One Housing Group Limited (202229776)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229776

One Housing Group Limited

30 September 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to her reports of a leak in the property;
2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The property is a three-bedroomed, first floor flat. The resident holds a shared ownership agreement, which began in 2017.
On 22 November 2022 the resident reported that a leak through her bedroom ceiling, which had first occurred in February 2022, had started again. This leak appeared to coincide with heavy rain.
The landlord’s contractor was carrying out remediation works to the building during 2022, and it was initially thought that this may be the cause. The contractor carried out investigations, and in November 2022 it was confirmed that the roofing works were not causing the leak, and in February 2023 it was confirmed the cladding works were not the cause either.
The landlord’s repairs team then took ownership for investigating and remedying the leak.
The resident had submitted a stage 1 complaint on 27 February 2023, asking the landlord to ensure the leak was stopped. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 20 March 2023, which was escalated to stage 2 the next day after the resident expressed concern that the leak was not yet remedied and that the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation was too low. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 5 May 2023.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord:
1. Explained it was in the process of gaining access to two flats above the resident to enable it to investigate the leak, as well as investigating three balconies to see if the leak could be resolved by works to these;
2. Said it would usually expect the resident to claim for damages or repairs costs through their own insurance, however, as a goodwill gesture the landlord would redecorate the resident’s property after repair works were completed;
3. Confirmed its contractor had now provided a dehumidifier after the resident had reported damp and mould;
4. Offered the resident a further £100 compensation for delays to its stage 2 complaint response.
In bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident set out how stressful she had found the experience, especially with a new baby in the household. She was dissatisfied with the fact that repairs remained outstanding after the landlord had issued its stage 2 complaint response, and wanted the landlord to use a leak detection specialist. She has advised us that she is still experiencing ongoing water ingress to the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the leak

This investigation will focus on the landlord’s response after the resident reported the recurrence of the leak in November 2022. It will examine the events after the landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response, because the leak that had been complained about had not been fully resolved at that point.
The landlord appeared to leave responsibility for the investigation of the leak to its contractor for several months, during which time it was established that the roof and cladding were not the cause of the leak, and therefore the contractor was not responsible for resolving it on behalf of the landlord. The landlord’s records show that by late February 2023, the landlord and its contractor hoped that repairs works that had been done to the roof and balconies on the building may have stopped the leak, and had asked the occupants of two flats above the resident to monitor any further water ingress.
The landlord provided a dehumidifier to the resident in early March 2023, and later that month instructed a specialist drain specialist to carry out an investigative survey. The contractor confirmed that the drain pipes were clear and working as they should. On 17 March 2023 the landlord inspected the resident’s property for damp and mould, and attended one of her neighbour’s properties to investigate the potential cause of the leak.
The resident had made the landlord aware that she and her partner were expecting a baby, and were concerned about the health risks from black mould. In April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again to explain that while she understood that it needed “to go through a process of elimination” to locate the source of the leak, she believed it was not doing this quickly enough. The landlord’s records show its surveyor attended the building again on 28 April 2023 to carry out further investigations.
In mid-May 2023, the landlord decided to fit a hopper and drain pipe inside the resident’s bedroom, to collect water until the source of the leak could be identified and repaired. We have seen photos of this, which show this was over the resident’s bed, and appeared to show mould around the hopper (it is not clear if this originated before or after the drain was fitted). Our observation on the point of the drain is that while it was an effective means to collect water temporarily and enable the room to remain in use, it was not acceptable to expect the resident to live with this for months.
The resident reported ongoing leaks in July 2023, and the landlord’s records show that its contractor used ultraviolet dye to track the water ingress. It told the resident that it would carry out some repairs to the parapet wall of the building, and would investigate the garden tap installation in one of her neighbour’s flats. It completed repairs to the neighbour’s property on 21 August 2023, and asked the resident to monitor and check for leaks over the next five periods of heavy rainfall.
The landlord checked with the resident in September 2023, and she advised it there had been no further leaks. After a period of heavy rainfall, the resident reported on 24 October 2023 that there was further water ingress. The landlord’s records show its contractor attended to test the repairs on 2 November 2023, confirmed that they did not fail, and identified that similar repairs may instead be needed to other flats. The landlord carried out repairs at the resident’s property on 13 December 2023, and gained access and carried out repairs at two neighbouring properties on 14 and 18 December 2023.
The landlord explained to us that it had experienced difficulty in gaining access to the neighbouring flats, and that this was part of the reason why it had taken so long to undertake investigations and repairs. It left it to its contractors to carry out this contact initially. This is an important learning point for the landlord, and it is likely that if it had taken a more involved and robust approach that it could have sped up its investigations. We have made orders below on this matter.
The resident reported a “small amount” of water ingress on 5 January 2024, and the landlord raised another job to its contractor to trace the source. It is our understanding that the landlord had thought this had remedied the leak at the time, however we acknowledge that the resident has reported to us that it remains an issue to date.
It is our experience that identifying the source of leaks in blocks of flats can be complicated and may take several attempts, dependent on weather conditions, to be resolved. This is because it may be case of needing to identify and then address and rule out possible causes, where the cause is not initially obvious. In such a case we would expect the landlord to take a structured and logical approach and ensure that the resident affected is kept updated on progress to resolve the issue. However, the length of time it took the landlord to organise and progress the investigations was unreasonable, and this was compounded by the fact the resident’s household had a pregnant member, and then a young baby. The landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate in relation to these delays, and we have made an order to address this below.
The resident asked the landlord several times to use a specialist leak investigator. While we cannot specify the type of contractor the landlord uses, beyond expecting them to be suitably qualified, the landlord’s responses did not offer an appropriate level of empathy and explanation for why it had not agreed to her request. In the context of the household’s circumstances, this would likely have increased the resident’s distress.
When considering the unreasonable delays and level of communication with the resident, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord.

