Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202009329)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009329

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

14 May 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 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress to her bathroom ceiling from the property above her own.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord.
3. The property is a ground–floor flat, situated in a building comprised of similar properties.

Summary of events

4. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 October 2020 to report a water leak coming through from the flat upstairs, that was affecting her “bathroom ceiling and lights”. The resident also wanted to raise a complaint in respect of this matter because “this ha[d] happened on many regular occasions before”. Furthermore, the resident advised that:
   1. There was “a crack across [her] bathroom ceiling”, which had water “spouting from it”.
   2. She had contacted the fire brigade, who inspected the affected area and “turned off all the lights…from the fuse box”.
   3. The recurrence of the leak had caused safety concerns and impacted her mental health.
   4. She would like for the landlord to “take responsibility” and carry out remedial works to the “damages” caused by the current and previous water leaks.
5. The landlord issued the resident with a stage one complaint response on 23 October 2020 advising that:
   1. It had spoken to the occupiers of the upstairs flat, who had advised that the leak was “caused by a tap left running accidentally” and that they would ensure this would not “happen again”.
   2. Its plumbers attended the property on 2 October 2020, assessed the affected areas, and “found that there was no underlying defect causing the problem.”
   3. Due to the resident being a leaseholder, it would not carry out any remedial works.
   4. Taking the above into account, it would not uphold the resident’s complaint.
   5. The resident should submit a “claim for any damage caused via [her] own insurance policy.
6. The landlord’s internal records, dated 22 October 2020, showed two work orders with the “target date[s]” set as 24 October and 14 November 2020, respectively, to “assess and repair” the water leak in the resident’s property.
7. On 6 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that she was unhappy with its above initial response and requested for her complaint to be escalated to the second and final stage of the landlord’s complaint process. Furthermore, the resident advised that:
   1. She had experienced two water leaks in the previous month, the first one on 1 October 2020 and the second on 15 October 2020, which caused damage to her bathroom and kitchen ceilings.
   2. Following its investigation, the landlord did not contact her to check whether the water leaks impacted the “electric installation”.
   3. She expected the landlord to pay the excess for its insurance because, “as a leaseholder”, she would need to carry out the repairs herself, but she did not have her “own [buildings] insurance policy”.
   4. She “did not have an opportunity to discuss the issue” with the landlord because she missed the initial telephone call and then could not reach the operative handling her complaint, who did not call her back after she had left a message for them.
8. The landlord issued the resident with a stage two final complaint response on 25 November 2020, in which it apologised for the above communication difficulties, acknowledged the resident’s frustration, and advised that she would need to cover the £100 cost of the buildings insurance excess in order to make a claim on this. It explained that this was because it was not obliged to pay such excesses on the behalf of leaseholders in instances where damage may have arisen from other properties, which it would also not seek to recover from leaseholders if its properties were damaged.
9. The resident contacted this Service on 14 January 2021 to advise that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to not cover the cost of the insurance excess because the water leaks had been a recurring issue. Furthermore, the resident advised that the landlord had covered the costs of the repair works carried out to put right the damage caused by previous water leaks three years earlier, and that she would like it to cover the cost of the insurance excess now. This was because she felt that it did not take substantial action to stop the water leaks from recurring from the property above her own.

Assessment and findings

The lease

10. As per the terms set in the resident’s lease with the landlord:
    1. The resident is responsible “to keep the whole of the [property] and additions and improvements (…) and the landlord’s fixtures and fittings (…) and electrical apparatus installed in or affixed to the [property] (…) in good and substantial repair and condition” and “to keep the interior of the [property] in good decorative repair” at all times.
    2. The landlord is responsible for the maintenance and to carry out repairs to the structure of the building, including the pipework.
11. The lease also states that the property and “the structure of the building surrounding it” is to be “insured to its full reinstatement value in the joint names” of the landlord and resident.

