Tamworth Borough Council (202401849)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401849

Tamworth Borough Council

19 June 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak from the water tank in her home.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 3 bedroom terraced house owned by the landlord. The resident lives there with her 4 children and 2 dogs. The resident’s tenancy began on 12 May 2022.
On 20 January 2023, the resident’s water tank leaked, which caused her bedroom ceiling to collapse and substantial damage to her home and belongings. The resident reported the incident to the landlord on the same day. Meanwhile, her brother called a private contractor to ensure the immediate safety of the property. The resident went to stay with a relative temporarily.
On 23 January 2023, one of the landlord’s housing officers notified the repairs team of a “burst” at the resident’s home. The resident refused access to its contractors on the same day, as she was just leaving the property to return to her relative’s home. The appointment to assess the damage was rearranged for 2 days later.
The resident formally complained to the landlord on 24 January 2023. She stated that the water tank in her loft had not been serviced since 2011 and had “exploded”, flooding her home and damaging the electrics and her belongings. She stated her children had been unable to go to school as a result and that they had no electricity in the property. She said she had asked the landlord to decant (temporarily rehouse) her household but it had not done so. The resident also asked the landlord to rehouse her permanently as her children did not want to return to the property, and to send her a “claim form”.
On 25 and 26 January 2023, the landlord offered temporary hotel accommodation to the resident, which she accepted. The resident was moved to a 3 bedroom house on 30 January 2023 for the remaining duration of the decant period.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 22 February 2023. It set out the following:
1. The resident had not reported the water leak to the landlord until 23 January 2023, 3 days after it had occurred.
2. She had instead initially instructed “a private contractor” to attend.
3. The landlord’s repairs operatives had been unable to gain access to the property until 25 January 2023. It had arranged for its operatives to attend immediately upon the resident being available to provide access.
4. The resident had declined the landlord’s original offer of a decant on 25 January 2023, as she had stated she was “going to stay with friends”.
5. Upon the resident contacting the landlord the following day, it had placed her, her children, and her pets into hotel accommodation. It had also funded her travel there and provided a food allowance.
6. It had arranged removals of the resident’s items to her temporary address.
7. The resident would remain in the accommodation until the required remedial works had been completed to her home. Upon their completion, the landlord would arrange for decanted belongings to be returned to her property.
8. With regard to the resident’s items damaged by the leak, the landlord had advised that her belongings were her own responsibility, in accordance with the tenancy agreement. It stated that it was only responsible for the “asset” (property) and the resident should have her own insurance cover.
9. The resident had tried to access the property since vacating it and the landlord reminded her not to do so, as it was a working site and asbestos removal was taking place.
10. It offered to provide a letter for the resident to give to her children’s school if one was needed to explain any attendance concerns.
The resident escalated her complaint on the same day she received the landlord’s stage 1 response. She disputed a number of comments the landlord had made, including that she had failed to report the leak to it on the day it had happened. She also refuted that she had not accepted the landlord’s original offer of temporary accommodation on 25 January 2023. She stated that her brother had called out an emergency plumber on the day of the leak as he had been unaware of who her landlord was. She listed personal items that had been damaged by the leak and asked the landlord to compensate her for them.
On 10 March 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It stated that the resident had reported the leak on the day it happened to a tenancy sustainment officer. However, “at no point” had she reported it directly to its repairs team, until 3 days later. It stated that its repairs service “does not carry out routine maintenance of water tank valves/ball valves”. It set out that it had responded promptly to the resident’s report of the leak and provided temporary accommodation to her. It had also advised her of the appropriate course of action regarding the damage to her personal belongings. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The landlord completed the necessary remedial works to the property and the resident moved back into her home on 13 March 2023.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman to investigate. She remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the leak.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s response to her request for compensation for her personal belongings that she says have been damaged by the leak. The evidence also demonstrates that the resident had told the landlord she had hurt her foot by falling through one of the ceilings. The Service can assess the landlord’s response to these issues to determine whether it responded appropriately. However, it is outside of our remit to determine whether the landlord was liable for any injury to the resident or damage to her possessions. This is because it would be more appropriate for a court or insurer to determine matters of liability. The resident may therefore wish to seek legal advice accordingly. The Ombudsman can consider any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident from any identified failure in the landlord’s handling of her concerns.
