Harrow Council (202013212)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013212

Harrow Council

6 July 2021

Our approach

1. 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.
2. 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

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision not to compensate the resident for damage to the flooring and walls, caused by a leak at the property.
4. The complaint is also about the landlord’s communication and complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

5. The resident is been a secure tenant of the landlord, at the property, having commenced on a starter tenancy on 16 April 2012.
6. The ‘Decent Homes Standard’ sets out minimum standards of a property in order for it to be considered decent for living.  Where a property does not meet three or more of the criteria set out, are not considered to be a decent home.  One of those criteria is that a bathroom should be “reasonably modern” which is taken to be “30 years old or less”.
7. The landlord’s ‘Repairs Charter’ states that a tenant is responsible for laminate flooring.
8. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure whereby the landlord aims to acknowledge a complaint within three working days of receipt (at both stages one and two) and investigate and respond within 15 working days at stage one and within 20 working days at stage two.

Summary of events

9. The resident has stated that on 15 August 2019, he reported to the landlord that his bathroom was 25 years old and required replacing. No evidence of this contact has been provided to this investigation.
10. The landlord’s repair records show that on 17 August 2020, there was a report of an “uncontainable water leak, sounds of hissing and water coming up from under the floor” at the property and that works were carried out to replace the stopcock and renew the pipes.
11. The leak caused damage to the laminate flooring and the painted and wallpapered walls. The resident has said that the contractor advised the leak was caused by the age of the pipes, however, no evidence of this has been provided to this investigation.
12. The resident has said that on the same date, he complained to the landlord about the leak, insofar as he did not believe it would have occurred, had the landlord renewed his bathroom, with him having contacted the landlord about its age the previous year. The resident wanted the landlord to compensate him for the damage caused by the leak. There is no evidence of this complaint having been made at this time.
13. Four months later, on 15 December 2020, the resident contacted the landlord, requesting an inspection appointment in respect of the damage caused by the leak in August 2020. In response, the landlord arranged an inspection for two days later on 17 December 2020.  At the inspection, the landlord advised the resident that it was not responsible for compensating for the leak; any insurance claim would need to be made on the resident’s own home contents insurance.
14. On 21 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord, asking it to confirm in writing its verbal assertion that it was not responsible for the damage caused.  No response was received to this email.
15. On 4 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord again, which also did not receive a reply.
16. On 3 February 2021, following discussion with this Service, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord and on 18 February 2021, it carried out a further inspection.  At that inspection, the landlord acknowledged that there had been decorative damage in respect of the walls and damage to the laminate flooring as well as possibly the underlay.
17. On either 19 February 2021 or 5 March 2021, the landlord responded to the complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure. The landlord advised that it was not responsible for laminate flooring in accordance with its ‘Repairs Charter’ and that it would have advised the resident to have taken out home contents insurance, which would have covered an instance such as this.
18. It apologised that it had not responded to the resident’s emails of 21 December 2020 and 4 January 2021 and explained that it had discussed the matter with the member of staff in question and in doing so, found that it was an admin error rather than the resident being “ignored”.
19. On 7 March 2021, the resident requested escalation of his complaint to stage two of the complaints process.
20. On 8 April 2021, the landlord responded to the complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure.  It expressed its sympathies with the situation but declined to offer compensation, reiterating that its ‘Repairs Charter’ stipulates that it is not responsible for damage to laminate flooring.  The landlord also reiterated that had the resident taken out his own home contents insurance, then he would have been able to submit a claim on that.
21. The landlord found no evidence of the resident feeling “ignored” and apologised for the “oversight” in it not responding to the two emails, saying that “ideally” it should have done.  The landlord said that it would “re-emphasize” that ideally it should provide responses in writing, to prevent the same thing from happening in the future.

