Newlon Housing Trust (202110290)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110290

Newlon Housing Trust

29 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

The complaint refers to:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak at the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of the property which is managed by the landlord. The property is a ground floor flat.
The resident reported on 5 March 2021 that water was accumulating outside of her property, adjacent to her bedroom. She said that there was a hole in the ground which she had measured to be around 80cm deep and was concerned that the water was coming from a burst underground pipe. She had reported this to the water company which said that it would be the landlord’s responsibility. She asked the landlord to address this matter quickly as she was concerned that the water may affect the building’s foundation. She also attached photos of the issue.
In its response of the same day, the landlord stated that it had raised the issue with an area surveyor and the best course of action would be to inspect the problem. It asked if the resident had heard anything more from the water company. The resident confirmed that the water company had said that they would inspect but she did not have any confirmation that this was done. She asked the landlord to keep her updated.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 March 2021 as she had not received any update regarding the leak and the problem was ongoing. Her email was forwarded to the surveyor the following day.
The resident asked for a complaint to be raised on 19 March 2021 as she had not received an update from the landlord and the water leak was still apparent. She reiterated her concern that about likely damage to the building. She sent another email that day asking for an update. The landlord apologised that the surveyor had not provided an update and confirmed that it would pass her email on. This was raised as a Stage 0 complaint (informal complaint).
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 22 March 2021 to confirm that the water company had attended on 20 March 2021. They advised that the issue was caused by a possible burst mains water pipe and as this was on private land, it was the landlord’s responsibility to resolve. She asked that this information was passed on and for an update.
In its response on the following day, the landlord said that it had been discussing the repair issue internally and would pass the information on. It advised the resident to make contact if she had not heard from its repairs team within 48 hours.
On 25 March 2021, the resident advised that she had not been contacted. The landlord confirmed that it had chased this with its repairs team who aimed to provide an update that day. The landlord’s records show that it sourced a quote for the works required that day. It was informed that the repairs would need to be completed by a specialist contractor as it required excavating the area to expose the pipes. It contacted the resident on 26 March 2021, apologised for its delayed response and confirmed that a contractor would attend on 19 April 2021 to excavate the area and carry out an inspection.
The landlord’s records show that the inspection took place on 19 April 2021. The repair order had been escalated to a supervisor as it required a digger to excavate the area. The work was reallocated to a specialist contractor on 23 April 2021 due to the nature of the works required. A visit took place on 18 May 2021 and the contractor said that the cause of the leak had not been identified, thus further excavation works were required. It said that a refuse skip in the area would need to be removed before the works could start. In the meantime, they would arrange for barriers to be installed around the hole.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 June 2021 to express dissatisfaction that a month had passed with no resolution. She asked that a complaint was raised due to her concern about the length of time it was taking to find a resolution and the ongoing water leak which could be damaging the foundation of the building.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 15 June 2021 and said that she would receive a stage one complaint response by 28 June 2021.
The resident supplied additional information on 26 June 2021. She explained that the ground in front of her balcony, on the other side of the building to the leak, was soaked. She was concerned that the problem was larger than it originally seemed. She asked whether a structural engineer or surveyor had attended to assess how severe the issue was. She expressed concern about potential subsidence to the building and that a child could be injured by the hole in the ground. She felt that the landlord had done little to resolve the issue and she would hold it accountable for any damage to her property.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 28 June 2021 and explained the following:
1. It apologised for the delays the resident had experienced in relation to updates or action being taken regarding the water ingress issue.
2. The work order for the repair was raised on 26 March 2021 and should have been completed within 20 working days, by 23 April 2021. In this case an extension was needed due to the need for further investigation. It apologised that the resident had been under the impression that works were due to commence on 19 April 2021 and explained that its contractors were first required to attend and access the area of work.
3. It confirmed that it was working with the contractors to ensure that the repairs were carried out in due course. The contractors had attended on 18 May 2021 but still needed to identify where the issue stemmed from. It confirmed that it had arranged for barriers to be erected around the hole and a covering put in place to ensure safety. It was urgently arranging for a skip on the site to be removed so that works could commence. It would provide an update to the resident within seven working days in relation to the repairs.
4. It had found that the work order raised did not meet its set target timeframe for repairs even with the extension date of 24 June 2021. It acknowledged that its communication with the resident had been below standard and it could have managed her expectations of the work by providing regular updates. It would continue to review the lessons learnt from the resident’s complaint to prevent similar delays occurring in the future. It confirmed that the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on the same day as she remained dissatisfied that it had taken the landlord four months to arrange for a digger. She expressed further concern that the issue was reportedly brought to the landlord’s attention over a year prior by another resident of the block and nothing had been done. She said that the skip had been removed and that there was constant access to the site. She felt that the landlord should warn tenants of the building to not park around the area so that access was not blocked. She expressed concern that the landlord had previously sent a bricklayer to excavate, who did not have the skills to complete the work. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had ignored concerns raised previously by residents and felt that she should arrange for the work to be undertaken herself due to the landlord’s level of service.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 1 July 2021 and confirmed that the resident would be contacted. The landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 20 July 2021 and said it would respond by 28 July 2021.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 28 July 2021 and explained the following:
1. It acknowledged that the repair issue had taken far too long to resolve and apologised. It said that works would have been extended slightly by the need for a digger. However, it was not clear why, following the resident’s report in March 2021, an inspection did not occur until April 2021. It confirmed that this would be considered a service failure.
2. It also acknowledged that there was clear evidence that the resident’s queries were not responded to and that she had to follow-up on multiple occasions for information and updates. This poor communication had also been logged as a service failure and a point of learning.
3. As of 14 June 2021, the contractors had located the source of the leak and were preparing to notify residents of the need to temporarily cut off the water mains. It had asked the contractors whether the works had now been completed but had not received a response. It confirmed that it would contact the resident once a response was received.
4. In view of the service failures identified, the landlord offered £50 compensation for its poor communication and £50 compensation for its delayed response to the repair.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the length of time it had taken the landlord to resolve the issue. At the time this was raised, the leak had not been resolved. She also expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s communication and handling of her complaint.
The landlord’s records show that contractors attended each day between 10 and 13 August 2021 and resolved the issue. The landlord’s records confirm that the works were fully completed by 24 September 2021.