The landlord’s records suggest that within a few weeks of the resident’s move back home after the repairs were completed, she had identified a need for further works. It is unclear whether these were repairs that had arisen from the leak or the remedial works undertaken, or if they were unrelated to either. However, the Service’s remit is to investigate issues that the landlord has had the opportunity to formally respond to through its internal complaints procedure. As these repairs were identified after the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 March 2023, it has not been able to address this issue directly. If the resident has any ongoing concerns about the landlord’s handling of any works identified after the decant period, or about the quality of the works that had been completed at any point, she could consider making a new formal complaint to the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak from the water tank in her home

The resident is a secure tenant of her property. Secure tenancy agreements confer legal and contractual obligations onto the landlord to complete most repairs in most circumstances. Relevant legislation states that the landlord must complete repairs it is responsible for within a “reasonable” timescale. What could be considered a reasonable timescale will depend on the urgency of the required repair.
The tenancy agreement contains information and advice about the resident’s responsibilities. This includes that the landlord is not responsible for the resident’s personal belongings and that she is “strongly advised” to obtain her own insurance to protect her from “accidents, damage, vandalism or theft”.
The agreement further sets out that the resident “must allow the [landlord’s] employees or contractors access at all reasonable hours of the day to inspect the condition of the premises or carry out repairs”. The landlord states that it will “not interrupt or interfere with your right peacefully to occupy the property”, except where it requires access to inspect or repair.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its approach to handling reports of repairs from residents. The policy states the timescales that the landlord will respond within, depending on the type of repair being reported. For issues concerning leaks from the water tank, or a total loss of water or electrical supply, the policy states it aims to respond within 24 hours. The policy further states that it will respond to repairs categorised as an emergency, within 3 hours. It undertakes to make the situation safe and then carry out required remedial works as soon as possible thereafter, if not during the initial appointment. It states that a burst tank is an example of an emergency situation.
The policy is somewhat unclear in that it has given timescales of 3 hours and 24 hours for the same or similar situations. A recommendation will therefore be made that the landlord reviews this policy to ensure it is clear on these timescales. It is difficult to reasonably assess the landlord’s actions against its stated policy aims if those aims are unclear or contradictory.
The policy further states that it will complete “routine repairs” within 26 working days. The Service accepts that major works, such as remedial repairs required in this case following the leak, are likely to take longer if they are particularly complex. In such cases, it is necessary for the landlord to demonstrate that it has completed the works within a reasonable timescale and that the repairs were not subject to avoidable delays as a result of mishandling.
The resident reported the leak from the water tank to the landlord on 20 January 2023, which had occurred in the early hours of that morning. However, in its stage 1 complaint response dated 22 February 2023, the landlord incorrectly stated that the resident had advised it of the matter on 23 January 2023. It stated that the resident “did not contact the repairs call centre to log a job and instructed a private contractor to undertake remedial work”. An email sent internally at the landlord on 6 February 2023 stated it was “her job to raise repairs and we will rectify”, referring to the resident. In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted that the resident had spoken to a tenancy sustainment officer on the day of the leak to inform them of the incident. It then went on to say that the ”repairs team were notified of the burst” on 23 January 2023 “via one of our housing officers who requested a decant due to the water leak”.
It was unfair of the landlord to state in its complaint responses that the resident had either failed to report the leak on the day it happened, or that she failed to report it correctly. The landlord’s email records demonstrate multiple members of staff were aware of the incident on the day it happened. That the resident had not directly contacted the repairs team herself was irrelevant. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord has put a process in place that it would prefer its residents to follow. However, the landlord’s responsibility to provide an appropriate repairs service was not conditional on the resident using a specific channel to report them. This is especially the case in emergencies where the resident was likely to be in a state of distress and preoccupied with sorting out the logistics of ensuring her children had an appropriate place to stay. The landlord’s records demonstrated an unsympathetic attitude to the matter, suggesting that the resident had not done “her job” to “raise repairs”. It then suggested the delay to its response over the weekend had been the resident’s fault.
The resident had acted correctly in reporting the incident to a member of the landlord’s staff on 20 January 2023. It would have been reasonable for one of the staff members aware of the situation to urgently notify the repairs team to enable it to respond as needed to satisfy itself of the safety of the property. Failing to respond to an emergency or take any ownership because the resident had not used a preferred communication channel was inappropriate and unreasonable. That multiple members of staff aware of the incident failed to alert the repairs team to ensure a timely response in accordance with its policy was a failing. The Service further notes the landlord has not provided evidence that it advised the resident on that day to contact the repairs team directly. This would have been another reasonable action it could have taken. An order will be made that the landlord reminds its front-facing staff to appropriately handle information concerning emergency repairs, by forwarding it to the repairs team where necessary or advising residents of any actions they need to take.
