Tower Hamlets Council (202010991)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010991

Tower Hamlets Homes

19 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of a leak into the resident’s property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The property is a flat.

Summary of events

On 8 August 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord regarding “housing disrepair”. In summary the resident said:
1. In August 2018 he raised a repair for the kitchen ceiling due to damp. The resident stated his request was ignored.
2. Since August 2018 the damp in the kitchen had developed into a “ceiling leak”.
3. He reported the leak to the landlord on 16 March 2020, along with additional cracks on the bathroom ceiling and wall. The resident stated the landlord did not attend the property following his report.
4. On 27 June 2020 he contacted the landlord again regarding the leak. The resident confirmed that in response the landlord attended the property and found that the leak was coming from the flat above. The resident stated that as the flat above was a leasehold property the landlord informed him that it was the leaseholder’s responsibility to fix the leak. The resident set out that the landlord had not provided an update to confirm if the leaseholder had remedied the leak in the flat.
5. On 4 August 2020 he requested that the landlord inspect the cracks in the property caused by the leak however the landlord had not responded.
6. He did not feel safe in the property due to the cracks in the ceiling. The resident stated that the situation was “exhausting and frustrating”.
The resident concluded by requesting that the landlord inspect the property and make good the damage caused by the leak, in addition to compensation.
On 11 September 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It attended the property on 4 September 2020 to carry out an inspection. The landlord stated that the inspection found that the damage to the “ceiling and walls” was caused by a leak from the leasehold flat above.
2. It informed the resident during the appointment that “decorative issues” in the property were his responsibility and it would not be undertaking any make good repairs to remedy the damage caused by the leak.
3. It would contact the leaseholder of the flat regarding the leak on the resident’s “behalf”. The landlord explained that it was not responsible for “internal works within leaseholder properties”.
On 20 September 2020 the resident requested to escalate his complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. The landlord had not apologised or provided any compensation in recognition that it had failed to respond to his initial report concerning the kitchen ceiling in August 2018. The resident suggested that, had the landlord inspected the property at that time, the leak would have been prevented.
2. While he agreed that the cracks in “the bedroom and living room [were] decorative issues” the kitchen and bathroom ceilings needed replastering.
3. While he understood that the leaseholder was responsible for the leak, the landlord was responsible for ensuring that the leak was remedied as the freeholder of the building. The resident noted he had not been provided with any reassurances that the leaseholder had remedied the leak in the flat.
4. He had no relationship with the leaseholder and therefore it was unacceptable that the landlord had suggested that he liaise with them regarding the repairs.
5. He did not understand why the landlord was not willing to “take prompt action” to ensure that the leak in the leaseholder’s flat had been remedied to protect its asset – the property.
The resident concluded by confirming that the landlord should undertake the replastering and invoice the leaseholder for the works.
On 23 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident following the inspection on 4 September 2020. The landlord’s correspondence was given under an “enquiry” response. In summary the landlord said:
1. The inspection identified that the damage caused by the leak was “decorative issues” and therefore it would “not carry out any works”.
2. During the inspection it advised the resident that if he would like the decorative works carried out he would need to contact the leaseholder and claim via their insurance. The landlord noted that this was in accordance with its policy.
3. It had been in contact with the leaseholder who informed it that the leak was from a radiator in the living room which had been fixed. The landlord noted that the repair was undertaken on 17 September 2020.
4. It had attempted to update the resident, however it had an incorrect contact number recorded for him. The landlord noted that the resident’s number had been updated.
On 6 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord following its enquiry response. The resident stated that he was “very disappointed” with the landlord’s position. The resident advised that it was not clear from the landlord’s correspondence if he had exhausted its complaint procedure or not. The resident also asked the landlord to provide a copy of the policy which it had referred to within its response.
On 6 January 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord to request clarification on the status of his complaint, and whether its enquiry response was its final position on the matter. The resident reiterated that he was not happy with the landlord’s position and he required it to make good the damage caused by the leak from the leaseholder’s flat.
On the same day the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. The landlord apolgoised for the delay in escalating the complaint, noting that this was due to “staff absence caused by the [Covid-19] pandemic”.
On 7 January 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord noting that he originally requested to escalate his complaint on 20 September 2020. The resident therefore requested that his complaint was expedited.
On 17 February 2021 the landlord provided its final response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It had been unable to identify a record of the resident reporting damp to the kitchen ceiling in August 2018. The landlord apologised “for [the] shortcoming [the resident] received in respect of this issue”.
2. It was sorry that it did not arrange an inspection following the resident’s report of a leak on 16 March 2020. The landlord confirmed that it was only carrying out “emergency repairs or essential work” at that time due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
3. The resident reported the leak again on 27 June 2020 and in response it attended the property in the “first week of July 2020 to carry out an inspection”. The landlord confirmed that it explained that, as the leak was coming from a leaseholder property, the resident “should speak with the leaseholder regarding any repairs that were needed”.
4. On 4 September 2020 it inspected the property again in response to the complaint. The landlord confirmed that it reiterated during the appointment that the resident should contact the leaseholder “regarding any repairs [he] felt were necessary and also to make an insurance claim from [their] buildings insurance”. The landlord advised that it also informed the resident that the ceiling did not need replastering, “just repainting” which was a tenant’s responsibility under the tenancy agreement.
5. It did not carry out inspections of work in leasehold properties, however it would request copies of invoices of work carried out to demonstrate that a repair had been completed. The landlord confirmed that the leaseholder had provided it with a copy of an invoice demonstrating that the leak, to a radiator, had been remedied. The landlord noted that the resident had been informed of this outcome.
6. The resident’s escalation request was “not progressed in a timely manner” due to annual leave. The landlord apolgoised for its error, advising that “the protocol for dealing with escalations had been revised by [it]”.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer his complaint to this Service if he was not happy with its response.
Following the landlord’s final response, the landlord and resident have continued to engage regarding the leak. The Ombudsman notes the following:
1. On 23 February 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that the kitchen had flooded. The resident confirmed that the flooding was caused by a leak from the bathroom toilet and shower in the leasehold flat above. The resident noted that the leak had been going on “for a very long time” and he had been neglected and treated unfairly by the landlord as it had taken no substantive action to investigate or address the leak.
2. On 3 March 2021 the landlord inspected the property.
3. On 10 and 17 May 2021 the landlord carried out repairs in the property to make good damage caused by the leak.
In May 2021 the resident contacted the Ombudsman to confirm that he would like the Ombudsman to adjudicate on his complaint. The resident explained that while he was pleased that the make good works had been completed, the time taken to put matters right was unsatisfactory and therefore he believed that he was due “a substantial amount of compensation for the stress, anxiety and distress caused”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a leak into the resident’s property

