Tower Hamlets Homes (202214609)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214609

Tower Hamlets Homes

21 February 2024

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 response to the resident’s reports of leaks into his property in 2022.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder and has lived at the property, which is a ground floor flat, since 2007. Within his correspondence, seen by this Service, he has reported that there had been a number of “major escape of water” incidents at the property between 2009 and 2022 (with the incident being investigated having occurred in 2022). The previous issues were addressed via insurance claims, with the most recent remedial works, (following a burst internal water storage tank in August 2021), having been completed in June 2022. A tenant of the landlord lives in the property above the resident. This tenant is described by the resident as “elderly”.
The landlord’s leaks procedure applies to both leasehold and tenanted properties and states as follows:
1. A leak would require emergency access if it was a continuous leak from one property to another.
2. A non-emergency leak would be where there was a minor and intermittent dripping leak that can be contained in a standard sized washing up bowl without need to empty it more than once every 24 hours.
3. For an emergency leak, contractors should to respond within 2 hours and complete works within 24 hours.
4. For a non-emergency leak, contractors should to respond and complete works within 20 working days.
5. A “complex leak” is a water leak where one of the following applies:
  1. The cause of the leak cannot be diagnosed by the contractor.
  2. Access cannot be gained to the source property.
  3. There have been recurring leaks from the same property and source (at least one previous leak from the same source in the past 12 months). In which case an inspector will carry out an inspection.
  4. A leak has resulted in a complaint (at stage 1 or stage 2).
6. For a non-emergency repair, if access cannot be gained, the contractor will leave a ‘no access’ card and will send a follow-up letter. If the tenant does not subsequently grant access, it will be logged as a complex leak.
7. If a complex leak is ongoing, the landlord will raise a trace and remedy order and will arrange a joint inspection involving the contractor and a Repairs Inspector.
The landlord’s redress and compensation policy states as follows:
1. Action taken by the landlord in respect of redress should reflect the nature of the loss, damage, suffering or inconvenience caused to the resident.
2. The level of financial compensation will be determined by the nature of the complaint, taking into account the facts of the case.
3. Compensation for time and trouble should only be made when it was in excess of what would routinely be required for pursuing a complaint. Time and trouble payments would normally fall within the range of £25 to £250.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. At stage 1 it aims to respond within 20 working days. It will however endeavour to respond within 10 working days, in line with the principles of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Code. At stage 2, it will generally respond within 20 working days. If it requires additional time at either stage, it will keep the resident informed. A recommendation has been made in respect of the complaints policy below.

