Walsall Housing Group Limited (202205983)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205983

Walsall Housing Group Limited

20 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of issues with the water supply.
   2. Remedial works following excavation of the resident’s yard.

Background

2. The resident occupies a 3-bedroom, semi-detached property, as an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association.
3. The resident reported an issue with her water supply to the landlord on 6 May 2022. She explained the water pressure was low and, at times, completely stopped, affecting all appliances including her shower. The water company had informed her she was on a shared supply with her neighbour and her supply was affected when the neighbour had their taps running. The landlord’s contractor commenced works on the external pipes supplying water to both properties on 21 June 2022, which involved digging up the resident’s yard.
4. On 23 June 2022, both the resident and her neighbour reported having no water for the past 2 days. The resident explained she needed water to take medication for her disabilities. Both the resident and neighbour also claimed they had been told by a previous contractor that the problem was at a neighbouring property. They surmised that because the occupant of the neighbouring property was away, it had unnecessarily dug up the resident’s yard, which the resident described as ‘ruined’.
5. The resident complained to the landlord, which was logged on 29 June 2022. She explained she had experienced ‘nothing but trouble’ with the water supply since she had moved to the property in 2008 and felt she had been passed around by the landlord and the water company. She explained she had not been able to use the wet room shower, which was for her disabled mum and husband. She expressed distress that her yard had been dug up. Though not part of the complaint, the resident sent further emails on this day to report that the paving slabs and manhole cover had not been put back correctly and were causing a trip hazard.
6. On 5 July 2022 the resident reported that a landlord contractor had attended and had intimidated her. She alleged that he had raised his voice and called her a liar when she refuted that only a couple of slabs had been dug up.
7. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 July 2022. After asking for an extension, it provided its stage 1 response on 3 August 2022. It explained it had needed to lift the slabs in her yard to identify the cold water supply pipework. It maintained that, while the water supply had been poor, it had still been available, and as such there had been no requirement to provide a temporary supply. It confirmed the slabs had been re-laid on 28 June 2022, but this had been done unsatisfactorily and contractors had returned on 12 July 2022 to relay and conduct additional slabbing works. It apologised that its contractors had spoken to her in an unacceptable manner and awarded £150 compensation for the inconvenience and poor experience she had in trying to get the remedial issues resolved.
8. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and offer of compensation and asked for her complaint to be escalated on 16 August 2022. The landlord declined to do so, stating it had conducted a thorough investigation and there was no new information to consider. The resident subsequently referred the complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. In her correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of various other repairs in the property. However, there is no evidence that these issues have been raised as a formal complaint or exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
10. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, this Service can only consider complaints which have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. This is so that we can be sure the landlord has had a reasonable opportunity to resolve the issues internally before we intervene. As a result, complaints about other repairs fall outside the scope of this investigation. If the resident remains dissatisfied, she should consult the landlord and raise a new complaint. In any event, the landlord is encouraged to liaise with the resident to ensure that any outstanding issues are resolved.
11. The resident has also explained that she has experienced issues with poor water pressure dating back to 2008. While the Ombudsman appreciates the detriment caused to the resident by this ongoing issue, from the records provided, prior to the resident’s report on 6 May 2022, the last potentially related report made to the landlord was in 2018. The landlord’s complaints policy outlines that issues must be raised within 12 months to be investigated as a complaint.
12. Equally, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, this Service will only consider complaints that were brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period, which is normally 6 months from the issue arising. As such, this investigation is focused on the resident’s reports from 2022 onwards.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the water supply.

