London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202015723)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015723

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

20 November 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 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 response to the resident’s:
    1. report of a water leak into her property.
    2. associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground-floor maisonette situated in a two-story building.
  2. The resident reported a major water leak at her property at around 11.30am on 5 March 2021 coming from a pipe underneath her kitchen sink. She called the landlord who advised that an emergency contractor would attend within 24 hours. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day (approx. 8pm) and replaced the flexi-hose to the kitchen tap, to resolve the issue.
  3. The landlord’s records note that it had spoken with the resident on 8 March 2021 as she was not happy that, following the major leak, a large amount of water was left in the property and she had no help in removing it. The resident explained that she had to borrow a water-suction machine from the concierge for the building and was now left with a damp and smelly property. She was dissatisfied that the landlord did not offer any help after the leak was repaired.
  4. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response of 8 March 2021, the landlord first confirmed that it had arranged for a dehumidifier to be dropped off at the resident’s property, to help dry out any excess water. It then noted that it had already discussed how the resident could claim for any damages to her personal items, during a telephone call earlier that day. Lastly, the landlord apologised for the delay and inconvenience this had caused but concluded that there had been no service failures identified in its response to the leak.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord’s insurance team on 8 March 2021, in which she contended that the cause of the leak was due to the pipe having corroded and rusted, which she believed was evidence of the landlord’s negligence as the pipe had not been health and safety checked for over six years. Therefore, she asked for compensation to reimburse her losses for the flooring which was damaged by the leak.
  6. The landlord supplied a dehumidifier to the resident on 9 March 2021.
  7. In the resident’s formal letter of complaint, dated 15 March 2021, she said:
    1. She was very dissatisfied with the lack of action taken following the flood in the property, which left her with no water and unable to use the toilet until 8pm that day.
    2. The engineer who attended only fixed the leaking pipe and did not come with any equipment to help dry out the water or dehumidify the rooms and as a result she was left with no means with which to get rid of the water. She said she had to borrow a water-suction machine from the concierge desk, rather than the landlord proactively supplying any means of assistance.
    3. She was unhappy as she had not been able to use the living room for over a week due to the carpets being wet. She said that the carpet was also beginning to smell and the hallway flooring had lifted, which she regarded as a trip hazard. She said that the property was also beginning to smell because of the damp, and she could not afford to replace the damaged flooring.
  8. In light of this, the resident felt the landlord should pay for the damages and replace the carpet and hallway flooring due to the landlord’s lack of action following the leak being fixed and maintenance prior to the leak.
  9. The landlord issued a further stage one complaint response on 17 March 2021 in which it confirmed that an operative attended the property within the stipulated timeframe for emergency repairs. It explained that its operatives do not carry dehumidifiers, so it was unable to deliver these until the next working day, which it said it did on 8 March 2021 (The dehumidifiers were actually delivered on 9 March 2021). It also gave general advice regarding the use of a stopcock in order to isolate the water supply in the event of a leak, to limit the water damage in the future. Lastly, it provided details of the landlord’s insurance team, so the resident could pursue her claim for damage to the flooring.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 March 2021 on the basis that her property was ‘unliveable’ due to the damage caused by the leak, which had left her with damp, mouldy carpets through no fault of her own. She said the dehumidifiers had not helped and she had no means of replacing any of the damaged flooring.
  11. The landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation on 22 March 2021.
  12. The resident emailed this Service on 17 May 2021 to confirm that the landlord had denied liability for the damages on 7 April 2021, but she said she was never informed on that final decision.
  13. The resident called the landlord on 19 May 2021 to chase the outcome of her stage two complaint.
  14. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response, dated 19 May 2021, the landlord reiterated that it had adhered to its published timescales when carrying out repairs following the leak. The landlord explained that the resident’s insurance claim for damages caused to the flooring in the property lay outside the complaint process and therefore it would not be able to advise further in its complaint response. The flooring in the property was the resident’s responsibility and it had previously informed her how to make an insurance claim. This concluded the landlord’s complaint procedure.
  15. In a letter, dated 23 August 2021, the resident detailed the reasons she remained dissatisfied. She maintained that the pipe was poorly maintained and therefore the leak was caused by the landlord’s negligence and she should be reimbursed for the damages this caused.
  16. To resolve the complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to either replace the damaged flooring in the property or reimburse her £800 for the cost of replacing it.
  17. According to the landlord, the resident’s insurance claim of 8 March 2021 was referred to the landlord’s public liability insurers which was thereafter in contact with the resident regarding any updates. The landlord said that the insurer investigated the claim and declined liability on the basis that the leak was an unforeseeable event. The landlord said it understood that the insurer explained its decision to the resident in writing on 9 June 2021.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement states that a leaking water tank, pipe or cistern would constitute an emergency repair.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy stipulates that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. It also specifies that it is the landlord’s responsibility to carry out repairs to taps and pipework under the kitchen sink when leaking.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy also stipulates that it is the resident’s responsibility to take out home contents insurance for their personal possessions. (Personal possessions would include any items in the property owned by the resident and which they are responsible for maintaining, including furniture and floor coverings such as carpets.)
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaint process. At stage one, the landlord will aim to provide its response within ten working days. At stage two, the landlord will aim to provide its response within 20 working days. If the landlord is unable to meet the above timeframes to provide a response, it will write to the resident and explain why, within ten working days.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for compensation to be paid when the landlord fails to respond to or process a complaint within its target times. If the landlord fails to respond to a formal complaint within the published timescales, it will make a payment of £10.00 compensation.
  6. In addition, the compensation policy stipulates that where damage or alleged injury occurs because of the landlord’s or its contractor’s negligence, the landlord will refer the issue to the insurance team. This includes damage to customers’ personal possessions. Timeframes for completing assessments and assessing claims will be discussed with the customer.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the property.