Handling of the associated complaint

The landlord was right to acknowledge that it took too long to respond to the resident’s complaint. Given the delays to its response, it was particularly concerning that its stage 2 complaint response did not offer reassurance that it had understood what had gone wrong and how it could prevent this in future, a failure to take appropriate learning, or that it had a solid plan to ensure it could access the neighbouring flats.
Overall, the complaint response did not give reassurance that the landlord had understood how upsetting the resident had found the experience.
The landlord has advised us that its offer to redecorate the resident’s property still stands, and that it had exercised discretion in offering this instead of signposting the resident to claim through her own insurance. It has also advised us that it would be willing to consider raising its offer of compensation in acknowledgement that the repairs took “some time” to be resolved after it had issued its stage 2 complaint response. This was a positive step and something the landlord could have progressed.
When considering the landlord’s failure to use the complaint process to fully address and remedy the resident’s concerns, we have found maladministration. We have made an order to increase its compensation below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must apologise to the resident for the distress and inconvenience she experienced chasing a resolution to the leak. It must provide us with a copy.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must directly pay the resident the compensation it previously offered and an additional total of £800 compensation, made up of:
1. £300 for the failure to use its complaint process to fully address and remedy the concerns the resident had raised;
2. £500 for the impact of the landlord’s failure to progress the investigations and repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must contact the resident to record the details of current levels of water ingress, the frequency with which they occur, and whether any further damp or mould issues have been observed. It must confirm to us when this has been done.
Dependent on the monitoring of the above details, the landlord must ensure it takes appropriate action, and engages a suitably qualified person to carry out relevant investigations and repairs if necessary. It must write to us within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm it will ensure the information gathered is acted on appropriately.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must undertake a case review, and consider:
1. Whether its staff could benefit from additional guidance on how to deal with leasehold properties where access is required but not granted;
2. Whether its staff could benefit from additional guidance as to who is responsible for monitoring outstanding repairs that have been raised to contractors;
3. How it can ensure that its complaints responses contain details of the learning the landlord has taken, and any changes it will make as a result;
4. Any other actions it will take in response to its case review.
The landlord must advise us of the outcome of this review once it has been completed.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should explain to the resident in writing how she can contact its insurance team to submit claims either for personal injury or public liability if she ever wants to. It should also explain how she can contact the building insurance company, and what this policy covers. It must provide us with a copy of this communication.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord appoint a member of staff to act as a single point of contact with the resident until the issue is resolved.