Westminster City Council (201810206)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201810206

Westminster City Council

13 September 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

The complaint was about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks in the property.
2. Reports about a blocked kitchen drain.
3. Reports of damage to the windows.
4. Complaint and request for compensation.

Background and summary of events

Scope of investigation

The resident has told the Ombudsman that issues with the property date back many years and he has been reporting leaks for more than 20 years. However, paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate a matter which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In this case, the resident brought his formal complaint to the landlord in June 2018 and in accordance with its complaints policy the landlord considered matters dating back 12 months to June 2017. It is therefore those matters that were considered by the landlord under its formal complaint process which, in accordance with paragraph 39(e), form the subject of the Ombudsman’s investigation.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s disappointment with this time limitation but it exists for reasons of both practicality and fairness. Experience has shown that the more historic and further away in time in which the matters complained about occurred, the less likelihood there is of there being reliable documented evidence on which the Ombudsman can reach a definitive finding.

Background

Since 1998 the resident has been the lease holder of a flat for which the landlord is the freeholder. The flat is arranged over the ground, first and second floors of a property. In the main, the resident does not live at the property but rents it out. Prior to March 2019 the property was managed by an arm’s length management organisation (ALMO) on behalf of the landlord. By 31 March 2019 the ALMO had been wound up and all its functions transferred back to the landlord to be managed in-house. For ease of reference both organisations are referred to herein as ‘the landlord’.
In 2015 the landlord undertook major works to the windows on the properties on the estate.

Prior to formal complaint:

In January 2017 the landlord responded to a report from the resident that his windows had been damaged by contractors as a result of the major works. He said he would not pay towards any future replacement as a result and requested compensation for having to attend visits by contractors. The landlord disputed the windows had been damaged – having signed off the work at the time – but apologised that during works window restrictors could not be replaced as the fitting had been discontinued. It acknowledged the inconvenience of him having to attend appointments with its contractors for which it offered £216 compensation.
Between May – July 2017 the resident reported a faulty stop mechanism on his window(s) which appears to have been resolved by the landlord once it had clarified this was unrelated to the now discontinued restrictors.
In July 2017 the resident raised again the issue of the restrictors, seeking their reinstatement or compensation. The landlord explained the restrictors were now discontinued, noted the resident had not wanted an alternative but confirmed he would not be billed for any work in connection with them. In response the resident said the contractors should be held responsible for failing to fulfil the requirements of the major works contract. He said as a result of the windows and other issues he would likely lose his tenants and need compensation for loss of rental income.

