Haringey Council (202106442)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106442

Haringey Council

18 August 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She lives in a two-bedroom ground floor flat.
3. In September 2019, the resident reported a leak from her shower, which was going through to the living room below. She alleged that this caused her to slip and injure herself. The landlord attended her property in October 2019, however did not resolve the issue at this time.
4. In April 2020 the resident complained to the landlord. She said the bathroom continued to leak into the living room, and was leaking through the light switch. She also raised that she had previously paid for mice treatment but this had proved to be ineffective.
5. The landlord issued its stage one response, and apologised for failing to resolve the leak when its contractor visited in October 2019. It said that when its contractor had initially attended there was no sign of a leak, and so the repair job was assigned to another contractor. It noted that the second contractor completed a repair in March 2020. Upon re-attending in April 2020, however, they found the mastic had cracked, which they replaced. The landlord offered the resident £137.50 compensation for failing to resolve the problem in a reasonable amount of time. The landlord also advised that it had been in touch with pest control who advised they had carried out treatment between December 2018 and January 2019, and understood that the issue had been resolved. The landlord advised the resident to contact the pest control team if she was still experiencing a problem.
6. The resident did not accept the landlord’s offer and escalated her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. She said she had been experiencing problems with her shower for almost six years. The resident explained she had been unable to go to work on a number of occasions due to the leaks, due to either injuring herself, or taking time off for repair appointments. She also said she had been left without a working shower for two weeks and with damage to her walls caused by damp. She highlighted that she was registered disabled.
7. In the landlord’s final response, it said it was previously unaware of damp issues, and would arrange an inspection of the walls and ceiling. The landlord explained that it would usually expect repairs similar to the leak to be resolved within four to six weeks of being reported. As this had not happened, the £137.50 compensation offer was calculated to take into account the delay. The landlord pointed out that its compensation policy was not designed to consider loss of earnings or personal injury. It would, however, increase its compensation by a further £80 for trouble and upset caused to the resident. The total compensation figure was thus £217.50.
8. The resident advised this Service (in August 2021) that she continued to experience the leak and that there remained issues with her bathroom. She is unhappy with the level of compensation offered, and with the ongoing issues, now seeks a bath rather than a shower.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

9. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s failure to permanently repair the leak has impacted her health. It is worth noting, however, that this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, deteriorating health or personal injury. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this would be more appropriately dealt with via the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer. As paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme explains, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal, or procedure. Consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which may have been caused by the situation, however.
10. The resident has also raised that she had been expressing concerns about her shower for six years. While this may be the case, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is unable to consider matters dating back this far. This is because as substantive issues become historic, it becomes increasingly difficult for both the landlord and this Service to conduct effective investigations. As years pass, recollections become unreliable and records may not be retained. This can hinder the Ombudsman’s ability to establish what did or did not take place.
11. As such, residents are expected to raise their complaints within a reasonable time of the matter occurring and where they remain dissatisfied, to bring the matter to the Ombudsman Service. Under paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which 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.
12. With this in mind, the Ombudsman has only considered the events which took place up to six months before the resident raised her complaint. It is noted that the landlord took a similar approach within its complaint responses.
13. Finally, while the resident has expressed her desire to have her shower replaced for a bath, her request did not form part of her original complaint. As such, the Ombudsman has made no comments in relation to this.