The Service has considered whether it would be appropriate to order the landlord to reimburse the resident for the cost of the emergency plumber that her brother had called out on the day of the leak. The resident had stated this cost her £200. In consideration of the full circumstances, we do not believe such an order would be reasonable. This is because the resident stated in an email to the landlord on 26 January 2023 that, following the leak, she had called her brother using a web-based social media application. She stated she had been unable to call the landlord at the time due to having no minutes left to make phone calls. She further stated that her brother had called the plumber because he did not “know who my landlord was”. It is unclear if the resident had not told her brother who her landlord was or if her brother had not asked her. However, her statements suggest that the private plumber had been called before the resident had informed the landlord’s tenancy sustainment officer. Therefore, the landlord had not been given reasonable opportunity at that time to respond appropriately to the incident. It follows that it would not be appropriate to order the landlord to reimburse the cost of a private plumber.
There was a further delay to the landlord accessing the resident’s property in order to assess the extent of the damage and determine whether it reasonably needed to decant the resident. The records suggest the resident had refused access to the landlord on 23 January 2023 because the timing had been inconvenient. The resident has a responsibility to provide reasonable access to the property to the landlord, as set out in the tenancy agreement. In this case, the landlord needed to determine what actions may be needed to protect the property from further damage. It was also reasonable for it to assess the issue before agreeing to decant the resident. It could not reasonably agree the property was uninhabitable before it had visually assessed the damage. The additional 2 day delay to the landlord assessing the damage and agreeing to decant the resident can therefore not be considered to be within the landlord’s control.
The evidence shows that once the landlord assessed the damage, it agreed to decant the resident and her family. It covered reasonable associated expenses, including transport, and provided a food allowance. While the resident was initially placed in a hotel, the evidence demonstrates the landlord took reasonable steps to avoid this by consulting with various departments to identify any more suitable properties from its stock. The landlord has demonstrated it handled the resident’s decant appropriately.
However, the landlord’s initial refusal to provide the resident with a letter she could give to her children’s school in order to explain any attendance issues they were having was unreasonable. One email dated 23 January 2023 stated “[n]o I don’t provide letters”. It is unclear why the landlord considered it appropriate to take a blanket approach to these requests. The resident’s request in this case was reasonable. The landlord was providing initial temporary accommodation a significant distance from the resident’s home and her children’s school, which had not been within her control. This was likely to have caused the resident difficulty in ensuring her children’s timely attendance at school. If providing a letter to the school made the situation easier for the resident to manage, it is difficult to understand why the landlord would refuse to carry out this small task.
An email from a member of the landlord’s staff dated 21 February 2023 further stated that they had felt the resident’s request for a letter to provide to the school had been “inappropriate”. They stated they were “not responsible for the children’s attendance” and that it was the resident’s “choice as to weather (sic) she takes the children or not so I declined, I’m only concerned with the repairs”. This was an unnecessarily heavy-handed attitude to take. The resident had not attempted to confer responsibility for her children’s schooling onto the landlord with her request for a supporting letter. The resident was taking responsibility for the situation by trying to aid the school’s understanding of her household’s current circumstances. The landlord would not be expected to write anything in the letter that was untrue, misleading, or excused the children’s non-attendance at school. It would have been reasonable for it to write a short letter that confirmed the resident and her family had been decanted, the location of the temporary accommodation, and relevant dates. The landlord took an unsympathetic stance on this issue. There was no reason it could not have taken this simple step to help the resident manage the situation she was in through no fault of her own.
The Service acknowledges that the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response suggested it had reconsidered its position on providing the supporting letter and that one was “being prepared”. It is unclear whether the landlord did provide the letter, as it has not submitted a copy to the Service. It is positive that it eventually identified the resident’s request was a reasonable one, and it should ensure its staff do not refuse future requests without good reason. An order will be made that the landlord writes to the resident to apologise for refusing to promptly provide this letter to support her discussions with her children’s school(s).
The resident has indicated she believes the landlord should have compensated her for her personal items that had been damaged by the leak. She stated in her complaint that the private plumber had diagnosed the issue as arising from a “corroded valve” that had not been changed since 2011. She provided a screenshot of an email she said was from the plumber that set out this opinion. It is unclear who sent the email as the screenshot does not show a professional or business email address, only a name.
