Tower Hamlets Council (201915515)

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915515

Tower Hamlets Council

28 January 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 about the landlord’s decision not to:
   1. reimburse the resident £180 that he paid to have a repair carried out to the communal water tank in the building;
   2. offer compensation for the inconvenience caused.

Background and summary of events

2. On an unknown date in around November 2019, the resident reported to the landlord a leak in the property, to which it responded by carrying out an inspection and advising him to seek his own plumber to rectify the issue. It then transpired that the landlord had given incorrect advice as it was responsible for the leak and should not have told the resident to find his own plumber. On 11 December 2019 the resident provided an email to the landlord from the plumber he used, dated 14 November 2019, stating “supply and replacement float valve on water tank”, with a total cost of £180. Whilst accepting that the advice it gave was incorrect, the landlord refused to reimburse the resident as the email was considered too informal and not sufficient to evidence payment for the work done.
3. The resident made a formal complaint on 13 January 2020, stating that the landlord owed him £180 for the cost of the plumber that he had incurred on the advice of the landlord, plus interest and compensation for “negligence”.  He also wanted the landlord to make good the damage caused by the leak to the bedroom. The landlord responded the same day, stating that it required an invoice in order to process the £180 and, if the resident was seeking additional compensation or further works to be done, he would need to follow the complaints procedure. However, as the resident had already submitted a complaint the landlord acknowledged this on 15 January 2020 and said that it would provide a formal response by 12 February 2020.
4. On 29 January 2020 the landlord telephoned the resident to discuss the complaint. He reiterated that he was seeking reimbursement of the £180 he had paid a plumber to repair a communal leak; something he was incorrectly advised to do by the landlord. He stated that the plumber he used was self-employed and so there was no formal invoice but just an email, although the landlord had said this was not an acceptable proof of payment.
5. In the landlord’s stage one response of 10 February 2020, it acknowledged that it had incorrectly advised the resident and that the leak was from a communal asset for which it was responsible for repair. It noted that it had previously stated that, as a result of this incorrect advice being given, it would reimburse the £180 the resident said he had spent on the plumber, upon receipt of an invoice or receipt evidencing this, but this had not been received. It explained that the email the resident had sent to it did not constitute evidence of payment to a legitimate company but that if he did not have an invoice or receipt, evidence of a bank transfer to the company would suffice.
6. On 19 February 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to ask if he was satisfied with the outcome of his complaint, to which he responded that he was not, as he was still owed £180, plus compensation and an apology. The resident then contacted the landlord on 19 March 2020, expressing his dissatisfaction with its stage one response and requesting that the matter be escalated though its complaints process. He asked it to reconsider its decision not to reimburse him, pointing out that the plumber he used was a “one man band” who emails customers, rather than sending formal invoices and that he had forwarded the email concerned – rather than copying and pasting it – to show that it was genuine and from someone else. He said that he had paid the plumber in cash so could not provide evidence of a bank transfer but the landlord could telephone the plumber to verify his details.
7. The landlord contacted the resident on 24 March 2020, explaining that there may be a delay in it providing its final response due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It then issued its response on 22 April 2020, when it again accepted that it had given the resident incorrect advice in getting the repair carried out by his own plumber, for which it apologised, as well as for any inconvenience caused. It noted that the leak had now been repaired and the bedroom ceiling dried out. It explained that the resident should complete an insurance claim form in respect of damage to the ceiling and that one had already been sent to him but not received back. 
8. It further explained that it would reimburse the £180 if the resident could evidence this amount with an invoice or bank statement, otherwise it would be happy to pay £90 as a gesture of goodwill, in addition to £25 in recognition of it giving incorrect advice.

 

Post complaint

9. On 22 May 2020 the resident emailed the landlord stating his continued dissatisfaction with its response and provided a copy of an invoice which he had gone back to the plumber and asked for. Following this, the landlord agreed to reimburse the £180.

Policies and procedures

10. The landlord has a two-stage formal complaints policy; at stage one the landlord expects to resolve complaints within 20 working days. Where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint at stage one, they may request escalation of the complaint and reasons for their dissatisfaction, to the landlord, who will review the case and provide a further response at stage two of the formal complaints process within a further 20 working days.

