Walsall Housing Group Limited (202212693)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212693

Walsall Housing Group Limited

22 January 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:
1. Report of a leak;
2. Complaint.
The resident has also complained about the outcome of her insurance claim.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the resident’s complaint about the outcome of their insurance claim is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In her complaint, the resident said that she had reported a flickering bathroom light on more than one occasion. The electrician who attended told her the fault was due to damaged wiring caused by a leak from the flat above. The resident made a claim for damages via the landlord’s public liability insurer. Following an investigation, the landlord’s insurer did not accept liability for damage to the resident’s property. The resident appealed the insurer’s decision. She stated that, as the leak was not her fault, the landlord should pay for the cost of rewiring her flat, repairs to her bathroom and reimburse her for her higher electricity costs.
The resident’s appeal was unsuccessful and the matter was then considered through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. In its final complaint response, the landlord upheld the insurer’s decision and reiterated that it was not liable for any damage caused by the leak.
The resident subsequently contacted the Service as she was unhappy with the response she had received from the landlord. While the serious nature of this complaint is acknowledged, this is not a matter the Ombudsman can consider. Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”. The Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causes of, or liability for, damage to a resident’s property. We would therefore suggest the resident seeks independent legal advice.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of a ground floor flat, where the landlord is the freeholder. The resident signed the lease in July 2021 and was previously a tenant in the same property, which she purchased under the Right to Buy scheme.
The resident lives with a very young child and an elderly family member, who is recorded by the landlord as having vulnerabilities, including dementia.
On 11 October 2019, the resident reported that the light in her bathroom was flickering and making a hissing sound. Although the records state the landlord had completed the repair, it is not clear on what date this took place.
In January 2022 the resident called the landlord to report a problem with her bathroom light. The landlord advised her that, under the terms of the lease, this would be her responsibility to investigate and remedy.
On 22 June 2022, both the resident and her neighbour above contacted the landlord to report water ingress from the neighbour’s property. The landlord booked an emergency repair and attended on the same day to fix the leak.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 August 2022 and stated:
1. She had recently had problems with her bathroom due to a leak from the flat above. Water had been running through the light switch and none of the lights in the flat would come on;
2. This was not the first time she had reported the issue. When the electricians attended the second time, in January 2022, they told her “water had been sitting in” the wires for a long time. This had damaged the wires and the flat needed rewiring;
3. She had been told that if she claimed on her buildings insurance, she would have to pay an excess of £350. If she was to pay the excess, this meant she would be paying towards the work, which she felt was unfair because the damage was not her fault;
4. She had recently had her bathroom plastered and therefore this also needed to be repaired;
5. While waiting for the light switch to be repaired, she was given the option by the electrician of either having her bathroom light permanently on or off. As she needed the light to be on during the night, it meant her electrical bills were higher.
The landlord’s insurance team visited the property on 16 August 2022 to take photographs of the relevant areas.
On 22 August 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and stated:
1. The cause of the leak was from the bath waste in the above property, which had become loose due to wear and tear;
2. As the landlord had not received any reports about a leak prior to 22 June 2022, it could not reasonably have been expected to have foreseen it.
3. It had not caused the leak and responded to it once it was reported
4. The landlord had a reactive repairs process, where the onus was on the resident to report a repair. It had therefore not been “in breach” of its duties and had “no legal liability to offer any compensation”.
5. Whilst it sympathised with the resident, it was unable to assist any further and suggested that she made a claim on her buildings insurance that she held through the landlord.
The resident replied on 6 September 2022 to say she did not remember the date she made her first call about the electrical fault. She said she only recalled that her mother made a call to complain that the light kept tripping and made a noise. When the landlord called her back, she told it that the noise had got better but the lights kept tripping. She explained that this had only started when the tenants above moved in.
On 8 September 2022, the landlord wrote back to the resident and stated:
1. It had checked the call history for the property for the 2 years prior to when it had attended to repair the leak in July 2022;
2. It had found no calls regarding water ingress from the flat above or issues with the electrics;
3. If she had reported a problem with her electrics, this would fall under her responsibility as leaseholder;
4. It assured the resident that, where it is proven to have been liable for damage, it took its “responsibility seriously”. However, this did not extend to situations where it had correctly exercised its duties;
5. It regretted that it was unable to reverse its decision and again referred the resident to her own buildings insurance.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 September 2022 to say she disagreed with its decision and wanted to raise the matter as a formal complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the residents stage 1 complaint on 28 September 2022 and sent its response on 10 October 2022. This stated:
1. As part of its investigation it had reviewed:
  1. The call histories for the resident’s property and the flat above;
  2. The repair history for the resident’s property;
  3. The details of the repair and cause of the leak reported on 22 June 2022;
  4. The site visit notes and photographs;
  5. The correspondence between the resident and its Insurance team;
2. It had made 3 attempts to call the resident but was unable to reach her;
3. It reiterated the cause of the leak and that, prior to June 2022, it had not received any reports of water ingress;
4. It noted that the resident had called it in January 2022 to report a problem with her bathroom light.
5. The electrics and lighting were the resident’s responsibility, as per her lease. It would therefore have been incumbent on her to appoint an electrician and to notify the landlord of a leak from the above property;
6. It could not have foreseen the issue and was therefore not liable for any damage, which had been the result of general wear and tear rather than a fault on its part;
7. It concluded that the decision that its Insurance team had reached was correct and gave the resident details on how she could escalate her complaint;
The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 October 2022 and stated:
1. She would like to escalate her complaint to the next stage;
2. When she first reported a problem with her light in January 2022, she did not know it had been caused by water damage until water was leaking through her light switch on 22 June 2022;
3. There were vulnerable people living in the property and her bathroom was not safe;
4. She had approached her building insurer but was told to raise a complaint with the landlord;
5. She wanted the matter resolved as soon as possible. She had no light, no light switch, damaged wires and vulnerable people living in her property;
6. As the damage was caused by the landlord’s “neglect”, none of it was her fault. The situation was causing her stress and additional costs in electricity and redecoration.
The landlord sent a response on 21 October 2022. It stated that:
1. It would not escalate the resident’s complaint as it was satisfied it had carried out a thorough investigation and there was no further information for it to consider;
2. There had been no prior reports or work carried out in relation to water ingress before 22 June 2022;
3. The resident should refer the matter to the buildings insurance she held with the landlord, where her claim could be considered under “escape of water peril”;
4. Whilst it understood the resident remained unhappy with its stage 1 response, it was satisfied that it had dealt with the complaint fairly and reasonably, in line with its policies;
5. The resident should refer her case to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 7 November 2022. She said that the landlord would not take her complaint any further. It did not feel it was at fault for the damage caused to her property. She added that the outcome she was seeking was that she wanted the landlord to rewire her property and to compensate her for the stress that the matter had caused her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