Stage 1 complaint

On 16 June 2018 the resident submitted a complaint with appendices to the landlord of his account of events and said he would prefer to discuss compensation rather than submit a liability claim. [Under the landlord’s complaints policy at that time it undertook to respond within 7 working days.] In summary, he explained:
1. He and his wife had suffered loss of rental income (when tenants would not renew leases due to the problems) and suffered stress and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s failure to maintain/repair the property in accordance with its leasehold obligations.
2. It had poor systems for repairs, maintenance and major works and failed to engage properly with residents on this.
3. Engagement with stakeholders could improve its poor repairs system – including call waiting times; not giving a name or job number; expecting a leaseholder to pay initially for plumber call out when piping was largely communal; callout timings were not suited to non-resident leaseholders; repairs being closed despite not being resolved; with no account taken of leak history on receipt of a recurrence.
4. Poor systems for major works could also be resolved through stakeholder engagement: the primary issue on the estate was leaks but this was not reflected in major works programmes which tended to focus on peripheral issues, and the landlord’s communication regarding works was insufficiently detailed.
5. Resident Panels – had failed to address the primary issue of leaks.
6. He sought compensation for loss of rental income, cost of redecoration, travel expenses, time and trouble, and stress.
7. Leaks – There had been three longstanding leaks:
8. Leak 1 (intermittent for 19 years, and worst of the leaks), last reported February 2018, resolved April 2018, the kitchen had been damaged by the landlord which refused to make good, and had been unable to re-let the flat.
9. Leak 2 (intermittent for 5 years, into upper bedroom from flat above), last reported March 2018, resolved April 2018.
10. Leak 3 (persistent for 10 years, into upper landing from flat above), last reported February 2018, deemed ‘inactive’ by landlord but, as the source not identified he assumed it would recur.
11. Windows – The removal of the restrictors had caused the tilting mechanism to no longer work and two sash windows would not stay open. The windows were generally fine before this. Repair materials were poor quality. Contractors should be forced to meet contractual obligations to make good.
12. Blocked kitchen drain (intermittent for 16 years and unresolved) last reported April 2017 – the drain shared with neighbour, kept blocking up as a result of them putting fat and other debris down the sink. Works had been undertaken over years, most recently May 2018 (fitting of bottle trap to neighbour’s drain). The dishwasher and kitchen units were damaged during 2016 works which landlord refused to reimburse.
13. Loss of keys – He had had to pay to replace spare keys lost by the landlord’s contractors.
By way of outcome, in addition to requesting an opportunity to get involved in resident engagement in order to improve services, the resident sought compensation for 2017/18 for:
1. Loss of rent from October 2017-April 2018 (when the property was empty): £15160.02.
2. Loss of rent from April 2018 as he was now letting at reduced rate: monthly loss of £186.67.
3. Expenses for visits to property: 2017/18 cost of drive £1584.
4. Replacement dishwasher in 2016: £397.
5. Cost of kitchen redecoration following Leak 1: £1140.
6. Damage to windows: £1000.
7. Relief from paying for future replacement of windows.
8. Relief from paying windows element of major works: £1080.34.
9. Time and trouble: he attended on 44 days plus equal time on emails, letters, telephone = total 80 days @ £300 per day (income rate) = £24000.
10. Stress incurred in having to deal with all the issues.