Summary of events

On 10 June 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that water was entering his property from the property above, which was damaging his ceiling. A contractor attended that same day and spoke to the upstairs tenant who explained he had experienced a burst radiator 2 weeks prior. The landlord advised the resident to monitor the leak. There is a gap in correspondence until 20 June 2022 when the landlord noted internally that the resident had advised that a pipe inside his property was leaking. A contractor attended the resident’s property on 27 June 2022. It noted internally that there was a “constant leak” coming from the property above. It noted that it had not been able to access the property above but this would need to be arranged.
The resident chased the landlord in respect of the leak the following day. The landlord requested a job be raised “to trace this leak or start a leak process” to gain access to the property above.
On 29 June 2022 the resident advised the landlord that he had spoken to the contractor who had advised it had no record of the job. He advised the landlord that there was a consistent flow of water which was running through his live electrical sockets. A contractor attended that day. Following this emergency visit, the landlord raised a job the following day (30 June 2022) for the radiator valve in the property above to be replaced.
On 2 July 2022 the landlord noted internally that contractors had attended the property above and had isolated the radiator and it was no longer leaking. The contractor had however found signs of a leak from the cold water storage tank of the property above and requested that a contractor attend “asap”.
That same day (2 July 2022) the resident submitted a complaint and stated as follows:
1. He had informed the landlord that the leak had continued since his initial report (10 June 2022). He had chased the repair as water had saturated his ceiling and walls. The landlord had advised that it could not find any outstanding actions on the repair and that it would contact him. This had not happened.
2. A contractor had attended unannounced on 24 June 2022. Neither the resident nor the upstairs tenant had been available so access had not been gained to either property. The landlord said this would be rebooked however he had heard nothing further.
3. He had called the landlord on 27 June 2022 and a further emergency repair had been raised. A contractor had attended that day but could not gain access to the property above. The landlord had not contacted him to follow this up.
4. A contractor had attended on 29 June 2022 as an emergency. It had not updated him if access had been gained to the property above. He had chased an update again on 30 June 2022.
5. Water damage was visible in the water closet, bathroom and living room.
6. He had spoken to the upstairs tenant who had stated that a contractor attended “weeks ago” due to a burst radiator but needed a part to action the repair. This had not been done. He stated that the contractor had knowingly left an ongoing leak and that he was “furious”.
On 6 July 2022 a contractor attended the property above and confirmed that the cold water storage tank was leaking into the resident’s property. The landlord raised a job the same day for this to be repaired in the property above.
On 8 July 2022 the resident advised the landlord that the water was leaking into the electrics. The landlord noted internally that the job had been booked for 12 July 2022. Due to being notified of the involvement of electrics it re-classified this as an emergency. A contractor attended that day, however it could not gain access to the property above.
A further job was booked for 11 July 2022. The landlord noted internally that the upstairs tenant had declined entry for this appointment. That same day (11 July 2022) the landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint.
Another appointment was arranged for 12 July 2022 and works of renewing the ball fix valve in the cold water tank were completed. The landlord contacted the resident that day to check if the leak had stopped.
On 13 July 2022 the resident advised the landlord as follows:
1. The leak seemed to have stopped.
2. Due to the number of incidents at the property, he was concerned that there was an ongoing risk to all properties on the estate from the possible rupture of the plastic cold water storage tanks. He believed that the internal plumbing and water storage structure to all the properties was a continual risk due to the “wear and tear of legacy infrastructure, poor maintenance, and an insufficient EOW (escape of water) repairs policy”.
3. Contractors had identified “sagging” of the plastic cold water storage tanks. The resident described the tanks as “ticking time bombs”.
4. The damage caused to his property would have been less significant if the landlord’s repairs policy been “fit for purpose” in immediately identifying and remedying the leak.
5. He requested that the landlord complete a risk assessment to the estate, with particular regard to the function of internal stopcocks and assessment of the cold water storage tanks.
On 15 July 2022 the landlord responded at stage 1 and stated as follows:
1. Following the report of the water ingress on 10 June 2022, it had raised an emergency job and a contractor attended that same day. The contractor had advised that the water may be coming from a leak in the radiator in the flat above and the resident had agreed to monitor the leak.
2. It had raised another job when the resident reported that the leak was still ongoing and had become “uncontainable”. A contractor had attended the property above on 27 June 2022 but could not gain access. A contractor subsequently gained access to the property above on 30 June 2022 and found that the bathroom radiator “TRV and lock shield” was stuck and was leaking.
3. A contractor had attended again on 2 July 2022 and had isolated the radiator valve. On that occasion, the contractor had identified signs of a leak coming from the cold water storage tank. It had raised an emergency works order and the contractor had attended on 8 July 2022 but could not gain access to the property above. It had attended again attend on 12 July 2022 and renewed the “ball value tank” in the property above. The resident had confirmed to the landlord that the water ingress had ceased.
4. The heating contractor had recently taken over the contract on 1 April 2022 and had been familiarising itself with the landlord and the area. The landlord acknowledged that this was not acceptable and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It advised that it had forwarded the matter to its Mechanical and Electrical Manager to discuss this with the contractor for future learning. It concluded that the complaint was partly upheld.
