provided a dehumidifier and the works that were undertaken to finalise the repairs in July were not substantive repairs but rather decorative finishes.
  5. The Ombudsman therefore finds that there have not been failings by the landlord. It attended promptly when made aware of the leak and carried out the required works. Whilst the Ombudsman appreciates that this has been a very distressing experience for the resident, and that there may have been some challenges with living in the flat whilst it was drying out, there is no evidence that the property was uninhabitable during this period. The Ombudsman therefore finds that it would not be reasonable to require that the landlord pay compensation to the resident for not being able to stay at the property during this period.

Compensation for damaged belongings

  1. The resident also submits that a number of personal belongings have been damaged which the landlord should pay compensation to her for.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy notes that it “strongly encourages” residents to take out relevant insurance. With respect to damage to personal belongings, the policy states that where damage is the result of “building failure” and the resident is not insured its liability “will depend upon whether it can be shown that [the landlord] has been at fault in some way”. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this is, in principle, a reasonable position. Clauses 23 (i) and (ii) of the Tenancy Agreement states that the landlord will not insure the contents of the property and that the landlord “strongly advise you insure your personal belongings”.
  3. The key issue for the Ombudsman to determine therefore is whether there was a failure by the landlord, in terms of its response to the leak or whether it could reasonably have been expected to have prevented the leak occurring in the first place. If there was such a failure, then it may be appropriate to offer some compensation in recognition of this.
  4. As set out above, the Ombudsman is satisfied that in this case the landlord did respond in a timely manner. In any case, the damage to the resident’s personal belongings appears to have already been caused by the initial leak and it does not seem that the handling of the repair impacted on the extent of this damage.
  5. The only evidence that has been provided regarding an assessment of the cause of the leak is the engineer’s notes from 10 June 2021 when they first attended the property record which state:

“the property is completely flooded and a lot of tenants personal belongings have been destroyed by water damage. The issue is NOT in any way, shape or form related to the heating system [Ombudsman note: this appears to refer to a separate issue with the heating system that had occurred previously]. It appears that the tenant has been using the airing cupboard for storage and either the weight of the items in the cupboard, or an item has fallen and landed on the cold water main as it enters the property causing it to shear off and flood the property”.

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges that in its stage two complaint response, the landlord apologised for suggesting in its stage one complaint letter that the leak was caused by the customer’s use of the airing cupboard for storage and stated that it was “unable to determine the cause of the water main breaking off”.
  2. The Ombudsman is sympathetic to the distress that the resident has experienced. However, on balance, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the leak was not its fault.  The only substantive evidence that has been provided is the contemporaneous note of the engineer which assesses that the leak was in due to the use of the cupboard for storage. The landlord later apologised for this and said that it could not confirm the cause of the leak. There is no evidence that indicates that the leak was in fact due to the action or inaction of the landlord, or that it could reasonably have foreseen or prevented it. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that it is reasonable for the landlord to decline to compensate the resident for damage to her personal belongings.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to her request for compensation for personal belongings that were damaged by a water leak and for the period during which she was unable to live in the property.

Reasons

  1. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord repaired the leak in a timely manner. Whilst it is not disputed that the leak resulted in distress and inconvenience to the resident, there is no evidence that it was caused by a failure by the landlord, and when it occurred it was repaired promptly.
  2. As there is no evidence of a failure in service by the landlord, it was not required to offer the resident compensation in these circumstances.