Tower Hamlets Community Housing (202215996)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215996

Tower Hamlets Community Housing

22 February 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:
1. Response to a leak into the resident’s bathroom.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord and has lived at the property since 2015 (the year the block was built). The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the fifth floor. The resident has children who live at the property with him. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states as follows:
1. It will respond to emergency repairs, such as flooding, within 4 hours to make safe and will complete the repair, where possible, the next working day.
2. Routine repairs will be completed within 15 working days.
The landlord’s health and safety policy states that the landlord must not knowingly put residents at risk because of what it does or fails to do. It must not ignore hazards that arise.
The landlord’s compensation policy states as follows:
1. It will consider compensation where:
  1. It has failed to keep an appointment.
  2. Damage has been caused to a resident’s property caused by its actions or inactions.
  3. A resident has been unable to use a room in their home.
2. It will not compensate residents for time off work.
3. For discretionary compensation, it may offset such payments against any rent arrears.
4. Where a resident loses the use of part or all their home and amenities, it pays compensation based on the rent or a flat rate per day. The total compensation calculated can be no greater than 75% of the rent due in the same period. For the loss of use of a bathroom it will consider compensation up to 40% of the rent.
The landlord’s complaints policy states as follows:
1. It has a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If further time is required at either stage it will keep the resident informed of this.
2. Residents will receive a clear and comprehensive response.
3. One of the desired outcomes of its complaints process is that resident’s trust that if something goes wrong, the landlord will put it right and will be transparent in how it is doing so.