On 25 July 2022 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. The landlord had not addressed its failure to immediately remedy the leak when it was identified as coming from the cold water storage tank. If it had done so, less damage would have been caused to his property.
2. The process of the landlord closing a repair once a contractor had visited the property, regardless of whether the issue had been remedied had contributed to the issue not being resolved. The contractors attendance at the property above without remedying the issues had resulted in the upstairs neighbour refusing entry to all contractors out of frustration.
3. The landlord had not coordinated contractor visits with himself or the upstairs neighbour which had led to contractors being unable to access the properties on a number of occasions.
4. He should not have had to raise a complaint in order to have the matter resolved.
5. The remedy in the stage 1 response was not sufficient to ensure any similar leak would be immediately resolved in the future.
6. The estate was at a continual risk of a major escapes of water and reiterated his request for an independent risk assessment of the plastic cold water storage tanks and the functionality of internal stopcocks at each property.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 August 2022.
On 16 August 2022 the resident added to his complaint as follows:
1. His builder (undertaking works on behalf of the insurance company) had inspected the cold water storage tank in the property above and had found it to be “severely bowed and in urgent need of replacement” and still leaking.
2. The landlord should have referred the matter to a repairs inspector when it was first identified as requiring more than a minor repair.
3. If the landlord did not replace the cold water storage tank in the property above he would commence legal action.
He further added to his complaint on 22 August 2022 as follows:
1. There had been further water ingress on 19 August 2022 from the property above. A contractor had attended and advised that a valve in the toilet plumbing had degraded and the leak was not related to the cold water storage tank. He would need to make a further insurance claim in respect of this.
2. He requested a survey of the hot and cold water systems in the property above and requested that all valves be replaced.
3. His income as a freelancer had been impacted from having to take time off work to manage the situation. He noted that the upstairs neighbour was elderly and often would not answer the door to contractors. The situation had caused him “stress and anxiety”.
On 23 August 2022 the landlord responded at stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. There had been a delay in resolving the leak due to the various contractors involved. It had found that in addition to the radiator leaking, there was a second leak from the cold water storage tank. This, along with access issues into the property above, had caused delays.
2. The landlord apologised for the delay and advised that it had raised a job to replace the cold water storage tank in the property above.
3. It did not log the leak under its leak process as it had not been deemed to be a “complex leak” needing to be inspected by its inspector. The leak from the radiator had been resolved straight away without the need for an inspection.
4. The complaint was partly upheld and offered the resident £50 compensation for the time and trouble he experienced pursuing the complaint. The landlord did not respond to the wider issues raised by the resident.
On 22 September 2022 the landlord fitted a new water tank in the upstairs property.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service in October 2022 and stated as follows:
1. The landlord had not kept the property above in a “decent state of repair”, nor did it carry out appropriate repairs to the property above in respect of the water ingress.
2. He and his wife had been caused “significant distress and anxiety” and had lost time and income. £50 compensation was not “acceptable or appropriate”.
3. The landlord had failed to acknowledge the ongoing and complex nature of the leaks, seeing them as separate leaks and repairs. The leaks should have been treated as “complex” and should have been referred to a repairs inspector in June 2022.
4. A full inspection of the plumbing in the property above should take place.
5. There had been a further leak that month (October 2022).
On 25 October 2023 a contractor advised the landlord that it had attended to the property above the resident and found that the bathroom floor was full of water.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to previous incidents involving water ingress at the property dating back to 2009. These do not form part of this investigation as the opportunity was available to him to submit complaints at the time and subsequently refer these matters to this Service for investigation. It is also noted that since the completion of the internal complaints process, the resident reported another leak in October 2022. As this Service is not a reactive service, this investigation only considers the matters investigated by the landlord during its internal complaints procedure which concluded on 23 August 2022.
It is noted that the resident stated that the landlord should carry out repairs in the upstairs property and it should carry out an inspection of that property and others in the estate. This Service cannot assess the quality of a repair to a neighbouring property. It can however assess how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of the water ingress and the action it took to resolve this. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s wider powers however, this Service can also consider whether individual complaints might give rise to similar issues occurring elsewhere in the landlord’s property portfolio. In this case the resident has explicitly raised such concerns and the landlord has seemingly failed to respond.
It is noted that the resident had stated that the impact of the matters being considered had caused him and his wife significant distress and anxiety. It is beyond the remit of the Housing Ombudsman to decide whether there was a direct link between the actions or inactions of the landlord and the resident’s mental health or that of his wife. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his and his wife’s health had been affected by any action or inaction of the landlord.

