One Vision Housing Limited (202231439)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231439

One Vision Housing Limited

30 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 about leaks at the property.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow.
3. The resident experienced a leak from a water tank in the loft on 17 December 2022. On 18 December, an operative turned off the water and raised a follow on repair. On 19 December, an operative attended, fixed the leak and provided a dehumidifier. However, another pipe burst when the mains was turned back on, which was reconnected and the mains turned on again. The property was noted to be in a poor state after the leaks, and repairs for works including a collapsed ceiling and electrics were raised and completed soon after. The bedroom ceiling collapsed and the resident’s bed was soaked as a result of the issues, and the resident was noted to have stayed at a family member’s for a short period. The loft insulation was damaged by the leaks, and a re-insulation of the loft was completed in March 2023.
4. The resident asked for the landlord’s help in replacing items damaged by the leaks, after which it said it did not cover this and referred him to contents insurance. The resident made a complaint in late December 2022, as he did not have insurance and felt the landlord was responsible for the damage to his belongings. The Ombudsman understands that the pipes burst due to the cold weather and that the resident reported that pipes were installed in the wrong place and should have been insulated.
5. The landlord provided responses to the complaint in January and February 2023. It noted that the leak had been rectified. It noted that the resident had thrown away damaged belongings and suffered financially by having to wash other items multiple times, and requested £1,000 for the damages and inconvenience. It said that it could not agree to this, as tenants were responsible for their own belongings and expected to claim for damage through their home contents insurance. It acknowledged that the leak was not the resident’s fault, but it said that it was not the landlord’s either, as it was a freak event that could not have been foreseen and was attended and repaired as soon as possible. It said that it could not identify any service failings but it offered £50 in recognition of the inconvenience the resident had been caused.
6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He was unhappy with the time it took to insulate the loft. He was unhappy that the landlord said he should have his own insurance for a mattress, clothes, shoes and a baby seat that were destroyed by mould. He expressed concern that the pipe leaks could happen again. He said that the leak was caused by external pipes freezing and bursting, and that the landlord should have placed the pipes inside the property or insulated them to prevent the issue from happening.

Assessment and findings

7. The Ombudsman recognises that the leaks must have been upsetting for the resident and caused him disruption and inconvenience. We also understand his frustration and understandable desire not to be out of pocket for damage that occurred through no fault of his own. The Ombudsman should note that it is not within our authority or expertise to make definitive decisions about cause and liability for leaks and damage. However, we can assess if the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably.
8. The landlord is responsible for repairs to pipes supplying water and heating, and should respond to the repairs in a timely manner. The landlord attended within 24 hours when a leak was reported. The landlord is then understood to have resolved a further leak the day it occurred. These were in line with the landlord’s policy that it attends emergencies within 2 to 24 hours. The landlord then reinstated the ceiling within a few days. The landlord shows that met its obligations to repair the leaks in a timely manner.
9. The Ombudsman notes that the resident raised dissatisfaction with the length of time the landlord took to re-insulate the loft. While the time the landlord took to carry out repairs after the leak does not seem unreasonable, this does not seem to have been the main focus of the complaint the resident brought to the landlord. If the resident is unhappy with the length of time the re-insulation of the loft took, he has the option to complain to the landlord about this.
10. The resident contended that the pipes should have been insulated, and says he was informed that pipes were in the wrong location. The landlord interviewed an operative, who disputed they said pipes were in the wrong location and reported that the issue was due to extreme weather. The Ombudsman does not have the expertise to make definitive decisions about whether a landlord meets building regulations, but we note that more recent building regulations require pipes outside the main heated areas of a property to be insulated. We cannot see that this retrospectively applied to the resident’s property before the leak. The Ombudsman also notes that a plumber saying the pipes were in the wrong place is disputed. We cannot say who is right and who is wrong on the evidence. However, the landlord shows that it took reasonable steps to consider the resident’s report by interviewing the operative. It also shows that it took reasonable steps to try to prevent the issue again by insulating the pipes.
11. The landlord declined the resident’s claim for damages and inconvenience and referred him to contents insurance. The landlord also declined to carry out redecoration. On the evidence, this seems reasonable. The landlord took steps to consider if it was at fault, and the Ombudsman can no evidence of significant fault. The Ombudsman’s insurance guidance does advise that the landlord should consider referring residents to its own insurer to consider liability, rather than referring them to contents insurance. However, not doing so did not cause significant detriment given the leaks and damage seem unforeseeable events which a resident’s contents insurance can cover. The landlord’s declining to redecorate areas such as the ceiling was also in line with the resident’s responsibility for internal decorations in the tenancy agreement, including in the event of accidental damage.
12. Overall, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about leaks at the property. There is no evidence that damage arose from any significant failings on the landlord’s part. The landlord’s offer of £50 was customer focused and showed positive empathy with the resident’s distressing situation.

Determination

13. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about leaks at the property.

Recommendations

14. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. consider re-offering the resident the £50 it previously offered, if it has not already paid this.
    2. provide details of its liability insurer to the resident so that he can contact the landlord’s insurer if he continues to hold the landlord liable for damage he suffered.
    3. review the Ombudsman’s guidance on insurance and consider providing details of its liability insurer in its complaint responses rather than just referring residents to contents insurance.