The Guinness Partnership Limited (202310449)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310449

The Guinness Partnership Limited

12 July 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 handling of the resident’s reports about leaks in her kitchen.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property (a house) as an assured tenant of the landlord (a housing association) since 2016.
  2. On 5 May 2023, the resident called the landlord’s help desk to report there was a leak under her kitchen sink. She said her floor had been wet for a few days, and when she emptied out her kitchen base unit under the sink to try to identify the problem, she saw what seemed to be a leak behind the cupboard, causing “black mould and bubbling”. She also reported that a small area of the laminate flooring in the kitchen was starting to lift. She had purchased the materials for this flooring and fitted it herself previously.
  3. The landlord initially responded that her request would be passed to its repairs desk. As a bank holiday weekend was coming up, it said the soonest a repairs person could attend would be 3 days later (9 May 2023). The resident was not satisfied with this and said the leak should be an emergency repair. She sent further emails to other members of staff who then arranged for a plumber to attend the next day.
  4. The plumber attended at 9:00pm the next day (6 May 2023) and identified a leak on the condensate pipe connected to the boiler. The condensate pipe was in the kitchen area. They advised the resident that the boiler and the pipes connecting to it would be the responsibility of the heating contractor and she should contact them.
  5. On 7 May 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and asked it to arrange a visit with the heating contractor. She also sent photos of the damaged flooring. The landlord arranged for the heating contractor to attend on 9 May 2023 (after the bank holiday weekend).
  6. On 9 May 2023, the heating contractor attended and repaired the condensate pipe. They also found another leak on the hot water pipe which was behind the cupboard. They isolated the hot water to prevent further damage and advised the resident to contact the landlord as it would be the landlord’s responsibility to remove the base unit and fix this issue.
  7. The resident then sent emails to the landlord providing an update and asking it to arrange repairs. The landlord initially replied that it would arrange for the heating contractor to attend again the next day from 10:00am to 3:00pm and provided contact details of the engineer. The resident explained by way of response that there had been a second leak on the hot water pipe behind the cupboard which was “very bad” and “hissing out”, the flooring (which she purchased and fitted herself earlier) had been damaged and there was a bad smell from the cupboard.
  8. The resident then called the heating engineer who reiterated that the follow-up work was the landlord’s responsibility. She reported this to the landlord. Although it is not in the contemporaneous records seen by this Service, according to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, the landlord then called the heating contractor who agreed to visit for a second time the next day. The landlord further arranged a joiner to attend. No records of the calls are available.
  9. The next day, 10 May 2023, the heating contractor attended and confirmed the condensate pipe leak had been fixed. They told the resident the only work remaining was for a plumber to fix the hot water pipe leak and re-open the hot water valve so she could have a hot water supply again. The landlord’s joiner and plumber both attended in succession to remove the cupboard, fix the leak and then re-install the cupboard on the same day.
  10. The resident made a formal complaint on 10 May 2023 to say:
    1. the landlord initially gave her wrong advice that it could not respond to the leak until after the bank holiday as it was not an emergency and it would switch off water for three days until a plumber could attend.
    2. she sought compensation for the damaged flooring and further repairs to the cupboard and to fix the smell issue.
  11. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 10 May 2023 and provided a stage 1 response on 24 May 2023, summarised as follows:
    1. It apologised for not initially treating the leak as an emergency repair (with a response time of 24 hours) as it should have done.
    2. It still arranged for a plumber to attend within 24 hours so it considered it acted in time to address the issue.
    3. The resident then asked them to arrange repairs with a heating contractor which it did as soon as it could, which was 2 days later (after the bank holiday weekend).
    4. It apologised for the subsequent confusion and poor communication with the heating contractor over whose responsibility it was to fix the leaks.
    5. It said it could not compensate the resident for the damaged flooring as this should be covered under her contents insurance and the damage was already there before she reported the leak.
    6. It offered £50 to the resident for the distress and inconvenience over the confusion of who was responsible for fixing the leaks and the number of phone calls she had to make.
    7. It believed the kitchen cupboard was still fit for use after the repairs but it could arrange a re-assessment of its condition if the resident wished.
  12. The resident asked for an escalation to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure and the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 June 2023, summarised as follows:
    1. It repeated its previous finding at stage 1 that it initially did not correctly classify the leak as an emergency but arranged for a heating contractor to attend at the earliest opportunity on 9 May 2023.
    2. It apologised again for the breakdown in communication and acknowledged a lack of clarity as it was in fact not necessary for the heating contractor to attend a second time on 10 May 2023, but said all subsequent repairs were completed by its plumber on 10 May.
    3. It again said it could not offer any compensation for the damaged flooring as the damage existed before she reported the leak and the resident should try and recover any loss from her contents insurer.
    4. It again said it believed the cupboard was usable but would offer a re-assessment.
    5. It increased its offer of compensation to £75 in recognition of the time and trouble the resident went to, the errors in communication and confusion over who was responsible for repairing the leaks.
    6. It said it had provided “specific feedback” on the identified errors in communication.
  13. The resident referred the matter to this Service on 22 June 2023. She has advised her desired outcome remains compensation for replacing the damaged floor, the cost of which she estimated to be about £300 (which was the cost for installing the original flooring).