Assessment and findings

It is apparent from the evidence provided that there were 3 different sources of water ingress into the resident’s property from the property above between June and August 2022, namely a leaking radiator (June 2022), a leak from the cold water storage tank (July 2022) and a leaking toilet (August 2022). Whilst it is understandable that the resident found these leaks to be distressing, given the differing sources, the landlord acted appropriately in considering and responding to them as separate issues.
In respect of the leak from the radiator, the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend the same day it was reported. This was appropriate, as was the landlord’s advice for the resident to monitor the situation following the visit. There was not a further report from the resident until 20 June 2022. The landlord followed its non-emergency leaks process and arranged a contractor visit in an appropriate timeframe (27 June 2022). When access couldn’t be gained it requested this be rearranged. Before this could take place the resident reported that water was flowing into his electrics (29 June 2022). The landlord responded appropriately by reclassifying the job as an emergency and a contractor attended that day. The repair was subsequently completed to the leaking radiator on 2 July 2022, (3 days after the emergency appointment).
The identification of the cold water storage tank leaking and the resident’s submission of the stage 1 complaint both occurred on 2 July 2022. It is not clear from the evidence which occurred first, however, given the new leak identified and the nature of the resident’s complaint, the landlord could have raised this as a complex leak. The subsequent action however would have been for it to arrange a joint inspection with a contractor and a repairs inspector. It was appropriate for the landlord not to commence this process and order the inspection in the circumstances, as the source of the water ingress had already been identified that day.
The landlord initially raised a non-emergency job however when the resident advised that the water was near his electrical switches it appropriately reclassified this as an emergency and a contractor attended that day (8 July 2022). On that occasion no entry could be gained to the property above, nor during the subsequent appointment on 11 July 2022. The landlord has an Access Process for such instances, however this has not been provided to this Service. It was appropriate however that the landlord sent a contractor again on 12 July 2022 at which point access was granted and works were completed. It was encouraging to see that since this repair the landlord replaced the water tank in the property.
It is however noted that the resident raised his concern about the water tanks in other properties. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord specifically responded to his wider concerns. A recommendation has been made in respect of this below.
In respect of the toilet leak reported in August 2022, the landlord arranged for a contractor to carry out the repair within 3 days. This was in line with its non-emergency leak response timeframe.
The landlord acknowledged that its contractors could have attended sooner and as a result it partly upheld the complaint. Where things have gone wrong, this Service expects landlord’s to take steps to put things right. This is reflected in the landlords compensation and redress policy. The landlord acknowledged and apologised that there had been delays in contractors attending and explained that this had been made more difficult by the number of different contractors and utilising a new contractor company. It was also appropriate for the landlord to consider compensation for the time and trouble the resident had spent chasing the resolution of the matters. Its offer of £50 was reasonable when considered alongside its apology and the steps said it would take to prevent such circumstances in the future. There was therefore reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks into his property in 2022.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks into his property in 2022.

Reasons

The landlord appropriately addressed the water ingress into the resident’s property as separate incidents as it found the water had originated from 3 separate sources in the upstairs neighbours property. The landlord acted appropriately in determining which of the reports would be classed as emergencies and it instructed contractors to attend within the timeframe as outlined in its leaks policy. When the landlord experienced difficulty in gaining access to the upstairs property, it arranged alternative appointments in a timely manner and repaired the leaks within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s decision not to enact its complex leaks process was reasonable as the source of the leak of the water tank was identified on the same day the resident submitted his complaint. The other circumstances under which the leak would be classed as complex did not apply in this case. The landlord acknowledged delays with its contractors and advised that it would address this going forward. It appropriately considered the time and trouble the resident had spent having the matter resolved and offered a reasonable amount of compensation.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

Given the numerous leaks experienced by the resident, it is recommended that the landlord carry out an inspection of the cold water storage tanks in the block.
It is recommended that the landlord review its complaints policy in line with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code having regard to the internal policy timeframes being longer than those stated in the Code.