As set out above, we cannot make liability decisions. Our focus in this case is therefore on how the landlord responded to the resident’s report of a leak and complaint, and whether its response was reasonable and fair in the circumstances. This includes consideration of whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policies and procedures, and good practice.

Report of a leak

The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that it prioritises repairs according to 4 categories; Emergency, Urgent, Routine and Programmed repairs. Emergency repairs are those that pose an immediate risk to safety, security or health. The landlord responds to emergency repairs 24 hours a day, every day of the year. It will attend to these repairs within 3 hours to make the property safe and will try to complete the full repair within 24 hours.
The policy also states that the landlord will only carry out repairs that fall under its responsibility. It will not carry out repairs for leaseholders unless the terms of the lease state it is its responsibility, such as the fabric of the building and communal areas. The resident’s lease states that the leaseholder is responsible for “all service installations utilised exclusively by the leased premises”.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the distress and upheaval the resident has experienced as a result of damage caused by water ingress from another property. It is understandable how worrying and frustrating the situation must have been for the resident, particularly when living with vulnerable occupants. It is not disputed that the resident reported a problem with her bathroom light in January 2022. It was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to confirm what she was responsible for under the lease. This is because it was correct that the electrics and lighting inside the property were, under the terms of her lease, the resident’s responsibility. It was therefore appropriate that the resident appointed her own electrical contractor in order to attend to the repair.
According to the resident, the electrician had informed her the damaged wiring was caused by a leak and water build up from the property above. The Service has seen no contemporaneous evidence to corroborate this. If the resident had been informed as such, it would have been reasonable for her to report this to the landlord at the time. At the point of her initial call in January 2022, there was nothing to suggest that it would be necessary for the landlord to attend and inspect.
As the electrician was commissioned by the resident, the relationship was solely between the electrical contractor and resident, as leaseholder. This means that there would not have been an expectation for the electrical contractor to have contacted the landlord to report it had found water ingress. It would have been for the resident to have reported this to the landlord. The landlord could therefore not have reasonably known of the existence of a leak until the resident had reported it.
It is unclear from the evidence why the resident did not report water ingress around January 2022, when she stated she was advised by the electrician that water had been “sitting in the wires”. However, when she reported the leak in June 2022, the landlord acted appropriately. It booked an out of hours emergency repair and attended to it within 24 hours, in line with its policy.
There is evidence the resident reported a flickering bathroom light and “hissing sound” on 11 October 2019, prior to when she had purchased the property. The landlord’s repairs log recorded that it attended to this repair but made no mention at the time of any water ingress. As there is no evidence the resident had raised any further issues with her electrics, either with the landlord or privately, until January 2022, it cannot reasonably be determined that the fault was due to the same issue. For the reasons stated above, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s report of a leak.

Complaint

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its Complaints Policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. Investigation responses will be completed within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. Review responses will be completed within 20 working days of the request to escalate being received. The evidence shows the landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in a timely manner.
The policy also states that, at the end of stage 1, the resident has the opportunity to escalate to stage 2, which it refers to as a ‘review’. Requests may be made, for example, when a resident believes an important piece of information was missed out or misunderstood and feels this would change the outcome. It’s Complaints Policy states that, in a small number of instances, the landlord reserves the right to refuse to deal with a complaint completely or to carry out a further review. It will explain its reasons for the decision to the resident and provide the Housing Ombudsman’s contact details so the customer, if dissatisfied, can challenge its decision.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that, if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. In instances where a landlord declines to escalate a complaint, it must clearly communicate in writing its reasons for not escalating as well as the resident’s right to approach the Ombudsman about its decision.
The Service understands how frustrating it can be when a resident feels their complaint has not been addressed to their satisfaction. However, the evidence shows that the landlord did provide a response within 20 working days that clearly communicated its reasons for not escalating the resident’s complaint. It also informed her of her right to approach the Ombudsman. The landlord’s handling of the complaint was therefore in accordance with its policy and the Code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the way the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the outcome of the resident’s insurance claim is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately when the resident reported a leak from the property above. It booked an out of hours emergency repair and attended and repaired the leak within 24 hours. As the resident was the leaseholder, the landlord correctly advised her that her lease stated electrical repairs inside her property were her responsibility.
The landlord correctly followed its complaints process.