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that landlords must keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of water, space heating and heating water. This is confirmed in the resident’s tenancy agreement under section 2.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that “a flood or leak that cannot be contained or causes a risk of electric shock” would be classified as needing an emergency repair as it poses an immediate health and safety risk. The landlord undertakes to either complete a repair, or carry out a temporary repair to make the situation safe, within 24 hours of the repair being reported.
  3. There is no dispute that the landlord initially failed to categorise the resident’s reports of the leaks as an emergency repair situation on 5 May 2023 and gave her incorrect advice that nothing could be done until after the bank holiday weekend, which was 3 days later. The resident experienced more worry and frustration than she should have done and spent time and trouble to get help. The landlord has apologised for this and offered compensation for the inconvenience caused, which was appropriate.
  4. The key issue is whether the repair works carried out by the landlord on 9 May 2023 were reasonably sufficient.
  5. The landlord has said it would not accept any responsibility for the damaged flooring, as the damage has already occurred by the time the resident made it aware. It said it responded in a timely manner and took reasonable steps to fix the issue.
  6. The resident had already reported a suspected leak behind the kitchen cupboard on 5 May 2023. The landlord’s plumber attending the next day should have taken this information on board to check behind the cupboard. If they had done so, then it might reasonably be expected they could have identified there was also a leak from the hot water pipe behind the cupboard and taken the necessary steps to prevent further damage (for example by turning off the hot water valve).
  7. The Ombudsman understands that the leak from the condenser pipe was also in the kitchen. It appears that at the time, having found one of the two leaks on 9 May 2023, the plumber believed this to be the sole leak that was causing damage to the nearby kitchen flooring. While they advised a heating contractor to attend, there is no record that they did anything further to contain or make safe the leak from the condenser pipe such as turn off the boiler’s electricity supply.
  8. The landlord did not identify the leak on the hot water pipe until 3 days later when the heating contractor engineer attended. The engineer fixed the condenser pipe leak, isolated the hot water supply, and gave the resident accurate advice about where both of the leaks were located. The resident then reported this to the landlord, who arranged for a joiner and plumber to attend the next day and fix the issue. This was 4 days later than the timeframe for emergency repairs under the landlord’s policy. The Ombudsman considers the uncontained and sustained leak from the hot water pipe over those 4 days would have made the damage worse than it was at the time of the resident’s report.
  9. The landlord also caused confusion in its communication with the resident. It appears that, when the resident updated the landlord on 9 May 2023, the landlord was still under the impression there was only one leak on the condensate pipe connected to the boiler, and asked the heating contractor to re-attend the next day, which was unnecessary since the condensate pipe leak had already been fixed. On the landlord’s advice, the resident called the heating contractor to try and arrange a time for repairs. The heating contractor responded correctly that it was the landlord’s responsibility to carry out the outstanding repairs to the hot water pipe. The landlord still asked the heating contractor to visit again before it asked the joiner and plumber to attend. Its miscommunication and delay in ordering the right repairs caused the resident more inconvenience and frustration.
  10. The landlord’s total offer in recognition of the distress and inconvenience arising from its poor communication is £75. The Ombudsman believes this is a reasonable amount in recognition of the impact of the miscommunication. However, the landlord should have addressed the floor damage as well, since its 4-day delay in containing and fixing the leaks would have contributed to the damage. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge this and offer compensation to put right the impact from this delay amounts to a service failure.
  11. The resident has asked the landlord to bear the full costs of fixing the damaged flooring. The landlord has declined to do so, saying that the only way for her to recover the loss would be through her contents insurer. The landlord’s compensation policy says it expects residents to have their own household insurance to cover damage from water leaks, and it would not pay unless it had done something to cause the leak.
  12. The Ombudsman has heard from the resident she was not covered by any contents insurance and the floors remain unfixed. The tenancy agreement clearly stipulates that tenants should purchase their own contents insurance. Although the resident has a responsibility to purchase contents insurance, the Ombudsman’s opinion is that the landlord could have used its discretion to support the resident with a claim to its own public liability insurer or considered a discretionary contribution towards the costs.
  13. Taking into account how long the leaks were left uncontained, the Ombudsman finds the landlord should make a contribution towards part of the costs of installing the new flooring. This is to recognise the impact of the delay on the resident. We have accordingly made an order below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in the kitchen.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the delays in identifying one of the two leaks, and containing both of the leaks.
  2. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to pay to the resident a sum of £225 (inclusive of the £75 previously offered), broken down as follows:
    1. £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in identifying the two leaks and containing the leaks.
    2. £100 as contribution towards the installation costs of new flooring (calculated as 1/3 of the costs of installing the original floor).
    3. £75 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by poor communication and contradictory information on what repairs were outstanding and who would be responsible.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its compensation policy with reference to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on complaints involving insurance – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). It should consider adding information about what other help residents could seek should they be unable to recover any part of the loss or damage to their property through their contents or household insurances, for example, if such loss was less than the policy excess, or they were unsuccessful in their claim. The landlord may consider referring residents with claims to its public liability insurer.