Summary of events

On 8 September 2021 the resident reported a leak from the property above (which is also owned by the landlord). The landlord raised a job that same day to make the electrics safe. A contractor attended on 9 September 2021 but noted that there was no access to the property. It had called the resident who stated he was not at the property.
Contractors attended the property on 10 September and 15 September 2021 in respect of the leak and to see if the property was habitable. No records of the outcome of these visits have been provided to this Service. On 23 September 2021 the landlord noted internally that the leak was still ongoing.
On 3 October 2021 the landlord noted internally that the resident’s bathroom ceiling had collapsed. It raised a job the following day to make this safe. Although the landlord’s records do not specifically state when this took place this Service has seen an emergency job for a carpenter from 4 October 2021 which was billed to the landlord.
On 6 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and stated as follows:
1. He had been in contact with the landlord since 9 September 2021 as sewage had been leaking into his property from the property above.
2. The landlord had failed to repair the leak from the property above resulting in the collapse of his bathroom ceiling.
3. His property was uninhabitable due to the failings of the landlord.
4. The landlord’s handling of the situation had not been adequate and the response times and communication from the landlord had been “terrible”. He had waited for 6 hours after the ceiling collapsed for the landlord to attend.
The following day the landlord asked in internal correspondence for an update on the repairs. It noted that the resident had attended its office on two occasions and it had been “forced” to put him up in a hotel. (The landlord arranged hotel accommodation for the resident from 8 October 2021 and covered his associated food costs).
On 8 October 2021 the local Mayor raised a complaint with the landlord on the resident’s behalf and reiterated the resident’s concerns. The landlord responded that same day and advised that it would respond at stage 1 within 10 working days.
On 18 October 2021 the landlord noted internally that the ceiling had been made safe (the landlord did not specify when) and that it had scheduled the repair in the property above for 21 October 2021.
The resident returned to his property from the hotel on 19 October 2021.
On 20 October 2021 the landlord responded at stage 1 as a “initial investigation response” to the complaint. It stated as follows:
1. It confirmed that the works to the property above had been completed. The leak had not originated from the toilet and instead had been caused by misuse of the bathroom in the property above.
2. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident whilst it was completing the works in his property. It had raised a job to carry out remedial works which included, works to the ceiling and replacement of the vinyl flooring.
3. It had offered the resident £300 compensation and a permanent decant into another flat in the block. It noted that the resident had declined this (this correspondence has not been provided to this Service).
4. It would contact the resident by 9 November 2021 to provide the resident with a full resolution to enable the complaint to be “fully wrapped up”.
On 22 October 2021 the landlord raised a job to reinstate the resident’s bathroom ceiling.
On 23 November 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and stated that the leak was still ongoing. The following day (24 November 2021) the landlord advised that it would arrange for a plumber to attend. It provided details on how the resident could claim under its buildings insurance. It did not state what this was in respect of. The resident responded that he had contacted the insurance company who had advised that the landlord needed to make the claim on his behalf. He asked the landlord to action this. There is no evidence that the landlord did so.
On 25 November 2021 the resident chased up a response to the leak issue. The following day (26 November 2021) the landlord advised that it had requested an emergency job be raised to trace and remedy the leak and that it was chasing this.
On 29 November 2021 a surveyor attended the property and advised the landlord as follows:
1. A “dangerous part” of the bathroom ceiling had been taken down and it had found a constant drip from the property above.
2. The water leaking was tap water and not sewage water.
3. The property manager would arrange hotel accommodation for the resident for a “couple of nights”. The resident had then agreed to re-occupy the property.
On 7 December 2021 the resident advised the landlord that the leak from the property above had intensified.The landlord sent internal correspondence the same day and stated that the leak needed to be rectified urgently. It raised a job for the ceiling to be opened upand for a CCTV survey to trace the issue. The landlord apologised to the resident that the leak had not been rectified.
On 14 December 2021 the landlord noted internally that a leak had been found on the stack access. It advised the resident that it had arranged an appointment for 17 December 2021 for the ceiling to be opened up. In internal correspondence the landlord noted that in subsequently opening up the ceiling on 17 December 2021, it had identified that there was no firestopping between the properties. Its fire safety team had advised that the ceiling should not be reinstated until the fire stopping had been addressed. It noted that an investigation into the fire stopping of the whole block would be required.
On 30 December 2021 the resident asked the landlord when the works would commence. He chased this up again on 5 Janaury 2022 and said he had not heard from the landlord. The landlord responded the same day and advised that it had a meeting that day about when the ceiling would be reinstated. The resident advised that he wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
On 10 January 2022 the landlord advised that in order for the complaint to be escalated, it needed to know why the resident was dissatisfied and the outcome he was seeking. The resident clarified the same day that he was dissatisfied that the issues with the leak and his ceiling had not been resolved and that he had had to chase the landlord on a number of occasions.
On 11 January 2022 the landlord advised the resident that its surveyor would contact him to try to resolve the stage 1 complaint. The resident advised that he had escalated it to stage 2. The landlord responded on 13 January 2022 and stated that it needed to try to resolve the complaint at stage 1 before escalating it to stage 2. It asked the resident to clarify how he would like the complaint resolved.
On 17 January 2022 the resident reiterated that the issues with his bathroom ceiling had been ongoing for over 4 months and had not been resolved. He stated that he had had to chase the landlord regarding the repair.
The correspondence has not been provided to this Service however prior to February 2022 the resident raised the issue of compensation with the landlord. The landlord advised him on 11 February 2022 that it would consider compensation once the flooring had been completed.
Works to replace the resident’s flooring were completed in March 2022 and following this the landlord liaised with the resident on 5 April 2022 about compensation. The resident stated as follows:
1. He requested to be reimbursed for the full rent he had paid for the period the work had been outstanding. He stated that it had taken the landlord over 7 months to rectify the issues.
2. He had not been able to use his bathroom due to the hazardous ceiling which had nearly fallen on his 3 year old son and sewage had been dripping into his bathroom.
3. Contractors had not attended appointments and he had lost earnings due to this.
4. There had been a lack of communication from the landlord in respect of the issues and he has spent time chasing updates.
5. He requested compensation of £8890.49.
On 20 April 2022 the works to the bathroom ceiling were completed.
In May 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it would offer him £1253.10 compensation, calculated as follows:
1. Rent of £208.88 per week. 20% of rent = £41.77.
2. 30 weeks of disruption.
3. Total calculation = £1253.10 compensation.
On 20 June 2022 the resident advised the landlord that he had spoken to a solicitor who had advised that he was entitled to a refund of his full rent for the period.
On 14 July 2022 the resident requested that his complaint be escalated to stage 3.
On 12 August 2022 the landlord responded at stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. It acknowledged that the bathroom had not been fully usable for 20 weeks (September 2021 to 17 Janaury 2022.) It would amend the percentage reduction of rent to 40%, which gave a calculation as follows:
  1. Weekly rent of £208.88.
  2. Loss of bathroom at 40% for 20 weeks = £83.52 x 20.
  3. Total compensation for damage to bathroom of £1671.04.
2. To acknowledge the missed contractor appointments it offered a further £100.
3. As a goodwill gesture it rounded up its final offer of compensation to £1850.
4. It stated that it had carried out full redecoration and provided replacement flooring to make good the damage caused.
On 31 August 2022 the resident advised the landlord as follows:
1. He had been unable to use the entirety of his home due to the disruption to his daily life and that of his children.
2. There had been over 8 missed contractor appointment which had caused him to lose earnings.
3. He had been required to vacate his property multiple times and had “suffered mentally”.
On 16 September 2022 the resident advised the landlord that he accepted the offer of compensation but would pursue his complaint with this Service. The landlord advised him that the arrears on his account (£1031.36) would be deducted from the £1850 compensation.
On 18 November 2022 the resident referred his case to this Service and stated as follows:
1. The landlord had handled his complaint poorly. It did not respond to his emails or return his calls and he had to attend its office on a number of occasions.
2. The compensation did not reflect the amount of time and effort he spent trying to have the matter resolved.