The leak

14. The landlord’s repairs policy explains that it will attend a major water leak as an emergency repair within 24 hours, otherwise it will attend within 28 days. It is accepted that the resident had not experienced a major leak.
15. With this in mind, the Ombudsman is content that the landlord’s contractor attended within the 28-day timeframe following the resident’s report of a leak in September 2019 – although the contractor found no evidence of a leak.
16. It was inappropriate that despite another job being raised, the landlord failed to take action to rectify the problem until March 2020. This was significantly outside the 28-day timeframe.
17. Within its complaint response, however, the landlord did acknowledged that there had been a service failure in the time it took to undertake this work. It subsequently made an offer of compensation to put things right. This Service can see that it explained to the resident how it arrived at the compensation figure, and that it was in line with its compensation policy.
18. While a further issue was raised following the works in March 2020, records indicate that the landlord reattended and completed the job in April 2020, within its 28 day window. Notes indicate that this was caused by a new issue but that it satisfied for itself at this time that there was no further leaks. This was appropriate.
19. What’s more, on receiving the resident’s report that water had seeped into her electrics, this Service can see from the landlord’s records that it visited her property and repaired the issue on the same day. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repair policy.
20. The resident explained how the leak had impacted her, noting that she suffers with mobility challenges and the safety hazards that the water leak posed for her and her child.
21. At stage two, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with its response and her experience. It therefore made an additional offer of compensation to recognise the time and trouble expended by the resident in pursuing the matter. This was a reasonable addition to the compensation which had already been awarded.
22. The landlord has offered the resident a total of £217.50 compensation. This was a reasonable offer to account for the resident’s inconvenience and its delay in undertaking the works between October 2019 and March 2020.
23. As the resident had alleged she had experienced several falls, and explained that this impacted her health, mobility, and ability to work, it was also appropriate that the landlord provided the details for her to pursue a claim via its insurer. As the landlord explained, its compensation policy was not designed to consider a loss of earnings or a personal liability claim. This is common practice.
24. Moreover, it is noted that with this, as the resident informed the landlord that she was experiencing financial difficulties, arrangements were made for the Financial Inclusion Team to make contact. This was reasonable.
25. In the Ombudsman’s view, however, where there have been multiple reports of the same issue, a landlord should take responsibility for ensuring that the persistent issue is resolved. In this case, however, records show that the resident continued to experience a leak later in 2020 and made further reports in 2021. It does not appear that the matter was permanently resolved. 
26. The Ombudsman is aware from the resident’s correspondence and the repair records that following other issues experienced with the resident’s shower, a complaint was made which the landlord considered under a separate process. With regards to the leak, however, where the landlord became aware that the issue remained ongoing, it would not have been unreasonable for it to have reviewed its original offer to ensure that it fairly reflected the level of detriment. This would have afforded the landlord the opportunity to recognised that an extensive period had passed in which the resident was still being faced with leak issues. In the absence of this, and with evidence of ongoing leak issues, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord did enough to put matters right.
27. For completeness, the landlord did adequately address the resident’s concerns about mice in her property. The landlord explained, having undertaken pest control services in previous years, that it was under the impression that this issue had been eradicated. On learning that this was not the case, it was therefore reasonable that it advised the resident to contact the Pest Control Team so that appropriate action could be taken.
28. Equally, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s report of damp walls / ceilings. As this had not been previously reported, the landlord would not have taken any action to address this. On learning of the issue, however, this Service can see that it advised the resident it would arrange for this to be inspected. This was appropriate. The resident was advised within the final response that arrangements were being made for plasterer to attend.
29. While the resident raised a number of other issues which she stated she experienced in the past, such as being left for weeks without a shower and dirty bath water, it does not appear that these matters were brought to the landlord’s attention at the time. The landlord was therefore unable to confirm these allegations, or given the opportunity to address the issue. This Service is therefore unable to see that there was a service failure here.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.

Orders

31. In recognition of the resident’s experience over a protracted period of time, and the landlord’s inability to permanently resolve the leak, an award of £450 should be made. This should replace the original offer of compensation made by the landlord.
32. It is unclear to this Service whether the resident is still experiencing a leak. If she is, however, the landlord should consider a more permanent and effective strategy to resolve this once and for all. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to contact the resident to discuss this issue and to write to the resident and this service setting out the conclusions of this conversation. If it is found that the resident is still experiencing issues, the landlord should set out for the resident its plan of action, and the likely timeframe for completion, to assure her that her matter is being taken seriously.
33. The landlord should comply with the above orders and provide this Service with proof of this, within four weeks of receiving this determination.