  1. It is not disputed by either party that the landlord attended the emergency repair raised on 5 March 2021, due to a leak underneath the kitchen sink, within the stipulated timeframes as detailed in the landlord’s repairs policy. An operative attended the property within approximately 8 hours of the report and resolved the leak accordingly. Although the resident was left frustrated, as she wanted a quicker response due to the amount of water leaking into the property, the landlord had met its obligation by attending and repairing the leak within the specified timescales (24 hours).
  2. The resident was also dissatisfied due to a lack of support and assistance following the repair of the leak. Although not a specified obligation, the landlord would be expected to assist a resident in situations such as this and look to help alleviate any distress and inconvenience by providing guidance on measures to take to dry out the property and an explanation of the next steps for any repairs. In this case, the landlord provided dehumidifiers when requested. The landlord’s explanation that its operatives do not carry dehumidifiers as standard was reasonable. It would not be practical for operatives to carry this type of equipment on every visit, when it may not be needed. It was therefore reasonable for the dehumidifiers to be provided a few days after the initial emergency appointment, although the wait would undoubtably been inconvenient and distressing for the resident.
  3. That said, the landlord could have been more proactive in its support, rather than waiting for the resident to make a request to the landlord for dehumidifiers. Although it was not strictly obliged to, it would have been beneficial if the landlord had proactively checked whether the resident required any assistance, such as a dehumidifier or water-suction device, closer to the time the repair was completed. The resident was left to sought assistance from the concierge to obtain a water-suction machine and subsequently had to request a dehumidifier from the landlord on 8 March 2021, as the property was still damp. It would have been best practice if the landlord had proactively organised a water-suction device and followed up with the resident on the next working day, which was 8 March 2021, and arranged for the dehumidifier to be delivered that day rather than on 9 March 2021.
  4. The resident also contended that the landlord had been negligent by not maintaining the pipe that had caused the leak and as such it she believed the landlord should reimburse her for the damages to flooring. If this was indeed the case – that the landlord or its contractors had been negligent – the landlord should, in accordance with its compensation policy, direct the resident to its insurers to make a claim. In this case, the landlord did direct the resident to its insurers, which did result in the resident making a claim on 8 March 2021. This was in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy, whereby it will refer the issue to its insurance team where damage or alleged injury occurs because of the landlord’s or its contractor’s negligence. adhered to its obligations by
  5. Although the outcome of the insurance claim was not what the resident had hoped for, the landlord had acted reasonably in referring the matter to its insurer. The landlord is entitled to have insurance in place to assist it with the cost of negligence claims as part of its responsibility for managing its budgets effectively as a social landlord with limited resources. It would not be expected to provide compensation for negligence claims outside the insurance process. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to assess the handling or outcome of insurance claims and therefore we cannot comment on this further in our investigation.
  6. In view of the above, there was no maladministration by the landlord in the way it responded to the resident’s reports of a leak in the property; nor was there maladministration in its response to the resident’s claims of negligence.
  7. The landlord is not obliged to carry out regular health and safety checks on the water taps and pipes; rather, it relies on the resident to keep it informed of any potential repairs and maintenance required.  If the landlord is unaware of an issue that may need repair, it cannot respond in accordance with its obligations.

Complaint Handling

  1. When the resident escalated her complaint to the second stage of the landlord’s complaint process on 21 March 2021, she should have received her response within 20 working days, as per the landlord’s complaints policy. However, the landlord did not issue the stage two response until 19 May 2021, nearly two months later.
  2. If the landlord was unable to meet the timeframe in which to provide a response, it should have written to the resident and explained the reason for the delay within ten working days, in accordance with its complaints policy. The delay in responding to the complaint represents a service failure by the landlord.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy, says it should pay the resident £10.00 compensation in this situation, but the landlord did not follow its policy in this case which compounded its error in not responding to the complaint within its published timescales. In view of this and the distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed response, the landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation.
  4. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website) which suggests we may award between £50 and £250 compensation in cases where we have found that there was service failure by the landlord which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint. Examples include, failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact. The delayed complaint response did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint, but it would have caused some inconvenience for the resident and compensation should be paid on this basis.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of a water leak into the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord for its associated complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. Following the resident’s report of a leak in the property, the landlord attended the emergency repair within the stipulated timeframes, in accordance with its repairs policy. Moreover, the landlord signposted the resident to its insurance team in order to make a claim for damages following the leak, which was in accordance with its compensation policy.
  2. However, there was a slight delay in providing the stage two complaint response, which was not acknowledged by the landlord and the landlord failed to follow its compensation policy which says it will pay £10.00 in the event that its complaint response is delayed.

Order

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50.00 compensation for its delay in providing the stage two response and for not following its policy and compensating the resident for this delay. This should be paid within 28 days of the date of this report.