Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202004485)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004485

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

7 September 2021

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 regarding:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in his property.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s claim for the cost of new carpets following the water leak.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy for a 1-bedroom bungalow, rented from a Housing Association. He has resided at the property since 2005.
3. The landlord has a Responsive Repairs policy which states it provides a 24 hour, 365 days a year service for the reporting of emergency repairs and aims to attend all emergency repairs within 24 hours.
4. The landlord has a Complaints, Claims, Compliments and Feedback Procedure which notes that its claims procedure has two stages, an initial claim stage and a review stage. For non-represented claims (those brought directly by a customer), the landlord’s procedure states it aims to respond within 15 working days. If a review is requested the landlord states it will acknowledge within one working day to advise whether it will accept the review, however no target time for its final response is provided.
5. The landlord has clarified to this Service that it dealt with the resident’s claim through its claims process and also that it self-insures, therefore assessing claims ‘internally using the same liability principles as an insurance company’, rather than using a third-party insurer. However, it has also advised this Service that, since the resident submitted his claim, it reviewed its procedures after identifying the potential for confusion by referring customers to this Service at the conclusion of the claims process, rather than referring them for legal advice as would be the case if the landlord did not self-insure. From April 2021, it advised it now investigates all claims as a complaint and these follow its complaint process. It is also noted that, although the resident disagrees with the decision made, he has not raised any concerns with this Service regarding under which policy or procedure his claim was processed.

Summary of Events

6. The landlord’s records indicate it was aware the resident has ‘restricted/impaired mobility’, although this Service has not seen further details regarding this.
7. On 1 July 2020, the landlord attended the resident’s property on an emergency callout to trace the source of a leak. Its records noted that it identified a ‘really bad’ leak from the boiler cupboard which flooded the ‘full passage, bathroom and kitchen’. The attending plumber pumped away the water via the resident’s wet room and renewed a part on the Combimate which had split. 
8. The resident contacted the landlord to make a liability claim on 8 July 2020, requesting the landlord cover the cost of new carpets. He submitted a claim for £610 and advised that the carpets in his bedroom, hallway and front passage had been damaged beyond repair and he had ‘had to get rid of them’ as a result. He advised that he had ‘problems with (his) legs and back’ and that he was now walking on bare floors.
9. The landlord responded to the resident’s claim on 27 July 2020 and advised that it would not be accepting liability for the damage caused to his carpets. It clarified that it did not hold the resident responsible for the leak but, having liaised with its repairs team and the attending plumber, it was satisfied the ‘cap on the Combimate had split through wear and tear’. While it acknowledged this was an unfortunate incident, it stated it was ‘not something that we could foresee or prevent from happening’. The landlord clarified it would not make a payment on a claim such as the resident’s unless it had identified it had either ‘directly caused the damage’ or ‘failed to attend to the reported problem within a reasonable period of time’. It confirmed it did not consider it had been negligent in either way in this case and advised the resident to take the matter up with his home contents insurer.  
10. On 4 August 2020, the resident requested that his claim be reviewed. He acknowledged the landlord had attended to the reported leak as an emergency but he was unhappy with its decision. He also noted the following:
    1. The attending plumber had advised the broken part ‘was no longer serviced due to the expense’ and had not been checked by the landlord during his tenancy. He believed it was therefore the landlord’s fault that it had broken and subsequently caused the leak and flooding.
    2. The situation was causing stress and worry which was detrimental to his health. 
11. The landlord issued its Review response on 7 August 2020. It advised that it had considered the resident’s additional comments and information but had not seen any new evidence that would mean it changed its original position. It advised that the attending plumber had denied making the comments the resident had reported and also advised that, having consulted its Plumbing Area Lead, it would not routinely service the broken part (from the Combimate) as ‘there are no movable parts’. It advised it would attend to inspect if any fault was reported but, as that had not been the case, it would not accept liability for the leak.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in his property.

12. In the evening of 1 July 2020, the resident reported a leak in his property. The landlord responded within an hour of receiving the report, attending out of hours on an emergency basis and it identified the source of the leak, which was a broken cap on the Combimate. Landlord records show the attending plumber renewed the cap and then pumped the water away from the resident’s property via his wet room.
13. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of a leak, attending the property promptly and in line with its Responsive Repairs policy. It also acted appropriately by first identifying the source of the leak and then renewing the part which had broken.
14. It is noted that in his claim review request, the resident stated that he considered the landlord to be at fault for the leak and subsequent flooding as it had not previously checked the cap on the Combimate since his tenancy began in 2005. He also stated that he had been advised by the attending plumber that this was due to the ‘expense’ involved.
15. In its response, the landlord advised that it had interviewed the attending plumber who denied making such a comment to the landlord. It is clear that there are differing accounts of this conversation. As this Service was not present during the conversation between the resident and the operative, there is no evidence that would enable us to determine what was said or not and there is no evidence that the landlord did not check or service the cap on the Combimate due to the cost of doing so. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response that it would not ordinarily carry out regular checks on a cap on a Combimate as it was not a moving part was reasonable. The landlord explained it had not been notified of any concerns over the condition of the cap, and although it was careful to stress it was not placing any blame on the resident, it was satisfied the cap had broken due to wear and tear. That it was therefore not able to have foreseen it breaking was a reasonable position for it to hold.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s claim for the cost of new carpets following a water leak.

