The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Tower Hamlets Council (202222795)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222795

Tower Hamlets Council

31 October 2023


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 from the flat above.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. She lives in a ground floor flat.
  2. The resident reported a leak on 29 June 2022 and a contractor attended the same day but did not find a leak. The resident chased repairs to the leak on 10 July 2022. She said a private plumber confirmed the leak was from the pipework from the property above. The landlord subsequently raised a work order to trace and remedy the leak.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 26 July 2022 as the leak remained outstanding. She said the landlord had ignored her correspondence and asked what steps it was taking to resolve the leak.
  4. In its stage 1 response on 9 August 2022, the landlord said a contractor attended on 12 July 2022, but could not gain access to the property above. A further contractor attended and determined there was a fault with the boiler in the property above. A gas contractor attended on 20 July 2022 and advised the copper pipework needed to be renewed. It needed to locate the mains valve and isolate the supply and remove a unit to provide access to the pipework, so it could be replaced. It had been unable to locate the stopcock, so another appointment was required. An appointment would be attended on 17 August 2022.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 November 2022 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. She said the landlord had been negligent and irresponsible. She said her possessions had been damaged and her living conditions had been compromised. The leak caused damp in the property and had impacted her family’s health. The building insurance had paid for the repairs, but she wanted compensation for inconvenience and suffering.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 22 December 2022, it apologised that it took longer than expected to repair the leak. A plumber had resolved the leak on 25 August 2022. It had followed its leaks procedure, but there was a delay in progressing the repair between different contractors. It had reminded staff members to monitor work orders to ensure they are progressed to completion without undue delays. It offered £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  7. Following mediation facilitated by this Service, the landlord increased its compensation offer to £120. The resident remains dissatisfied with the proposed resolution, however, and has requested £3,500 compensation to resolve the complaint. She said she experienced 10 months of distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s slow repairs process, which resulted in damage to the property. The subsequent damp due to the leak had caused a termite infestation and breathing issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she reported the landlord’s handling of the leak had a detrimental impact on her family’s mental and physical health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health.
  2. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak from the flat above

  1. In accordance with the leaseholder’s rights and responsibilities document, the landlord is responsible for keeping the condition and structure in good repair. The landlord’s repairs policy considers leaks that cannot be contained as an emergency repair and minor leaks as routine repairs, which should be completed within 20 working days. In this case, the resident reported that she was able to contain the leak using bowls, so it would be considered a routine repair as it was containable.
  2. The landlord has acknowledged delays in completing the necessary repairs. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. The resident initially reported a leak into her property on 29 June 2022 and the landlord’s contractor attended the same day and did not find a leak. It noted if the resident reported a recurrence of a leak, a plumbing inspection of the flat above would be required. The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified contractors so it would not be expected to complete any further action unless the resident raised further concerns.
  4. On 10 July 2022, the resident said a private plumber had attended and confirmed there was a leak into her property “in the walls that run up to the property above”. The landlord acted appropriately as it attended on 12 July 2022; however, it was unable to gain access to the neighbour’s property. Although the landlord would not necessarily be responsible for delays caused due to the access issues, it should take steps to gain access, so it is able to complete the repairs. The landlord’s repair policy states that if a leak is causing damage and it cannot gain access to the property, the emergency access procedure will be employed. It was appropriate that the landlord commenced the process on 14 July 2022.
  5. A contractor attended on 15 July 2022 to trace and remedy the leak and follow-on works were raised for boiler repairs. A gas contractor subsequently attended on 20 July 2022 and noted that copper pipework needed to be renewed. While landlords should try to complete the repairs within 1 appointment, this is not always possible due to necessary follow-on repairs requiring specialised contractors, so the delay was not unreasonable. 
  6. The heating contractor attended on 5 occasions between 26 July 2022 and 8 August 2022, but was unable to complete the works. The contractor noted they had chased the landlord to arrange a plumber to provide access to the stopcock so the necessary work could be completed. On 9 August 2022, a plumber attended, but was unable to locate the stopcock, and required additional time to freeze the pipes to complete the pipe replacement. As the landlord failed to promptly arrange the plumber’s attendance, there was an avoidable delay in resolving the leak.
  7. A contractor attended on 17 August 2022, but was unable to gain access. As noted above, the landlord would not necessarily be responsible for no access appointments; however, it should ensure it promptly reattends. The contractor reattended on 25 August 2022. The repair records stated the leak was on the limescale filter to the boiler, and the contractor adjusted the pipework and replaced the leaking filter to resolve the leak.
  8. Overall, it took 33 working days for the landlord to complete the repairs in full, which exceeded its response timeframe by 13 working days. The delay was not wholly excessive due to the access issues and multiple appointments required. However, the landlord should have prioritised the follow-on works. It is evident the delays caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Furthermore, as the landlord was not forthcoming with updates on the progress of the repairs, it failed to reasonably manage the resident’s expectations regarding when the work would be completed. This resulted in the resident chasing the repairs on several occasions, causing her additional time and effort.
  9. It was appropriate that the landlord recognised there were avoidable delays caused by passing the repair between contractors. It also noted steps of learning in its complaint response, as it said it had reminded staff to monitor work orders to ensure they are progressed to completion. The landlord therefore demonstrated it acted in line with this Service’s dispute resolution principles.
  10. The resident informed this Service that the repairs to the damage to her property were completed by her building insurance. This was reasonable as the landlord’s repair policy states “In the event of internal damage, Leaseholders are required to contact their insurance provider in the first instance”. It is recognised that the resident experienced additional inconvenience due to the repairs to the interior of the property, following the repair to the leak. However, as the interior damage to personal items would have been covered by the resident’s content insurer, it was appropriate for the landlord to signpost her to it. The landlord also could have shared details of its own, if the resident was unable to follow this route.
  11. In view of the landlord’s failings, the compensation offered by the landlord during the mediation process was proportionate. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, the £120 compensation offer was appropriate, as the landlord’s failure adversely impacted the resident, but the failure was a relatively short duration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s report of a leak from the flat above, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, it is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £120, as previously offered.