As referred to earlier in this report, it is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to determine liability. We are unable to determine whether the landlord should or could have reasonably foreseen, and prevented, the leak that damaged the resident’s items. What we can consider is whether the landlord failed to act in accordance with its legal obligations or its policies. We can also consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s indication that she believed the landlord to be liable for what had happened and the impact of the incident on her. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to take out contents’ insurance to protect herself and her belongings in the future.
However, this was not the only recourse available to the resident if she had been given reason to believe the landlord was responsible for the leak. If an insurer were to find the landlord had been responsible, it would have been inappropriate for it to solely encourage her to claim against her contents’ insurance. This is because doing so would have been likely to have resulted in being required to pay an excess or her future premiums being increased, and this would have been unfair in the circumstances. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided details to the resident of how she could claim against its liability insurance. The Service acknowledges that the landlord disagrees it was liable. However, it would not be reasonable for the landlord to only provide details of its insurer if it accepted it was liable. The purpose of the insurer is to make that determination, especially where parties disagree. The resident should have had the opportunity to make a claim and to have the insurer investigate and decide on any liability. That the landlord did not give her the opportunity to do was a failing.
The landlord has stated to the Service that its repairs policy does not require it to carry out routine services to the water tanks in its property. It states there is also no statutory requirement for it to do so. The Service accepts that this is case. The landlord has a legal responsibility to “keep in repair” and “proper working order” its water tanks. This implies that the water tank should have been in satisfactory repair at the start of the resident’s tenancy and that the landlord should act accordingly in response to any reports of required repairs. The landlord’s internal records show it considered how there is usually an earlier indication that a water tank needs repairing prior to an incident such as the one that happened at the resident’s home. These comments are noted and again, ultimately the decision as to whether the landlord failed to maintain the tank or take action to prevent it from bursting is a decision for an insurer to court to make.
The Service has noted that the resident’s tenancy started in May 2022, approximately 8 months before the leak. The resident stated she had been told the tank had not been checked since 2011. The landlord has confirmed to the Service that it did not include a visual check of the water tank as part of its void check prior to letting the property to the resident. It said there was an absence of any sign that suggested the water tank was faulty and therefore it had not considered it necessary to check the tank. It had also noted the resident had not reported any issues with the tank or other water apparatus prior to the leak. The Service accepts that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether the landlord could reasonably have foreseen the leak 8 months prior to it happening. However, we have noted that the cause was said to be a corroded valve, which was likely to have corroded over time. The landlord also itself considered there was likely to have been an earlier indication that the water tank required attention. The landlord should consider incorporating visual checks of water tanks and their valves into its void check specification. This may help reduce the likelihood of a major leak occurring within a few months of the tenancy starting.
The Service notes that the resident returned home to her property following the completion of the necessary remedial works on 13 March 2023. The landlord had completed these within a reasonable timescale (less than 7 weeks) and there is no evidence of any avoidable delay or other mishandling.
The Service has considered the circumstances of this case, the landlord’s failure to acknowledge or remedy any of the failures identified, and the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies (published online). We have therefore considered it appropriate to order the landlord to pay the resident an amount of compensation that will reflect the impact of the failures identified in this report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak from the water tank in her home.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing. It must consult with the apologies section of the Guidance on Remedies and ensure the apology is compliant with the guidance contained. A copy must be provided to the Ombudsman. The landlord must specifically apologise for:
  1. its initial failure to provide her with a supporting letter about her decant.
  2. its failure to provide her with details about how she could make a claim against its liability insurance if she wished to do so.
  3. It statements that the resident had failed to report, or correctly report, the leak to the landlord on the day it happened and the resulting delay to its response.
2. Make a direct payment of £300 to the resident, comprised of:
  1. £50 to recognise the impact of the landlord’s initial refusal to write a supporting letter.
  2. £50 to recognise the impact of the landlord stating the resident had failed to report, or correctly report, the leak on the day it happened.
  3. £200 to recognise the impact of the landlord’s failure to provide details of its liability insurer to the resident upon her indication she wished to make a claim.
3. Provide the resident with details of how she can make a claim against its liability insurance, if she still wishes to do so.
4. Remind its front-line staff of the importance of appropriately handling information from residents concerning arising repair needs, particularly in the case of emergencies.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its repairs policy to ensure its target timescales for various categories of repairs are clear and coherent.
The landlord should consider incorporating visual checks of fundamental water supply apparatus in its properties as part of its void works. This should be with a view to identifying and resolving any problems at an early stage.