Assessment and findings

Response to a leak into the resident’s bathroom

When the landlord was first notified of the leak into the resident’s bathroom (8 September 2021) it responded in line with its emergency repair timescale in arranging for contractors to attend the following day. When it was notified that the ceiling had collapsed (3 October 2021), it again responded in accordance with its emergency repairs timeframe to make this safe the following day. Following the repair issues having been reported the landlord took the following actions to try to put things right for the resident, namely:
1. It temporarily decanted him to a hotel and paid his expenses during this time.
2. If offered him a permanent decant within the same block.
3. It made safe the repairs as per its policy.
4. It confirmed that the water leaking was tap water rather than sewage.
5. It signposted the resident to make an insurance claim for the replacement flooring (which he subsequently did).
6. It actioned the ceiling repair and replaced the resident’s flooring.
Whilst the landlord took a number of appropriate actionsin response to the emergency repairs and making the bathroom safe, it is noted however that the repair to the ceiling took 7 months to be completed (September 2021 to April 2022). This was significantly outside of the landlord’s repairs timeframe. It is also not clear that the landlord took steps to ensure that the household had access to suitable bathroom facilities whilst the property bathroom was impacted. It is acknowledged however that sometimes reported repair issues result in more complex resolutions than initially considered, as was the case in this instance.
Landlord’s communication with residents’ should be comprehensive, honest and transparent. This is also reflected in the landlord’s complaints policy. It is clear from the landlord’s internal correspondence that one of the reasons for the delay in the resident’s ceiling being repaired was its finding that fire stopping had not been installed between the properties. After identifying the potential health and safety risk at the resident’s property, and the resident chasing up the ceiling repair a number of times, the landlord only advised him that it was having a meeting about his ceiling. It was not transparent with the resident about the purpose of the meeting or the issue it had identified.
This lack of clarity for the resident added to his frustrations as to why the ceiling repair was considerably delayed. The landlord did not communicate to the resident about the fire stopping at any point during its complaints procedure despite the ceiling repair being the substantive issue of the complaint. Had the landlord been transparent with the reason for the delay this could have helped to the resident to understand the situation and lessened the frustration caused to him.
It is not known whether the fire stopping issue was resolved as part of the final resolution to this aspect of the case. In the circumstances, given this uncertainty and the essential nature of fire safety features of a property, an order has been included below for the landlord to confirm in writing to this Service that the fire stopping issue has been addressed and that the building meets fire regulations.
Given the time taken for the repairs to the resident’s bathroom to be completed, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation. There were clear mitigating circumstances during the period of delay, such as an understandable difficulty in identifying the root cause that took considerable investigation. However, irrespective of these mitigating circumstances, the resident’s lived experience must be prioritised. He and his household were left without use of the bathroom for a protracted period, spent time away from the property during this time and also experienced damages to their possessions. In addition, the landlord was not forthcoming with the resident in explaining the reason for the delay. It was appropriate to signpost the resident to an insurance process in relation to his reports about damaged possessions, though it is not known whether this progressed following his request that the landlord claim through their building insurance.
From the evidence seen by this Service, it has been calculated as part of this investigation that the works to the bathroom took 32 weeks to be completed (8 September 2021 to 20 April 2022). The landlord initially offered compensation of a 20% rent reduction for 30 weeks of disruption but then changed its offer at stage 2 to a 40% rent reduction for 20 weeks of disruption. It is not clear why the landlord reduced the number of weeks it considered the resident to have been impacted for and this was not explained to the resident. Although the landlord’s increase of the percentage in rent reduction was reasonable its unexplained reduction in the timeframe it considered this for was not reasonable. This Service has therefore ordered compensation to be paid as follows:
1. 40% of weekly rent for 32 weeks = £83.52 x 32.
2. Total compensation for damage to bathroom of £2672.64.
The resident raised the missed contractor appointments with the landlord. It is unclear from the landlord’s records how many missed appointments there were however the resident stated that there had been 8 occasions. Although this Service cannot determine how many missed appointments there were, it is clear that the landlord acknowledged that appointments had not gone ahead as it offered an additional £100 compensation. Although it was reasonable to offer compensation and adopt a resident-focused approach (as its policy is clear that it does not compensate for loss of earnings), the landlord could have been more proactive in addressing this matter earlier.
The landlord could have been proactive in compensating for the missed appointments which it should have had a record of. Given the frustration this caused the resident and the lack of proactive redress at an earlier stage, the £100 offered was not sufficient. This Service has determined that £200 compensation is appropriate, using the remedies guidelines, to acknowledge the impact and distress this caused to the resident.
In summary, the landlord took some appropriate steps to in actioning the repair, however it was not transparent with the resident as to the reason for the significant delay. It did not explain why it had initially offered compensation for 30 weeks of disruption but then subsequently changed this to 20 weeks of disruption when the evidence showed that works to the bathroom took 32 weeks to be completed. Although it considered the missed contractor appointments, it was not proactive in offering redress in respect of this and only did so when the resident raised it as an issue.
In all the circumstances, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to a leak into the resident’s bathroom. To acknowledge the impact that the landlords failings had on the resident, an additional £350 compensation has been ordered, as well as the additional compensation outlined above in relation to loss of amenity and missed appointments. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidelines for a failure which adversely impacted the resident and where the landlord’s attempts to put the failures right have not gone far enough.