Assessment and findings

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

The resident’s lease states that the landlord would be responsible for repairs needed to communal water pipes that are not solely used by the resident. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs, should be attended to within 24 hours. Routine repairs, should be attended to within 20 working days. Some repairs are more complex and may require specialist contractors or more time to accommodate and would be completed within the landlord’s planned maintenance programme within three months.
It is not disputed that the repairs needed following the resident’s reports of an external leak took an unreasonable length of time to action and resolve. It was reasonable for the timeframe of the repairs to be slightly extended due to the nature of the works required. However, the landlord did not provide information as to how long the repair should take or manage the resident’s expectations satisfactorily. During this time, it is evident that the resident repeatedly sought updates from the landlord and her correspondence was not responded to.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and apologising to the resident for the inconvenience caused by the delay in addressing the repair between March and April 2021 and its poor communication during this time. It attempted to put things right by offering £100 compensation and identifying points of learning from her complaint.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that amounts in this range are proportionate where there has been service failure which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. This may include repeated failures to reply to correspondence and failure to meet service standards for actions. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage formal complaints process. Prior to which a complaint may be handled informally. An informal complaint is one where a resident expresses dissatisfaction where there is an opportunity to make an agreement with the resident to put the matter right within 48 hours. The landlord should provide a response within 48 hours, which may include proposed solutions such as arranging a repair appointment or offering an apology or compensation. If the resident is unhappy with the response or a resolution has not been agreed within target time for responses, then this can be escalated to a formal Stage 1 complaint. At stage one, the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within five working days and respond in full within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within two working days and respond within 20 working days.
In this case, the resident asked for a complaint to be raised on 19 March 2021 as the landlord had not addressed the repair issue and she had not been provided with an update despite her requests. This was raised as an informal complaint but there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had acknowledged her complaint or advised that this was being handled informally. Furthermore, there is also no evidence to confirm that the resident was provided with an adequate response within 48 hours or the complaints process was satisfactorily explained. As such, the landlord has not acted in line with its complaints policy for informal complaints. This is likely to have caused inconvenience for the resident as there was uncertainty about whether her complaint was being addressed.
The resident asked for a complaint to be raised again on 11 June 2021, the stage one complaint response was issued on 28 June 2021 in line with the landlord’s ten working day timescale at stage one. She asked for the complaint to be escalated on 28 June 2021 and expressed concern that another tenant had reported the same issue a year prior. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 28 July 2021 which was within a reasonable timescale.
However, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns regarding the issue being reported previously by another tenant. The landlord’s internal records show that the resident’s comments were investigated and it found that it had no record of prior reports of the same issue. The record notes that one of the tenants had reported an unrelated leak to their property in 2019. Whilst the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint and escalation within timescales set out in its complaints policy, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have confirmed that it had investigated her claim and explained its position in its stage two complaint response.
In summary, there has been service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaint. There was a failure to adequately investigate the resident’s complaint on 19 March 2021 in line with its policy for informal complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was provided with any relevant information about the status of her complaint and no evidence to suggest that this was appropriately escalated to stage one when a resolution was not found within 48 hours. In view of this, the landlord should offer additional compensation for the inconvenience caused by its initial complaint handling and communication.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of a leak which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in regard to its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged its failure to initially take action in regard to the resident’s reports of the external water ingress in March 2021. It has also acknowledged that its communication with the resident had been poor and it did not sufficiently provide updates as requested. The landlord has offered compensation which is considered proportionate to the level of inconvenience experienced by the resident.
Whilst the landlord handled the resident’s formal complaint stages in line with its complaints policy. There was a lack of communication regarding her initial complaint which was raised informally but not responded to within 48 hours. This is likely to have caused inconvenience and uncertainty.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident an additional £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £100 as previously agreed if it has not already done so as the finding of redress was found on this basis.
It is recommended that the landlord takes steps to improve its communication with residents and considers introducing a service level agreement timeframe for responding to correspondence to prevent any future communication issues.
It is also recommended that the landlord considers carrying out a survey of the structural aspects of the building to ensure that the ongoing water leak has not caused damage.
The landlord should consider carrying out staff training for members of staff handling informal complaints to ensure that these are managed correctly.