It is noted that the resident reports that he first made the landlord aware of problems to the kitchen ceiling in August 2018, however it took no action at that time. While the Ombudsman can see that the resident did write to the landlord on 7 June 2018 requesting that it attend the property to remedy “a crack or damp” to “ceiling and the wall”, the Ombudsman cannot see that the resident made a complaint to the landlord at that time regarding its lack of response or referred his concerns to this Service for intervention.
Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for an independent body, such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address them. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence and the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, this assessment will consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak from the start of 2020.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out:
1. A tenant is responsible for carry out repairs to any damage caused by accident.
2. A tenant is responsible for internal decoration including filling surface cracks.
3. Where residents or known third parties are found to have caused damage, blockages or repairs being necessary to another property, it will recharge them the cost of the works.
4. Leaseholders are responsible for all repairs to internal building components and all services inside the property including pipework and stop value.
5. Minor leaks and blocked drains and pipes are considered “normal/ routine” repairs and will be completed in 20 working days.
6. It is the responsibility of the tenant to make a claim under their home contents insurance for damage caused to their possessions.
The first report of issues affecting the property’s kitchen and bathroom ceiling which the resident made in 2020 was on 16 March. The resident did not report that the problem was as a result of an uncontainable leak, however stated that the issue was structural. The evidence shows that an appointment was made for a contractor to attend on 27 March 2020 to investigate the matter. This was in accordance with the landlord’s service standard for normal/ routine repairs. The appointment on 27 March 2020 was however cancelled as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.
On 17 May 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to request an update on the appointment to investigate the kitchen and bathroom ceiling. While the Ombudsman accepts that the Covid-19 pandemic had a major impact on the repairs service a landlord was able to provide, the Ombudsman finds that it was unsatisfactory that the landlord did not provide an update to the resident on the status of the repair appointment, and likely timescales for attending, following the cancellation of the initial appointment. It was not reasonable that the resident had to chase the landlord for an update. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord responded to the resident’s request for an update. This was unsatisfactory and will have resulted in uncertainty and distress to the resident.
On 27 June 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the “ceiling [had] started to leak and the damage [was] rather substantive”. The resident noted that the bathroom in the flat above was over his kitchen and he suspected a leak from the bath or from the taps. The evidence shows that from this point on the landlord did engage with the resident regarding his concerns, as it did attend the property to inspect damage reported on two occasions.
While it was appropriate that the landlord did attend the property to inspect the damage reported by the resident the Ombudsman is not satisfied with the landlord’s response to the leak following the inspections in July 2020 and early September 2020.
As the resident’s contract for the property was with the landlord, and the resident had no formal relationship with the leaseholder it was inappropriate that the landlord informed the resident that he should liaise directly with the leaseholder regarding the leak and any repairs necessary. As the lease agreement for the flat was between the landlord and leaseholder, it was the landlord’s responsibility to liaise directly with the leaseholder to ensure that they took appropriate steps to investigate and remedy the leak which was impacting on the property which it owned. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to suggest that the resident contact the leaseholder (as this could have resulted in a quicker resolution to the issue), it was not appropriate to rely on this alone and for the landlord to take no proactive action itself to assist the resident.
The evidence shows that it was not until September 2020 that the landlord contacted the leaseholder regarding the leak from their flat. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this action should have been undertaken by the landlord at a much earlier time and following the inspection in early July 2020, when it identified that the damage to the ceiling was caused by a leak from the flat above. It was inappropriate that the landlord waited a period of approximately three months to confirm with the leaseholder that it had or was taking steps to address the leak.
While it was appropriate that the landlord did eventually contact the leaseholder regarding the leak, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that its enquiries were robust. This is because the landlord did not appear to take into account that the resident reported that the location of the leak in the property suggested that the leak was coming from the flat’s bathroom, rather it accepted the leaseholder’s reassurance that the leak was from the living room radiator. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord did not take appropriate steps to satisfy itself that the source of the leak had been identified and addressed considering the information available to it by the resident.
Following the landlord’s final response the resident reported that the kitchen had flooded from the flat above. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this confirms that the landlord should have undertaken more thorough enquiries with the leaseholder regarding the leak from the flat at an earlier time. In doing so the leak would likely have been remedied at an earlier time.
The resident has confirmed that the landlord has completed the make good works following the leak into the property in late spring/ early summer 2021. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this is appropriate. While the landlord was not responsible for the leak it did not provide appropriate support to the resident following his initial contacts reporting problems with the ceiling and a leak from the flat above, and therefore it was appropriate that it took steps to make good the damage. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, had the landlord made appropriate enquiries with the leaseholder regarding the leak in July 2020, its advice that it was not responsible for the make good works in the property would have been reasonable, including as it was in accordance with its repairs policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy which was in operation while the complaint was live sets out that it will respond to stage one and two complaints within 20 working days. The evidence shows that the landlord did not meet this service standard in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage one or two.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s delay in progressing the resident’s complaint through its complaint process was unacceptable. The Ombudsman expects a complaint to progress in a timely fashion as this provides the best opportunity for a complaint process to act in a complementary manner to a landlord’s overall service delivery, enabling potential issues to be identified and addressed. In this case the landlord did not do so.
The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord apologised for the delay in providing its stage one response, however the landlord did apologise for the delay in the provision of its stage two response. While it was appropriate that the landlord did apologise for the delay in providing its stage two response, in the Ombudsman the apology does not amount to reasonable redress as it fails to take into account the distress, inconvenience and the uncertainty he would have experienced as a result.
In responding to the complaint the landlord did not respond to the resident’s request dated 6 November 2020 asking for a copy of the policy referred to within its enquiry response dated 23 October 2020. This is unsatisfactory. The landlord should have responded to the resident’s request in order to support its position.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in response to its handling of a leak into the resident’s property.
2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of a leak into the resident’s property