Stage 2 complaint

On 7 January 2019 the resident escalated his complaint with the landlord via his councillor but when this elicited no response he submitted, on 7 February 2019 a request direct to the landlord for a Stage 2 review of his complaint. [Under the landlord’s complaints procedure at that time the landlord undertook to respond to requests for review within 10 working days.] He said ‘Leak 3’ continued; no repairs had been made to his windows; that he would make a public liability claim to its insurers as it had advised and that he would be moving back to live in his flat and would like to participate in a resident panel. He also said he was happy to share his views as to how the landlord could improve its processes. He attached a number of appendices reiterating the full detail of his complaint.
On 9 January 2019 the resident submitted his liability claim to the landlord’s insurers. It would appear that from January 2019 – April 2019 the resident continued to report the continuation of Leak 3 on a monthly basis.
On 20 February 2019 the landlord commissioned a drainage survey of the pipework of the block which found it to be in acceptable condition and made no recommendations.
On 28 February 2019 the landlord fixed the resident’s window locking mechanisms and overhauled a sash window but the resident said this left the problem with the tilt and turn mechanisms as a result of the removal of the restrictors.
Stage 1 response: On 11 March 2019 the landlord acknowledged the Stage 2 complaint request but said it would consider it a Stage 1 complaint. In response it said:
1. Leak – its records showed the last reported leak was from the flat above’s radiator which was fixed but to let it know if there was still a leak so an urgent inspection could be arranged.
2. Diagnosis of leaks was made difficult by the layout and age of the building which could delay resolution, but it was sorry for any damage, for which he could make a claim on its insurance, noting his public liability claim.
3. Windows – tilt & turn mechanism – it noted its inspection of the windows but apologised for its delayed resolution of the repair raised in January 2019 and completed 28 February 2019.
4. Residents’ panel – It noted his interest and provided a link so he could register his interest.
5. Procedural improvements – It was happy to receive his feedback.
The following day the landlord emailed the resident to recall its response, but when queried by the resident said he should consider the above to be its response.
On 25 March 2019 the resident complained the landlord had failed to propose redress and despite submitting a liability claim on 9 January 2019 he had heard nothing. He said the leak had not been resolved despite a temporary fix; and the windows’ tilt and turn mechanisms had not been fixed. He said he was reattaching his original complaint; his claim for compensation and appendices. The landlord replied to say it had not originally received his attachments but would address these now by way of a follow-up response.
During April 2019 the resident chased progress on his liability claim but it appears there was some confusion on the part of the landlord as to who was dealing with it following the transfer of responsibility for claims from the ALMO.
On 18 April 2019 the landlord met with the resident. It agreed his account of its service failure and said having taken back responsibility from the ALMO for housing issues it was looking at improvements and welcomed his engagement on this. The resident explained the stress and inconvenience he had incurred since complaining in June 2018, his loss of rental income, that he wanted it confirmed that Leak 3 was resolved before the landlord made good the damage to his ceiling, and explained he himself had made good the damage after Leak 1. He said he wanted £50,000 compensation. The complaints team said loss of rental income and compensation would be for its insurance team and it would chase this up. It said it would visit on 8 May 2019 to check whether Leak 3 was still active.
Meanwhile, between April – May 2019 it appears the landlord sought to ascertain which team was dealing with the liability claim and what stage it had reached. At the same time the resident was seeking clarification of who was dealing with the separate aspects of his claim.
An order was raised for the repair of the tilt mechanism of the windows and records indicate this was completed by the landlord in May 2019.
Following a meeting with the resident on 8 May 2019, on 9 May 2019 the landlord’s complaints team emailed the resident to say it would formally respond to his complaint within 10 working days but meanwhile confirmed:
1. Windows – Restrictors were removed during major works, could not be replaced like-for-like, and it would consider if a refund would be appropriate.
2. New leak affecting bathroom ceiling/corridor – there was initial confusion about responsibility for repair; the leak was now found to be caused by communal pipe which was being resolved by contractors and action taken to prevent future confusion regarding responsibilities.
3. Leak 3 – its contractors had confirmed with the resident this was now repaired.
4. Liability claim – it had chased for an update.
Follow up response: On 24 May 2019 the landlord told the resident it was taking steps to improve its systems following the transition of functions from the ALMO, for dealing with repair requests (including reducing call waiting times; and providing named contacts and references for each repair request). It confirmed Leak 3 (from the flat above) was now fixed; and that he would not be billed for window restrictors that were not installed. It confirmed the correct process for remedial works following a leak was for a resident to claim on their building insurance; and that it was waiting to hear back from its insurance team which aspect of compensation was for its insurance team and which for its complaints team and he would be contacted in due course by the appropriate team.
Further follow up response: On 11 June 2019 the landlord confirmed the only element of compensation not for its insurance team was that due for service failure for delayed repairs. It offered the resident £1250 compensation for the delayed major works to windows between 2016 – June 2019, confirming that the works [unspecified] were not included in its final billing. It said all other elements of redress would be considered under his liability claim.
