The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202221893)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221893

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited

18 April 2024

 

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 reports of a leak.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a one bedroom flat, situated in a block of flats.
  2. The resident submits that, on 8 October 2022, she heard water dripping on her kitchen ceiling. She called the landlord on 10 October 2022 and it attended that afternoon. The resident said it confirmed there was water dripping. It checked with the resident above but could not find a source for the leak, so left.
  3. The resident called the landlord on 11 October 2022 and said she could still hear dripping and the issue had not been resolved. The landlord’s notes show it attended the next day and said there was a “slow drip” from the property above. It spoke with the resident above who was “willing for an appointment to be made.”
  4. The resident said she called the landlord a third time on 13 October 2022 as she could still hear dripping. The landlord’s repair log noted a constant drip had been reported and it logged a routine repair. It said that, although it had previously checked the property above twice, it had been unable to find a leak.
  5. The landlord attended the following day and its repair notes said it was initially unable to access the property above to check for leaks. It therefore drilled holes in the resident’s ceiling space and a “bowl and a half” of water came out before the water slowed to a drip. The landlord made efforts to contact the resident above, who returned home to find they had flooded their kitchen, and it then concluded this was the cause of the leak.
  6. The resident submits she called the landlord again on 17 October 2022 as she could still hear dripping. It is not clear exactly when, as no evidence has been provided, but she said the landlord attended a fourth time, but could not locate the leak. There is no evidence of this call or visit in the landlord’s notes.
  7. The landlord raised a job for follow-on work to repair the holes drilled in the ceiling on 18 October 2022.
  8. It is not clear exactly when the resident raised a complaint, but the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 October 2022, in which it detailed its attendances at the property on 10,11, and 14 October 2022 and confirmed that a repair to the kitchen ceiling had been booked for 25 October 2022.
  9. The resident said she called the landlord after receiving the complaint response and advised the leak had not been resolved as she regularly heard dripping in more places. She submits that the landlord attended on 20 October 2022 and told her it would return the next day, but did not return. There is no evidence of this call or visit in the landlord’s notes.
  10. On 23 October 2022, the resident called the landlord and said the leak had worsened. The landlord’s notes said the ceiling was bowing and water leaked through as a fast drip. It attended the same day at approximately 20:10 and noted the situation “required immediate attention” as there was no obvious source of the leak.
  11. The resident said the next day sections of the kitchen ceiling had collapsed, so she emailed the landlord with pictures and videos. An emergency job had been raised for an electrician to attend due to water in the kitchen light fitting. The electrician attended at approximately 13:45 on 24 October 2022. The notes said the resident in the property above had overfilled their sink which caused a (second) leak, but the leak had now stopped and the electrics were fine. The resident said the electrician took pictures and contacted the landlord.
  12. Later in the day further sections of the kitchen ceiling collapsed. The landlord re-attended that evening following another call from the resident and made the property safe. Its repair log said it found a “very, very wet ceiling” which it took down. The resident said water continued to leak into the property through the night and following morning, which flooded her kitchen.
  13. The landlord returned on 25 October 2022 and its repair log said the leak had been fixed. It described the kitchen as “very wet” and booked a repair for the ceiling to be re-boarded and skimmed, and a dehumidifier, which it dropped off and set up the following morning.
  14. The resident complained to the landlord on 27 October 2022 in relation to its handling of the leak. She said she had been stressed for 17 days, some of her belongings had been affected by the humidity, and her health condition had worsened. She felt she had been discriminated against, and did not understand why her calls and emails were not taken seriously.
  15. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 28 October 2022, but said the issue had already been investigated. In the resident’s emails to the landlord of 2 and 4 November 2022, she requested compensation and stated that the first complaint response had only considered what had happened up until 19 October 2022. She had raised a second complaint on 27 October 2022 that included events up to the (second) leak being resolved on 25 October 2022. In response, the landlord said as the complaint related to an issue that had already been investigated, and if she remained unhappy with the outcome, the correct process would be to escalate the complaint.
  16. The resident confirmed she wanted to escalate the complaint on 5 November 2022 which the landlord acknowledged 2 days later. It said she could expect a response within 10 working days.
  17. The landlord’s repair log said it repaired the kitchen ceiling on 9 November 2022. An electrician had been booked for 2 days later to fix the kitchen light, and it would require a further appointment to prime and paint the ceiling.
  18. The resident called the landlord on 14 November 2022 unsure why it had attended on 11 November 2022 to fix the kitchen light. She said the ceiling had been re-plastered and she had been told it would attend to paint the ceiling 2 days later. The landlord’s notes said it explained painting was the resident’s responsibility.
  19. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 18 November 2022, it noted that there had been a second leak from the property above, and acknowledged it had taken several attempts to access that property to resolve it, which was beyond its control. It acknowledged that the resident wanted £10,000 compensation, but offered her £300 as a goodwill gesture for the inconvenience caused. In addition, although painting was the resident’s responsibility, it would arrange for the ceiling to be painted. Finally, it apologised for the inconvenience caused, and said if she remained unhappy, she could escalate the complaint to this Service.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 1 December 2022 and said she did not accept the compensation offer. On 5 December 2022 she called the landlord and cancelled the painting job scheduled for the following day, and said she would paint it herself.
  2. The landlord’s notes said the resident had called on 30 October 2023, approximately a year after the 2 leaks, due to water in the kitchen light, which had again been caused by the resident in the property above as they had left a tap on.