16. The landlord’s Complaints, Claims, Comments and Feedback policy defines a claim as ‘a request for compensation based on a belief there has been negligence, and a direct result an individual has suffered damage to their property, or suffered a personal injury’.
17. Having received the resident’s claim on 8 July 2020, the landlord responded appropriately by issuing its decision within the target time stated within its policy. Its response included details of the actions it had taken as part of its investigation of the claim, which included speaking to the plumber who attended the original leak and the Plumbing Area Lead, as well as reviewing the relevant repair history and photographic evidence submitted by the resident. It noted that, when discussing the matter with the resident as part of its investigation, he had confirmed he had not raised any issue with the boiler or Combimate previously.
18. As noted above, the landlord advised it was satisfied that the cap on the Combimate had split through wear and tear and, although it acknowledged it was an ‘unfortunate incident’, it was not something that could have been foreseen or that occurred due to any negligence on the landlord’s part. In its claim Review response, the landlord further explained that, in answer to the resident’s concern that the cap on the Combimate had not been inspected since he moved in, it was not something it would ordinarily service on a regular basis as it did not contain any moving parts. It confirmed it did not accept liability for the cap breaking.
19. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while acknowledging the distress the matter has clearly caused the resident, this was a reasonable position for the landlord to take. From the information available to this investigation, there is no evidence that the landlord was at fault in how it responded to the resident’s report of a leak, or in regards to whether it could have reasonably been expected to anticipate that the cap on the Combimate would break and cause a leak. 
20. It is noted that the landlord was aware that the resident had mobility issues prior to the leak taking place and, within his claim, he notified them he had ‘bad legs’ and was walking on bare floors, having taken up and thrown out his damaged carpets. He also advised them that the situation (having no carpets) was causing him additional stress and worry. However, the landlord has not addressed this within its claim response and landlord records show that, in a telephone conversation with the resident following its rejection of his claim, it advised him that his age and health ‘cannot be taken into consideration’. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was not appropriate and does not take into consideration the landlord’s Compensation Policy, which notes that compensation may be offered for ‘damage to possessions, where liability doesn’t exist’. It also notes that any compensation offered should consider ‘whether those affected have particular needs that were made worse by the situation’.
21. While the Ombudsman would have expected to see the landlord show it had at least considered whether it could exercise its discretion to offer the resident some compensation, even while not accepting liability, this Service will not be making a finding of Service Failure on this aspect of the complaint. This is because there is no evidence of any failing in service by the landlord once it was aware of the leak and there is no evidence that it could reasonably have foreseen that the leak would occur. In addition, as noted above, its overall handling of the claim was otherwise appropriate and its position that it was not liable for the damage was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

22. In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in his property.
23. In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s claim for the cost of new carpets following a water leak. 

Reasons

24. The landlord responded to the resident’s report of a leak within an hour, treating it as an emergency repair as per its policy, and identified and resolved the problem promptly. There is no evidence that it could have reasonably been expected to foresee the cap on the Combimate breaking and it was reasonable in advising that it did not ordinarily service non-moving parts.
25. The landlord also responded to the resident’s claim for the cost of new carpets appropriately, providing a response in a timely fashion and explaining the steps it had taken to investigate the claim and reach its decision. There is no evidence that it had been negligent in any aspect of its response to the leak or the maintenance of the Combimate or the resident’s boiler as a whole. While it did not demonstrate that it had given full consideration to the resident’s circumstances, as it could not have reasonably foreseen the cap breaking and causing the subsequent flooding, its position that it would not accept liability for the subsequent damage to the resident’s carpets was not unreasonable.

Recommendations

26. The landlord should consider sharing this report with staff who respond to claims and ensure that, in its responses, it takes into account and addresses residents’ personal circumstances, as outlined within its Compensation Policy. It may find it useful to refer to the Ombudsman’s guidance for its staff on complaints that involve insurance claims: Guidance on complaints involving insurance – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)
27. It is noted that the landlord has stated it has amended the way it processes claims as of April 2021, so that all claims are now treated under its Complaints Policy and procedures. It should update the information on its website to make this clear to residents.