The insurance policy

12. The terms of the buildings insurance policy for the property state that the insurance company would pay indemnification, “less the excess”, in the event of damage to the building, including water escape.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress to her bathroom ceiling

13. The resident raised concerns regarding the recurrence of water ingress from three years earlier and the impact this had on her mental health, her safety, and the property. This Service appreciates the inconvenience experienced by the resident and while historical incidents will be used to provide contextual background, this assessment will focus on and determine the landlord’s handling her reports of water ingress in October 2020. This is because we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
14. Furthermore, it is beyond the expertise or authority of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the above water ingress and the resident’s medical condition, or to award damages for this, in the way that a court or insurer might.
15. The resident reported the first of the latest water leaks at the property on 2 October 2020 and the landlord attended the property on the same day to stop the leak, which was timely and in line with the lease terms, detailed above at paragraph 10(b), whereby the landlord is responsible for carrying out repairs to the building’s pipework.
16. In its stage one complaint response, issued on 23 October 2020, the landlord confirmed that, following its assessment on 2 October 2020, it did not identify any underlying defects and, because the resident is a leaseholder, it would not carry out any remedial works to her bathroom ceiling but instead advised the resident to submit a buildings insurance claim. This led to the resident’s request on 6 November 2020 for her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure because she was not happy to cover the £100 cost of the insurance excess.
17. As detailed above, at paragraphs 10(a) and 11, the resident is responsible for carrying out the required repairs to the property’s interior and the buildings insurance policy is in the joint names of both the landlord and resident. Therefore, it was in line with the lease terms for the landlord to advise the resident to submit an insurance claim and, subsequently, to cover the cost of the excess. Additionally, it is noted that the landlord’s decision was reasonable considering that the water leak was not caused by an action of the landlord and its responsibility, in this instance, was to carry out repairs that would stop the water leak.
18. However, in her complaint escalation of 6 November 2020, the resident mentioned that a second leak occurred on 15 October 2020 and the landlord’s records showed that it raised two work orders on 22 October 2020 to attend the resident’s property to “assess and repair” a further leak. There is therefore evidence to suggest that the landlord failed to comply with its responsibilities, detailed above at paragraph 10(b), to carry out repairs and/or maintenance works to the pipe system in the building in order to prevent a recurrence of the water ingress to the property. Its records also suggest that it failed to respond to the 15 October 2020 leak in a timely manner, as its work orders instead set target dates of 24 October and 14 November 2020 to assess and repair this.
19. Furthermore, it is noted that, in its stage one complaint response, issued on 23 October 2020, the landlord confirmed that it had attended the property on 2 October 2020 and found that there were “no underlying defect[s] causing the problem”, which appeared to contradict the above work orders raised by it on the previous day. Taking into account that a second water leak occurred in such a short timeframe and was not resolved in a timely manner, there is evidence to suggest that the landlord did not take appropriate action to ensure that further water leaks were prevented or responded to promptly.
20. To conclude, while the landlord was compliant with the lease terms in advising the resident to submit a buildings insurance claim for the damage caused to her ceiling, and cover the cost of the excess, there was a failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of the water leak. This is because the landlord advised the resident that there were no underlying defects, despite being made aware that a new leak had occurred prior to its response, and it did not respond to the new leak promptly.
21. Therefore, the resident should have submitted the insurance claim and covered the cost of the excess, and the landlord should have taken further action to prevent this from happening again and dealt with this sooner. As a result, the landlord has been ordered below to compensate the resident in recognition of this and recommended to investigate and prevent any further water ingress to the property, if it has not done so already.

Determination (decision)

22. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way it handled the resident’s reports of water ingress from the property above her own.

Reasons

23. The landlord informed the resident that the water leak was caused by a tap that was left running accidentally and that it could not identify any underlying repair issues, despite of being made aware of a new leak prior to its stage one complaint response.
24. The landlord failed to comply with the lease terms because it only stopped the leak momentarily and did not carry out further investigative or maintenance works in a timely manner to prevent further inconvenience, leaks and damage to the resident and her property.

Order

25. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her compensation of £100 in recognition of the inconvenience that she experienced as a result of its service failure.
26. The amount has been calculated in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and it is to be paid to the resident within four weeks of this determination.

Recommendation

27. It is recommended that the landlord carries out further:
    1. investigative works for water ingress to the property, if it has not already done so
    2. repair or maintenance works at the property, if any are identified by its investigative works, to prevent further water leaks there.
28. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks of this determination to confirm that it has complied with the above order and whether it will follow the above recommendation.
29. 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.