Assessment and findings 

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told the landlord and this Service that the humidity in the property had negatively affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt her comments and empathises with her situation, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s poor health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to attend reported emergency repairs within 4 hours and will endeavour to complete the repair or make it safe. Examples of emergency repairs include a burst pipe or damage to the property structure. It aims to attend routine repairs within 28 calendar days, including minor water leaks.
  2. The evidence shows the landlord initially attended on the first 2 occasions in accordance with its timescales for an emergency repair, but was unable to find an immediate source for the leak. While at this point there was no evidence of a visible serious leak (only the sound of dripping above the ceiling), it is not clear whether a further plan to investigate the potential leak was agreed. This caused frustration to the resident and resulted in her having to chase the matter the following day, when the dripping was ongoing.
  3. After the third call, the landlord logged the repair as routine but still attended a day later, which suggests it rightly continued to act with a degree of urgency. The landlord took action to make the property safe and drained the water from the ceiling in line with its policy, and was persistent in its efforts to access the property above. This was good practice and resulted in it identifying the cause of the leak. It booked an appointment to repair the ceiling 4 days later which was reasonable, as it would have allowed the resident’s property to dry out and any residual water to drip through the ceiling before completing the repairs.
  4. The resident said she continued to report a leak from 17 to 20 October 2022 and that the landlord attended the property during that time but failed to take sufficient action. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account of events, she has been unable to provide evidence of these reports or attendances. Conversely, the landlord has provided evidence of multiple reports and visits to the property, but none during this time period. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence provided, there is nothing to suggest that the landlord failed to take appropriate action during this time.
  5. The resident appears to suggest that there was a continuous leak into her property from 8 to 25 October 2022. However, the evidence provided to this Service indicates that there were 2 distinct leaks from the property above, the first resolved on 14 October 2022, and the second resolved on 25 October 2022. On both occasions, the landlord responded with an appropriate degree of urgency and took proportionate action to address the presenting issues.
  6. The Ombudsman acknowledges it was distressing for the resident to have to deal with multiple leaks and the ultimate collapse of her kitchen ceiling.  However, it is important to note that having a negative experience such as this does not automatically mean the landlord failed to provide an appropriate level of service. The evidence indicates that both of the leaks (plus a further leak a year later) were caused by the actions of the resident above, so a recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider whether any interventions may be appropriate in that regard.
  7. There were instances where the landlord could have been clearer in relation to a follow-on plan to investigate the cause of the leaks in its visits on 12 and 23 October 2022, and in it raising the resident’s expectations her ceiling would be painted. However, overall, the landlord responded to the reported leaks in a reasonable manner.
  8. It attended promptly on all occasions and made proportionate efforts to locate the source of the leaks. There was no evidence to suggest the resident was treated unfavourably, and once the source of the leaks had been found, the landlord took action to make the property safe, dry it out, and book repairs. It also went above and beyond by offering £300 compensation as a goodwill gesture, despite there being no evidence of a significant failure in service which required remedy. As a result, there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should contact the resident and provide its contact details if she wishes to accept the compensation offered.
  2. The landlord should consider whether any interventions or communication may be appropriate with the resident of the property above to avoid similar issues of water ingress arising in the future.