Tower Hamlets Homes (202209911)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209911

Tower Hamlets Homes

01 March 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress into the resident’s property and the level of compensation it offered.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a flat. The resident sublets the property to a tenant.
4. The resident had experienced several leaks from the property above into his property between July 2021 and March 2022. On 18 March 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord complaining about how it was handling the matter. He described the elements of the complaint as:
   1. He had experienced four separate leaks from the property above into his property.
   2. He did not believe the landlord was properly repairing the leaks which had resulted in the issue returning.
   3. He had encountered problems with contacting the landlord’s call centre to report the leaks.
   4. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the matter be fully repaired, and that he receive compensation for the inconvenience the situation had caused and for the damage caused to his property by the leaks.
5. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
   1. Apologised for the issues the resident had experienced when contacting its call centre and receiving call backs. It explained that its telephony system was out of order when he first raised the complaint, but that it had provided him updates via email.
   2. Explained that the leak in July 2021 was caused by the kitchen sink in the property above. The matter had been resolved by installing a new section of waste pipe and renewing the overflow pipe.
   3. Explained that the leak in January 2021 was caused by the property’s above heating system and that a gas engineer resolved the issue two days after it was reported.
   4. Explained that the leak in March 2022 had been caused by a shelf at the end of the bath in the property not being watertight. Work was raised to reseal the bath and replace the bath panel and splashback tiles.
   5. Noted that as part of its stage one complaint response, it had arranged for a plumber to inspect the property above. This went ahead on 7 April 2022 and identified an additional leak from the hand wash basin. The leak was repaired and the landlord had raised a work order to replace the basin, which would be installed on 16 June 2022.
   6. Acknowledged the frustration and inconvenience these issues had caused the resident, but that it was satisfied that each leak was from a different source and that it had acted appropriately to resolve them.
   7. Informed the resident that in light of the stress and inconvenience the matter had caused him, and the communication issues he had experienced, it had offered him £80 compensation. The landlord also provided the resident with details on how to make a claim against its insurer for the damage caused by the leaks.
   8. Noted the resident had stated that he believed the lack of regular periodic inspections of its properties had resulted in so many leaks from the property. The landlord explained that it did not have the resources to undertake inspections of that kind, that it’s repairs service was responsive and dealt with issues as they were reported.
6. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint being the number of times the landlord had to visit the property above in order to resolve the issues and the level of compensation it offered. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord increase its compensation offer to more properly reflect the level of inconvenience the matter had caused and to cover his out-of-pocket expenses.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

7. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the repairs responsibilities for leasehold properties. This, in part, states that it will “undertake repairs to leaseholders’ properties where there is a contractual or other legal obligation that we do e.g. [the landlord] is responsible for maintaining the structure, common parts, and supply of services to each flat”.
8. In regard to its responsibilities for repairs for its tenants, the policy states that the landlord is responsible for repairs and maintenance to “heating and hot water; plumbing inside [the] home including water tanks, stop valves, taps, sinks, baths and showers (excluding tenants own installations); baths, basins and toilets (not toilet seat)”.
9. The repairs policy categorises its repair types as “Emergency” (make safe within 24 hours) and “Routine” (arrange an appointment within 20 working days). The landlord defines an emergency repair as a repair that presents “serious effects on people or damage to the home”. As an example of what it considers an emergency repair, the landlord suggests “a water leak that cannot be contained”. As an example of what it considers a routine repair, the landlord suggests “minor leaks and blocked drains and pipes”.
10. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering financial redress for a complainant’s time and trouble in recognition of “time and trouble reasonably and legitimately expended by the complainant in having to pursue the complaint with the [landlord] and with the Ombudsman”. The policy recommends a payment of £25 to £250.

The landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress into the resident’s property and the level of compensation it offered.

11. When informed of the leaks from the property above, the landlord had a duty to respond to the issues in line with the obligations set out in the occupancy agreements and its published policies and procedures. Overall, the landlord responded to the reports in line with its repair timescales detailed above. Its repair logs state that:
    1. It received a report about the kitchen sink leak on 17 July 2021 and attended on the same day. Follow-on work to renew the waste pipe was raised on 19 July 2021 and completed on 22 July 2021.
    2. It received a report about the heating system leak on 29 January 2022. A gas engineer attended the same day to make safe the issue and repairs were completed on 30 January 2022.
    3. It received a report of a containable leak in the bath on 18 March 2022. A plumber attended on 21 March 2022. Follow-on work was then raised to reseal the bath, and replace the bath panel and tiles. This was marked as completed on 22 April 2022.
    4. The additional leak to the hand wash basin was discovered during the inspection on 7 April 2022. The leak was repaired on the same day and follow-on work was also raised to replace the basin.
12. The landlord has acted in line with its repair timescales for each of the leaks. The leaks determined to be uncontainable were categorised as emergency repairs and attended on the day they were reported. The one leak determined to be containable was categorised as routine and attended to within 20 working days. However, there were clearly commutation issues between landlord and resident as to what work was being undertaken at the property above.
13. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, offer compensation and explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. This position is also in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It looked to put things right by offering £80 compensation and arranging appointments to complete the outstanding work. It looked to learn from its mistakes by improving its communication with the resident and providing updates on the status of the work.
14. The landlord’s compensation offer of £80 was made in line with its compensation policy detailed above. It is also is broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This recommends a payment of £50 to £100 in cases of service failure the impact of which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. A payment of £80 that recognised its poor communication and the lack of information given to the resident that resulted in him having to raise a complaint was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
15. The resident also requested that the landlord pay further compensation to cover his out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the damage caused to his property. At stage one of the complaint, the landlord provided the resident with a claim form to make a claim against its insurer for damages. It was reasonable for it to advise the resident to contact its liability insurer if he considered that it was responsible for his costs. Landlords are entitled to have insurance policies to cover the cost of liability claims and the landlord would not be expected to consider a claim for damages outside the insurance process. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the landlord’s insurer and therefore we cannot comment further or the insurance process or the outcome of any insurance claim.

Landlord’s complaint handling

16. The compensation was offered by the landlord as part of its stage one complaint response. The resident then experienced further delay and poor communication from the landlord at stage two. The resident requested an escalation of the complaint on 13 April 2022, but did not receive a stage two complaint response until 13 June 2022: 42 working days outside of its published target of 20 working days.
17. An internal note on the landlord’s system added on 19 May 2022 stated that the landlord had extended its stage two response time to 14 June 2022. However, there is no evidence that the resident was informed of this extension. Moreover, this delay was not addressed by landlord in its stage two complaint response.
18. Therefore, there has been service failure by the landlord, as the stage two response did not address the additional delays and poor communication experienced by the resident, nor did it review its compensation offer to include these elements. In order to fully resolve the complaint, further compensation is warranted that recognises the delay and poor communication experienced by the resident in requesting an escalation of the complaint. In line with the remedies guidance detailed above, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to the reports of water ingress into the resident’s property and the level of compensation it offered.
20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Order

21. For the service failure and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £100. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.

Recommendation

22. The landlord is recommended to pay the £80 compensation offered in its complaint response, if it has not done so already.