Assessment and findings

11. The landlord was responsible for the repair which it incorrectly advised the resident it was not, resulting in him incurring a cost of £180. It has appropriately accepted that it made an error and apologised for this and any inconvenience caused, demonstrating a recognition of its service failure and impact. This however, did not address the fact that the resident had unnecessarily spent £180, nor did it address the root cause of the issue – why he had been given incorrect advice in the first instance – and seek to learn from its mistake, helping to prevent a future recurrence.
12. In terms of the £180, it was appropriate that having recognised that this cost was incurred by a fault of its own that the landlord offer to reimburse this and indeed it is normal and best practice to require evidence of the cost, to verify the amount and for audit purposes. In this case the resident was able to provide evidence by way of an email from the plumber concerned. Whilst it was from an ‘i-cloud’ email address and not a business one, the email was contemporaneous – not dated and sent to support the complaint but in real time – and provided detail of the work carried out and the name and details of the plumber, which the landlord could have verified itself.
13. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to also suggest that proof of bank transfer would be sufficient to evidence the expenditure, taking into account all of the circumstances, the landlord acted unreasonably in not accepting the email as sufficient proof of payment. This is for the aforementioned reasons, as well as the fact that a plumber had been out, the work had been done and the resident had explained the situation – that the plumber was self-employed and recommended to him rather than a ‘company’ per se and that he had paid in cash that he had in his home. 
14. There is no doubt that the landlord gave the wrong information and that the resident acted on this and a plumber came out and repaired the issue; the fact of the cost was evidenced in a contemporaneous and detailed email which the landlord chose not to act on, making it impossible for the resident to meet the standard of proof set. Notwithstanding the fact that, generally, it would be unreasonable to expect the landlord to pay money to individuals based on emails alone, this situation was multifactorial and arose from the landlord’s error. In considering the complaint and decision to issue payment, the landlord did not consider it based on its own merits, but rather, applied a blanket rule which failed to sufficiently address and resolve the complaint.
15. Post-dating the formal complaints procedure, the landlord has appropriately offered to reimburse the £180, although in doing so has retracted its previous offer of £25 in recognition of the inconvenience caused without any explanation as to why this was the case. Irrespective of the reimbursement, whatever the cost, the landlord had offered a separate amount by way of an apology and gesture of goodwill for the inconvenience caused, which is a stand-alone offer and should not have been withdrawn.
16. The crux of the complaint related to the landlord’s decision not to reimburse the £180 and offer additional compensation and an apology. The landlord has issued an apology in its response to the complaint and has now offered to reimburse the £180, so those aspects of the complaint are now resolved. In terms of compensation regarding inconvenience caused, as well as the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint, this remains outstanding and an order is made in respect of this below.
17. Another aspect of the complaint was regarding the damage to the bedroom ceiling. Ordinarily this would be the responsibility of the leaseholder, irrespective of the cause of the damage, however, the landlord in this case has suggested that the resident make an insurance claim to it. There is no information as to whether this has been done or indeed any outcome in respect of this, however, a recommendation has been made in this regard.
18. Finally, turning to complaint handling, the landlord responded in good time to the complaint at stage one of the complaints process and, although delayed at stage two, let the resident know that it would take a little longer to provide a final response. Sometimes complaints do take longer and it was appropriate that the landlord kept the resident up-to-date in respect of this and explained the reason for this which was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated impact. 

Determination (decision)

19. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

20. The landlord, having accepted that it gave the resident incorrect advice which caused him to incur a cost for which he was not responsible, failed to then reimburse this when evidence was provided. In not doing so, it failed to consider the case on its own merits and the circumstances in which the cost had been incurred. It did not investigate or explain what had gone wrong in the giving of the incorrect advice or what learning or actions it had taken, to help prevent a future occurrence. Further, it inappropriately retracted compensation for inconvenience, once it became satisfied with the evidence of cost provided to it.

Orders

21. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1.       if it has not done so already, reimburse the resident the £180 for the cost incurred in instructing the plumber;
    2.       pay the resident £150 compensation (£75 for the inconvenience caused and £75 for his time and trouble).

Recommendations

22. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:
    1.       identify what led to the resident being given incorrect advice and take steps to learn from this failing, helping to prevent a future recurrence;
    2.       if it has not already done so, facilitate the insurance claim process in respect of the damage to the ceiling (the resident to note that an insurance claim will not necessarily be successful).