Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Tower Hamlets Council (202102768)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102768

Tower Hamlets Council

24 February 2022


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 report of a leak in his property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a two bedroom flat on the 3rd floor of a block.
  2. The resident says he first reported a problem of water ingress to his flat in September 2015. The leak was believed by the resident and the landlord to be coming from the upstairs flat who is a leaseholder. This was an intermittent leak that caused damage to the resident’s kitchen ceiling. The resident was concerned that the damage was spreading and getting progressively worse.
  3. There is limited evidence available from this period of the first leak but email correspondence shows that the resident was in regular email contact with the landlord’s surveyor who was trying to identify the source of the leak. The earliest evidence seen by this service that the landlord was aware of the leak was an email from the landlord to the resident in January 2016. This email shows the landlord was in the process of trying to identify the source of the leak.
  4. The landlord contacted the leaseholder in the flat upstairs from the resident in September 2016 regarding a possible leak from his property and arranged access to the leaseholder’s flat on 9 December 2016.
  5. The landlord incorrectly suspected the leak was coming from the bathroom and extensive checks were made in that room. According to the leaseholder, this caused long delays as the leak was eventually found to be coming from where his ‘kitchen drain joins to the main downpipe’ and was fixed in January 2017.
  6. There is no evidence of the resident reporting a leak from the period from January 2017 until October 2018. The resident did report a recurrence of the leak on 31 October 2018. The resident said the attending plumber did a bad job and caused damage to the walls and ceiling of his kitchen and reception rooms.
  7. The resident reported a leak affecting the same area of his flat in January 2020. The resident said the leaks were coming approximately once a week and suspected it was the plumbing of the washing machine causing the leak. The leaseholder advised the landlord that the resident confirmed the leak had stopped on 19 March 2020.
  8. On 7 July 2020, the resident again reported water ingress in his flat. The landlord visited the resident on 10 July and said that a further inspection was needed. On 16 July 2020, the resident emailed again regarding water ingress and made a formal complaint which is the focus of this investigation. The resident said the cracks in his ceiling had got worse and he was worried the ceiling would collapse. The resident said that the landlord was using ‘incompetent’ plumbers and had failed to resolve the leak since he first reported it in 2015.
  9. The landlord attended the resident’s flat again on 20 July 2020 and inspected the pipework. It was decided to check two other flats for possible leaks, the flat upstairs belonging to the leaseholder and another tenanted flat served by the same stack.
  10. On 30 July 2020, the landlord inspected again and identified works needed to the leaseholder’s flat above and asked the leaseholder to carry them out. This was repairs to the mastic in the kitchen sink and the foam around the waste pipe. These works were carried out by 27 August 2020 after the landlord started enforcement procedures to ensure the leaseholder carried out the works.  
  11. An incident occurred during the visit to the property at the end of July where an operative of the landlord became concerned about his safety due to coronavirus while the resident said the operative became verbally abusive. The resident said that one of the plumbers had incorrectly told him that there was no leak.
  12. The landlord sent a stage one complaint response on 18 August 2020. The landlord apologised to the resident and clarified any misunderstanding that occurred during the incident with a member of staff. The stage one response said that the landlord had identified the cause of the leak in the leaseholder’s flat and that an appointment was scheduled for 20 August in the third (tenanted) flat to secure the washing machine trap and pipework going to the stack as it was not secured and causing some water penetration. The landlord made a commitment in its stage one response to keep the resident informed of developments and update him on repairs made to the other two flats.
  13. On 9 September 2020, the landlord completed work in the third inspected flat to renew the kitchen sink and check connections to the washing machine. The resident advised the landlord that the leak had not stopped and the landlord attended for another inspection on 28 September 2020. Following this inspection, the leaseholder was advised to carry out repairs to his kitchen worktop which the landlord said had a weak point which was allowing water through. There was also a leak identified in the resident’s own flat under the bathtub which was repaired.
  14. The resident continued to contact the landlord during September and October 2020 saying the leak had not stopped. On 13 October 2020, the landlord agreed to carry out further inspections, this time looking at four different flats to find the source of the leak. These inspections took place on 19 October 2020, and a leak was repaired in one of the previously uninspected flats under the bath. The landlord contacted the resident via email on 13 October 2020 saying that it was ‘trying every angle in resolving the leak’, apologising for the delay and saying it would provide a further update after additional inspections.
  15. The resident emailed the landlord again on 28 October 2020 saying the leak was continuing. On 16 November, the landlord attended to scrape the residents ceiling which it said would aid the drying out process. The resident disputed that the landlord had carried out this work properly.
  16. The landlord attended again on 18 November 2020 and carried out a moisture test which gave a reading of 0.8%. The landlord said this indicated no water penetration issues. The landlord checked the adjacent flats but no leak was identified. The landlord agreed to carry out a dye test and the landlord said this confirmed no leak on 17 December 2020.
  17. The landlord intended to carry out decoration works in the property on 22 December 2020, but the resident had emailed on 11 and 17 December that the leak had re-occurred. The landlord was unable to gain access to carry out redecoration works since the resident said that the leak was still happening and refused access. The appointment for redecoration was rescheduled for 19 January 2021. It was agreed by both parties that the landlord would check for leaks before carrying out any redecoration works.
  18. The landlord said no leak was found when they attended on 19 January 2021 and although a further appointment was made for redecoration on 8 February 2021, the landlord said the resident did not provide access.
  19. On 14 March 2021, the resident escalated his complaint to stage two. The resident said that the landlord’s plumbers were ‘incompetent’ as the leak had not been resolved since 2015.
  20. The landlord sent a stage two complaint response on 14 April 2021. The landlord detailed all the work carried out since July 2020 when the resident made his complaint about the leak. The landlord said it would not consider moving the tenant because of the leaks, but the resident said it was not his intention to move and he only said that the landlord would have to move him if it did not repair the leaks. The resident was dissatisfied with the response and said it provided no apology for the distress he had experienced over the years since he reported the leak in 2015.
  21. In its final response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged that there were outstanding decoration works due in the residents flat but said that on the basis of the dye tests and moisture tests carried out, the leak had been resolved. The landlord said that it was ‘satisfied that staff… have acted correctly to identify and remedy the leak issues.’  
  22. On 1 May 2021, the resident contacted this service saying that he was not satisfied with how the landlord had dealt with his complaint. In November 2021, the resident emailed this service again and said the landlord had not completed the redecoration work in his reception room and was refusing to do so. The resident says the leak issue has not been fully resolved.   