13. Under the terms of the tenancy and section 11 of the the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA), the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and outside of the home in repair and working order. This includes installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
14. The landlord’s repairs policy states repairs will be carried out in a reasonable time, according to their priority. Emergency repairs should be attended within 3 hours, urgent repairs within 3 days and routine repairs within 45 days. Emergency repairs are those which pose an immediate risk to safety, security or health. Urgent and routine repairs are distinguished by the level of inconvenience caused. The landlord will aim to complete repairs correctly on the first visit. Its staff and contractors will be polite and sensitive to the needs of customers.
15. The resident reported issues with the water pressure on 6 May 2022. The response times suggest this was categorised as a routine repair. Despite the inconvenience this was causing the resident, given there was still water supply, albeit not adequate, this could be considered reasonable.
16. The records contain correspondence from the neighbour to the landlord, which references that a surveyor attended on 11 May 2022. The records show that the landlord’s contractors attended on 21 June 2022 to commence works and resolved the water pressure issues on 27 June 2022. The landlord’s repairs policy qualifies that sometimes it will be necessary to arrange for a diagnostic appointment before works take place, for example when the scope of the repair cannot be clearly defined. The issue was attended to within 42 days of the survey and resolved within 48 days. While this is slightly outside the timeframe for completion of routine repairs as specified in the policy, this is not considered a significant delay.
17. Work commenced on 21 June 2022. On 23 June 2022 both the resident and neighbour reported that they had had no water for the past 2 days. This was also communicated to the landlord via the council following a complaint that had been made to one of the councilors. A total loss of water would reasonably be classified as an emergency under the landlord’s repairs policy. We would expect it to fulfil its responsibilities under the LTA and the tenancy agreement by providing a temporary supply in such circumstances.
18. Upon receipt of this information, the landlord made enquiries with the contractor the same day. The contractor responded the next day and denied there had been a total loss of supply. It stated the supply had only been interrupted for 1 hour on 22 June 2022 and for 45 minutes on 23 June 2022. It confirmed the water was restored and checked by the operatives each day before they left the site. Unfortunately, we cannot determine whether there was a total loss of water, and therefore, whether the landlord was at fault for not providing a temporary supply. The records suggest that the landlord made appropriate enquiries with the contractors and satisfied itself that the issue was not ongoing, as we would expect it to.
19. Overall, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the water supply, on the basis that it responded in line with its relevant obligations and took reasonable steps to manage the situation. However, this is not to undermine the distress caused to the resident who has described the detriment caused to her family because of the ongoing issue.

Landlord’s handling of remedial works

20. The resident was very upset that the contractors had dug up her yard, as she expressed in her complaint to the landlord, describing it as ‘ruined’. The resident alleged it did not have to do this, as it had already established the problem with the water supply was located elsewhere. This was also reiterated by the neighbour.
21. While works were required at a neighbouring property to remedy the issue, the landlord maintained the works at the resident’s property were also necessary. Communications and work notes from the contractor describe it having located a defective stop tap and replacing a crushed copper pipe, which are assumed to have been done during excavation work at the resident’s property. We might, therefore, reasonably conclude that this work was necessary, while recognising it came as an inconvenience to the resident.
22. The distress felt by the resident was exacerbated when the contractor attended on 28 June 2022 to relay the slabs but did not do so to a satisfactory standard, resulting in what the resident described as a trip hazard. The resident also reported that the contractors had not put the manhole cover back on properly and had raised it, which presented a danger. She added that her dog had cut his paw on its jagged edges.
23. The resident reported the issue with the paving slabs on 29 June 2022 and the issue was rectified on 12 July 2022. A job was also scheduled to rectify issues with the manhole cover on 4 August 2022. Again, in line with the landlord’s policy, these can be considered appropriate response times. However it remained the fault of the landlord that the issues had not been addressed correctly by contractors previously. As also stated in the policy, the landlord should aim to complete repairs right on the first visit.
24. The resident reported that she had been spoken to poorly by a contractor who attended on 5 July 2022 to assess the remedial works. She was clear that this had caused her to feel intimidated and very upset. The landlord apologised for this in its complaint response and assured her that the operative was being investigated and action would be taken. It was appropriate that the landlord recognised this was not acceptable and said it would act to prevent this happening again. As per its policy, the landlord expects its staff to be polite and sensitive to the needs of residents.
25. Overall, the Ombudsman considers there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the remedial works. It did not carry out works to the resident’s yard to a satisfactory standard on its first attempt. This caused inconvenience to the resident who considered this hazardous and had to undergo further upheaval for this to be resolved. The landlord accepts that its contractor spoke to the resident in an inappropriate manner.
26. However, it acknowledged these failings and took appropriate steps to put things right. It also offered compensation of £150 for the distress caused. The landlord’s compensation policy notes it can provide up to £100 for poor service. Having regard to the landlord’s compensation policy and this Service’s own guidance on remedies, we are assured that the landlord has offered redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolves this part of the complaint.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the water supply.
28. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of remedial works to the resident’s yard.

Recommendation

29. If the landlord has not already done so, it should pay the resident £150 compensation for the distress caused. Please note the reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident as it recognised service failings which required remedy.