The landlord failed to provide the resident with an update on the appointment to investigate the kitchen and bathroom ceiling following the cancelled appointment on 27 March 2020.
While it was appropriate that the landlord did attend the property to inspect it following the resident’s contact in June 2020 it is unsatisfactory that the landlord advised the resident that it was his responsibility to liaise with the leaseholder regarding the leak and make good works. This is because the resident had no relationship with the leaseholder. Further as the lease agreement for the flat was between the landlord and leaseholder, it was the landlord’s responsibility to liaise directly with the leaseholder to ensure that they took appropriate steps to investigate and remedy the leak which was impacting on the property which it owned. Whilst it was reasonable to suggest that the resident contact the leaseholder (as this may have resulted in a quicker resolution), this should not have been the only action the landlord took. It therefore failed to take a proactive approach to managing the situation and supporting a resident, who was experiencing issues with a leak through no fault of his own.
While the landlord did eventually contact the leaseholder regarding the leak, this action should have been undertaken by it at a much earlier time and following the inspection in early July 2020, when it identified that the damage to the ceiling was caused by a leak from the flat above.
Furthermore, the landlord did not take appropriate steps to satisfy itself that the source of the leak had been identified and addressed considering the information available to it from the resident. The evidence does not suggest that the landlord took into account the discrepancy in location of the source of the leak reported by both parties in accepting that the leak had been remedied.
While the landlord has made good the damage caused by the leak from the leasehold property, this does not amount to reasonable redress. This is because it does not take into account that while the complaint was live it did not take appropriate steps to support the resident to ensure that the leak from the leasehold flat was addressed.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s handling of the complaint was unsatisfactory as it delayed in responding to the complaint under its complaint procedure and it failed to provide the resident with details of the policy which it had referred to in supporting that it was not responsible for the make good works.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident the following compensation within four weeks of the date of this determination:
1. £400 in respect of its handling of his report of a leak into the property.
2. £100 in respect of its complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should share the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with its staff members who deal with complaints to ensure that it deals with complaints in line with best practice.