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has long-standing concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of disrepair in his home. However, this assessment will primarily focus on the period from January 2020 until the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process on 14 April 2021. Although it is recognised that the historical factors are of significance in terms of the overall stress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, the role of the Ombudsman is to assess how the landlord responded to the reports of a leak in this instance and how it handled the subsequent complaint.
  2. It is recognised that the historical factors and the recurring nature of the leak have increased the distress experienced by the resident and this should be taken into consideration. However, there are limits on how far back an investigation can go so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
  3. There was a significant gap between the first leak in 2015/6 and the next report of a leak which was not until late 2018. This shows that the initial report of a leak was effectively resolved at least for a period of over a year.
  4. The evidence does not suggest there was one unresolved leak since 2015 and the landlord failed to carry out effective repairs. Rather, there were several different sources of possible water ingress identified from different flats at different times, not only the flat above the resident where the leaseholder resides.
  5. Much of the resident’s concern is that there have been delays because the landlord has been unable to do repairs in the leaseholder’s flat. However, the landlord has taken appropriate enforcement action when needed, for example in August 2020 when a formal warning letter was sent to the leaseholder. Overall, the evidence seen by this service indicates that the leaseholder has in fact been co-operative throughout the period of the complaint.
  6. Under Section 11 1a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Landlord has an obligation to ensure the ‘structure and exterior of the dwelling house’ is kept in good repair. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will generally respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 20 working days. The policy specifies that a minor leak constitutes a routine repair.
  7. Repair records show that the tenant reported the leak on 7 July 2020 and the landlord attended on 10 and 20 July 2020. Therefore, the landlord did attend within twenty working days although it took considerably longer for the leaks to be traced and eventually resolved (at least to the satisfaction of the landlord). The last of the landlord repairs was carried out on 19 October 2020.
  8. The repairs policy states that the landlord’s ‘commitment to our customers is that they will not have to wait more than 20 working days for completion of this type of repair.’ The failure to adhere to the 20 working day guideline would normally constitute service failure but in this case, the leak was originating at least partly from the leaseholder’s flat which is not the landlord’s obligation to repair.
  9. Similarly, the repair made to the third flat in August of the washing machine area was the resident’s responsibility to repair rather than the landlord and so although this was not completed until September it does not constitute service failure or a breach of the landlord’s repair obligations.
  10. In the landlords ‘leaks procedure’ document, the landlord details its procedures regarding ‘complex leaks’ which it defines as leaks where at least one of the following applies: There have been recurring leaks from the same property and source, a leak has generated a formal complaint or a leaseholder has been notified that they must carry out work in their home to stop a leak. This policy also states that where there is difficulty in diagnosing the source of a leak, a repairs inspector will take the necessary steps to detect the source of the leak by arranging a dye test, camera survey, or engaging a specialist engineer. The landlord did carry out a dye test on 17 December 2020 indicating that this procedure was correctly followed.
  11. The leaks policy also emphasises the need to maintain good communication with affected residents and ensure they are kept informed. The evidence seen by this service including the email correspondence shows that the landlord was suitably responsive to emails from the resident and kept the resident informed of developments when possible. The landlord has informed the resident that the tests carried out show that the leak has been resolved, although the resident disputes that the leak has been fully resolved. The resident has however acknowledged that the water ingress is ‘less than before’.
  12. Even though the landlord and resident have not agreed on outcomes of the tests, the landlord has kept the resident informed and has shown a willingness to carry out further inspections and tried to put things right when the resident said the leak was persisting.
  13. Having carried out moisture and other tests in the resident’s property and inspected several other properties in the block, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that it had ‘acted correctly to identify and remedy the leak issues’ as stated in its final complaint response.
  14. The landlord’s stage two complaint response was issued within an acceptable timeframe according to the landlord’s complaints policy and gave a thorough explanation of what steps it had taken to resolve the leak. However, it did not offer a meaningful apology for the disruption caused to the resident overall, especially given the extended history of the complaint. A more empathetic response may have assisted the landlord in resolving the complaint earlier. Therefore, even though its actions to repair the leak have been reasonable, the landlord may still be able to learn lessons from this complaint.  

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s report of a leak.

 

Reasons

  1. The landlord has taken reasonable and proportionate action to identify and resolve the resident’s reports of a leaks into his property.  

Orders and Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to organise any outstanding redecoration works on his property.