Post complaint

22. The landlord later arranged for replacement of the resident’s bathroom.

Assessment and findings

Compensation

23. There is no information as to the age of the bathroom at the property at the time of the complaint and no evidence that it was in a condition of disrepair or did not meet the ‘Decent Homes’ criteria.  Even where the bathroom was in excess of 30 years old (the resident refers to it being over 25 years old in 2019), this alone would not render the property to meet the ‘Decent Homes’ standard, with three or more criteria needing to be met in order for a property to fail the minimum standard.
24. Further, no evidence of the resident reporting concerns to the landlord in 2019 regarding the bathroom has been provided to this Service and no pursual of any concerns over the period preceding the leak.  While the landlord has obligations both in terms of the law and in accordance with the tenancy, to maintain a property and carry out repairs within a reasonable period of time of being on notice, there is a reasonable expectation that a resident requiring repair will make attempts at pursuing the landlord in respect of this. 
25. The lack of evidence available does not mean that the Ombudsman does not believe the resident, however, as an evidence–based Service, it is not always possible to make a finding and determination in its absence.
26. The repair itself was carried out within a reasonable period of time and in accordance with the landlord’s repair responsibilities.  It is unclear whether the resident made a complaint verbally or in writing on the day of the leak, but again, no evidence of this has been provided, either by the resident himself or the landlord, in respect of any records of a complaint or notes from any telephone call from this time.
27. The matter does not appear to have been pursued by the resident for a period of four months, at which point, he asked for an inspection with regards to the damage caused by the leak.  The landlord responded appropriately and reasonably to this, offering an inspection just two days later, which was in accordance with its repair obligations and within a reasonable period of time.
28. The landlord’s advice regarding compensation for damage caused by the leak was correct; the landlord was not responsible for laminate flooring – damage or otherwise, however caused – which is common practice and explicitly stated in its ‘Repairs Charter’.  The information in respect of the resident claiming on his own home contents insurance was appropriate because this is the case in respect of damage caused by leaks such as this.  There is no evidence that the leak was caused by the landlord’s failure to maintain or repair the bathroom. 
29. The resident’s argument is causation; that the landlord did not act on information he gave to it regarding the age and condition of the bathroom in 2019, which led to a leak happening a year later, causing damage for which he should not be liable. However, there is no evidence of the bathroom not meeting the ‘Decent Homes’ standard or being in a condition of disrepair, nor is there evidence of the resident contacting the landlord about the bathroom in 2019 or at any other point thereafter up until the leak.
30. Finally, and for completeness, causation specifically, is not something the Ombudsman can consider; this is a matter for the courts or insurers which can determine liability and claims for damages.  However, in the Ombudsman’s remit and taking all of the circumstances of the case into account, there was no maladministration on the part of the landlord in respect of the complaint for the reasons aforementioned.

Communication and complaints handling

31. Although the resident has said that he complained about the leak when it happened, there is no evidence of a formal complaint being made until February 2021.  Having made the formal complaint, the landlord responded at both stages one and two within a reasonable period of time and in accordance with the timeframes set out in its complaints policy. 
32. The landlord appropriately explained in its responses why it did not uphold the complaint in respect of compensation for damage to the flooring (and walls) and expressed its apologies and sympathies for what had happened as well as in respect of its failure to respond to the resident’s emails in December 2020 and January 2021.
33. The landlord accepted that it should have responded to the resident’s emails and explained that it would reiterate the importance of this and spoke to the individual concerned, helping to prevent a future recurrence. This was appropriate, as compensation is not the only way of resolving a complaint; often an apology and steps taken to help stop something that went wrong from happening again are important and the landlord did this.
34. The landlord’s wording that “ideally” it would have responded in writing, did not convey that it had taken the situation seriously enough, however, even in circumstances that it had.  The landlord should have and know what its procedures are and moreover, should respond to emails from its tenants. To state that it should “ideally” respond was unprofessional and insensitive in the circumstances.  The landlord should note the Ombudsman’s comments and take forward in its handling and responding to complaints.
35. There is no evidence of the resident making repeated attempts at contact that were ignored in this case; there is evidence of the landlord not responding to two emails, which it has acknowledged, apologised for and taken steps to prevent a recurrence, all of which were appropriate and proportionate responses.

Determination

36. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s decision not to compensate for damage caused by the leak to the laminate flooring
37. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s communication and complaint handling. 

Reasons

38. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its decision not to compensate the resident for the damage caused to his flooring, insofar as laminate flooring is the responsibility of the resident, in accordance with the ‘Repairs Charter’.  There is no evidence that the bathroom was in a condition of disrepair prior to the leak.
39. There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its communication and complaint handling insofar as the landlord responded to the complaint appropriately, in accordance with its complaints procedure and although it did not respond to two emails sent, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for this and took steps to prevent a recurrence.