Watford Community Housing Trust (202103329)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103329

Watford Community Housing Trust

24 November 2021


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 reports about:
    1. a water leak from her boiler.
    2. a smell coming from her boiler.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Smell coming from the boiler

  1. In accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.
  2. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she explained that she had a “bad rotten egg smell coming from the boiler cupboard”. The landlord’s records show she reported the smell to it on 4 June 2021, after the landlord had completed its complaint investigation. In line with paragraph 39(a), this issue will not be considered in this investigation. If the resident wants to pursue this aspect of the complaint, the resident should raise it with the landlord in the first instance, and then, once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure, she can bring the complaint to this Service for independent investigation if necessary.

 

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 23 April 2021 two of the landlord’s engineers attended for an annual gas safety check. Later that day, when the resident returned home, she found water leaking from the boiler through to her kitchen. She reported the incident to the landlord. The landlord’s records show an operative attended that day to make the property safe.
  3. On 25 April 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord. She explained the incident, and said she had to turn off all her electrics. She said her carpet was ruined, and she had to throw away food she had bought as the fridge and freezer were turned off.
  4. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on or around 30 April 2021 (the exact date is unknown). It said the leak was not a result of the gas servicing. It explained that the “filling loop valve located on the supply pipe to the boiler had given way due to age”. It said both engineers confirmed they did not touch the filling loop during the gas check. It said this part of the heating system was not routinely tested as part of the check. It said notes from the gas safety certificate showed the filling loop was connected, which meant it was not open and no visual leaks were identified. It said the operative who attended on 23 April to make the property safe confirmed the filling loop was not open and that the part had failed. The landlord said the leak was unforeseen, and as such the resident would need to make a claim on her contents insurance for any damaged belongings. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied. 
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 May 2021. She said the landlord was responsible for the maintenance of its property. She said if the filling loop gave way due to age, the landlord was responsible for it. She said the operative from 23 April confirmed that the gas engineers had left the filling loop on which caused the leak. She said another contractor had attended (it is unclear when) to look at the damaged ceiling and said the landlord would fix it. She said this was “another person admitting responsi[bility] for the damage”.  She requested compensation for the stress caused, and the “mess [her] house was in”.
  6. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 11 May 2021. It said it had considered the resident’s stage two complaint and had decided not to deal with it as an appeal as the resident had not provided new evidence, and it believed it had followed its policies and procedures relating to the matter in full. It reiterated what it had explained in its stage one complaint response. It said it completed the repair to resolve leak within its emergency timeframe of 24 hours. It advised all residents to take out home contents insurance to protect their possessions. Residents were responsible as per their tenancy agreement to take out such insurance. It provided home contents insurance through a third–party provider and signposted the resident to its website for further information about this.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend to emergency repairs (repairs required in situations which are actually or potentially dangerous) within four hours to make safe and implement a repair within 24 hours.  Residents are responsible for ensuring they take out home contents insurance to cover their own losses.
  2. The resident reported a leak on 23 April 2020. The landlord attended that day to make the property safe. It acted in line with it’s the timeframe set out in its repairs policy for an emergency repair.
  3. The landlord advised the resident that the leak was unforeseeable, and not due to the gas safety check which had occurred earlier that day. It is understandable that the resident had concerns about the gas safety check and believed it was linked to the leak given the closeness in events. Although the landlord explained that the part which caused the leak (filling loop valve) was not involved in the gas check, it failed to provide evidence to support its explanation. The landlord failed to reassure the resident or adequately demonstrate that it was an isolated, and unrelated incident.
  4. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, it referred to the gas safety certificate which stated the filling loop valve was connected and not open (meaning there were no visual leaks). Evidence of this certificate has not been provided for this investigation. The landlord said it interviewed the two engineers who carried out the check, and they said they did not touch the filling loop. Details of these interviews have not been provided for this investigation.
  5. The landlord also explained that the operative who attended on 23 April 2021 to make the property safe, confirmed that the leak was because the filling loop had failed. In the resident’s escalation request, she said the same operative had advised her that the engineers had left the filling loop on. Given the resident’s contradiction, we would expect the landlord to provide evidence to support its argument of what the operative said. The landlord provided repair records for this investigation. They are vague and only show that an operative attended on 23 April. It is therefore unclear when the operative confirmed to the landlord that the filling loop had given way, as there is no evidence to support the explanation.
  6. Ultimately, it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether the gas safety check and the leak were connected and the landlord would have been entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified contractors in this regard. However, the Ombudsman can determine whether the landlord’s responses and explanations to the resident were reasonable. In this case, given the absence of information supporting the landlord’s argument, it is difficult to conclude that it acted reasonably. There is no evidence to show the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. This was a failing in record keeping on the landlord’s behalf and has impacted our understanding of the complaint.
  7. The resident considers that the landlord should compensate her for the damage caused to her carpet and personal possessions caused by the leak. She has also said she had to throw away food that was in the fridge and freezer because she had to temporarily shut down the electricity in the property after the leak. The landlord has argued that it was not responsible for causing the leak and therefore it is not obliged to compensate the resident for the damage it caused to her possessions.
  8. In line with the tenancy agreement, residents are encouraged to take out contents insurance to cover damage to their possessions, (including carpets) caused by unexpected events such as a fire or water leak. The landlord would not be expected to pay compensation for damage which was unforeseeable. However, it may be reasonable for the landlord to pay compensation if its staff or contractors caused damage to the resident’s property through negligence. As explained above, the landlord has said it has carried out an investigation and confirmed it was not negligent, but it is not clear what evidence this decision was based on. In view of this, the landlord should offer to refer the resident’s claim for damage to her personal possessions to its liability insurer (if it has one). The liability insurer would be able to carry out a separate investigation and make a decision regarding the resident’s claim for compensation.
  9. If the landlord does not have liability insurance for this situation or if the resident disputes the insurer’s decision once her claim has been considered, she may be able to take legal action against the landlord for damage to her possessions. The Ombudsman cannot give legal advice and therefore we are unable to comment on this further in this report.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the resident’s reports about a water leak from her boiler.

Reasons

  1. Although the landlord attended promptly in response to the resident’s reports of a water leak, it failed to provide evidence to demonstrate that the leak was not linked to the gas safety check.

 

Order

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation for the inconvenience and frustration experienced as a result of the miscommunication and poor record keeping identified in this report.

This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made.