Complaint handling

The resident first raised his dissatisfaction with the landlord on 6 October 2021. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy and did not treat this expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint. It is noted that the landlord only accepted the resident’s complaint following the involvement of the local Mayor on 8 October 2021. This was not appropriate.
Following the stage 1 response, the resident made it clear (on 30 December 2021) that he wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2 and the reasons for this. The landlord did not follow its complaints procedure and did not escalate the complaint. It instead unreasonably obstructed the resident from escalating his complaint by saying it needed to try to resolve the matter at stage 1 despite it having already sent a stage 1 response. It is also noted that the stage 1 response was framed as a ‘initial investigation response’. These actions were not appropriate and caused frustration to the resident.
Despite the resident having asked to escalate his complaint in December 2021, the landlord did not escalate it to stage 2 until the resident made a further escalation request (to stage 3) in July 2022. This Service has not seen any correspondence from the landlord to the resident to explain that it did not have a third stage of its procedure but that it would investigate his complaint at stage 2.
Following its acceptance of the escalation, it subsequently took the landlord just under a month (14 July to 12 August 2022) to respond at stage 2. Its stage 2 response made no acknowledgement of this delay, provided no explanation for it and gave no apology for the impact or frustration this had on the resident. This was not appropriate.
The landlord’s failure to accept the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction in October 2021 as a complaint and its subsequent complaint handling failures, led to the internal complaints process taking 10 months (6 October 2021 to 12 August 2022). This was not reasonable or appropriate and was significantly outside of the landlord complaints policy. This unreasonably delayed the resident’s ability to be able to refer his case to this Service.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did not follow its complaints policy in being comprehensive or clear about what it had found in respect of the fire stopping. Following this the landlord was not transparent about how it would put things right for the resident.
Where things have gone wrong, this Service expects landlords to take action to put things right for the resident. It is concerning to note that the landlord did not address or acknowledge its complaint handing failures at any point during the internal complaints process and it offered no redress for the impact or frustration this caused to the resident. This is compounded by the landlord having kept the health and safety issue it had identified about the fire stopping from the resident. This failing amounts to maladministration.
In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance £150 compensation has been ordered. This acknowledges the landlord’s failing in not being transparent with the resident about the reasons for the delays in the ceiling repair. This failing was aggravated by the landlord not being transparent with the resident about a health and safety issue affecting him. The compensation also acknowledges the distress and frustration the landlord’s complaint handling failures caused to the resident.
It is noted that the landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation will be offset against any outstanding arrears. This is not in line with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code). As such a review of this policy has been ordered below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to a leak into the resident’s bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling and communication with the resident.

Reasons

The landlord took some steps to action the repairs however it was not transparent with the resident about the reason for the delay, it provided conflicting calculations as to the time period he had been impacted and was not pro-active in addressing the missed contractor appointments.
The landlord failed to be transparent with the resident about the health and safety issue (lack of fire stopping ) it had identified in his property. The landlord failed to accept the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint and only accepted the complaint following the involvement of the Mayor. The landlord did not appropriately escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 and instead obstructed his escalation request. When it did respond at stage 2 (10 months after the resident first complained), it did not acknowledge its complaint handing failures. In addition it offered no apology or redress to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks and provide evidence of compliance this Service:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
2. Pay £3372.64 compensation to the resident made up as follows:
  1. £2672.64 to acknowledge the period of time the bathroom repairs were outstanding and the impact this had on the resident.
  2. £350 to acknowledge the impact that the landlords in its handling of the bathroom repairs had on the resident.
  3. £200 to acknowledge the missed contractor appointments.
  4. £150 compensation to the resident to acknowledge the impact caused to him by the landlord’s complaint handling failures. This is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against arrears unless requested by the resident. Any compensation already paid in respect of these matters is to be deducted from the total order.
3. Review its compensation policy in line with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code.
4. Confirm to this Service that the building meets fire regulation standards and that the fire stopping issue has been addressed.