The landlord’s internal records indicate the above sum comprised: £500 for delay in carrying out minor repairs outstanding or incomplete for more than a year; £500 for distress and inconvenience; and £250 for time and trouble in pursuing his complaint. It does not appear this information was relayed to the resident but, in any event, the resident did not accept the offer.
On 8 July 2019 the landlord’s complaints team responded to a follow up enquiry from the resident explaining:
1. Beyond having facilitated his direct contact with its insurance team’s claims handler it could not assist with his questions about his claim or intervene on his behalf.
2. Its insurance team had told its complaints team it should only compensate for service failure as other elements of redress would be considered under the liability claim.
3. Regarding any refund of the major works for the windows, the contractors were not obliged to replace the restrictors, it had not paid them for replacement and he would not be billed for that element of the works. Reductions would be applied at the final account stage within the next few months and an adjustment made.
4. Its £1250 compensation offer was for service failure in relation to delays, would not affect his liability claim and it apologised if it had not made that clear in its offer.
5. It noted his feedback on major works and resident engagement with respect to drains and leaks and that communication for future programmes would be improved. It said it now had a planned preventative maintenance programme specifically to address leaks and drainage problems and outlined what it was doing with regard to the resident’s building.
On 15 August 2019 the resident reported an issue with a window and that a long-term solution was needed to resolve his kitchen drain blockages which was caused by his neighbour putting fat down the drains.
On 8 October 2019 the resident asked the landlord how much less contractors had been paid for the window works. On 11 October 2019 the landlord’s complaint team replied to say it was in the process of ascertaining this and that it was reviewing options for alleviating grease blockages in his property’s shared drain; and advised how he could be involved in future resident engagement.
On 14 October 2019 the landlord confirmed the contract for the window works had included a provisional cost of £1500 for ‘full set of ironmongery to aluminium window set including, springs, locks, latches, handles, restrictors, stays, etc for ad hoc replacement throughout block where required.’ But that these works were omitted from the contract as they were not completed and not included the final leaseholder accounts.
On 30 October 2019 the resident responded to the landlord’s £1250 compensation offer which he considered insufficient and contrary to its own compensation guidelines. In summary, he said:
1. It insufficiently compensated for the length of delays for the resolution of: Leak 1 – 20 years; Leak 2 – 6 years; Leak 3 – 15 years. The landlord had only discovered the source of one; the source of the other two were identified by neighbours.
2. His windows were damaged, not made better, as a result of major works.
3. The blocked kitchen drain was still unresolved after 16 years and he questioned why its recent suggestion of installing a fat trap had not been done before.
4. He wanted compensation for 20 years of stress, time, trouble and inconvenience.
5. He understood its complaint team could compensate for delay and inconvenience and that he should direct his claim for financial loss (rental income) to its insurers.
There was then an exchange of emails between 30 October – 6 November 2019 in which the landlord’s complaints team told the resident that its insurance team would look at compensation for loss of income, and for time, trouble and distress, that the complaints team would look only at delays following his public liability claim; and that its offer was final. It also said it would be looking to install an enzyme system in the waste pipe to counter the grease that was causing blockages. It said it had answered all his points and if he was dissatisfied he could escalate his complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
The resident questioned what was meant by ‘delays after filing a liability claim’ and whether this excluded compensation for all other delays. Further, he said its insurance team had advised him that compensation for distress and inconvenience was not for them but the complaints team, as was clear in their compensation guidelines. He asked that it provide him with a final response to his complaint so that he could escalate it as advised. He queried its reference to the LGSCO and asked about referring his complaint to Housing Ombudsman, pointing out they were different organisations. The complaints team replied that the two Ombudsmen were ‘the same thing’. It apologised for misinforming him that its insurance team would consider compensation for inconvenience, time and trouble and said that it would consider this and responses to his other points.
On 16 December 2019 the resident met with the landlord to discuss his complaint. He says it acknowledged the estate’s drainage system was poor; its major works programme not sufficiently focused on repairs, and that it would address that through resident engagement in which he wished to be involved. It appears the landlord also proposed additional compensation comprising:
1. £1250 for 2.5 years distress.
2. £50 for wrongly advising about Housing Ombudsman Service/LGSCO.
3. £50 for wrongly advising about what was covered by its insurance team.
4. £625 for 2.5 years of time and trouble = total £1975.
The resident, however, said he was seeking: Leak 1 – £10,000; Leak 2 – £3500; Leak 3 – £8000; blocked kitchen drain – £8500; window damage – £2500; loss of time – £24000; and stress. The landlord said it would review the amount.
The landlord questioned the resident’s claim that the kitchen leak for the past 20 years was the same leak and undertook to review the leaks repairs history. With regard to the windows the resident said the deduction was inadequate and that compensation offered at Stage 1 was based on the complaints team’s flawed understanding of its remit and its response failed to address the majority of the complaint (ie major works processes and resident panels).
Throughout February 2020 the landlord spoke with the resident about his complaint. The resident maintained contractors should be made to complete the window works for which they had successfully tendered. With respect to the leaks the landlord said its records of the previous eight years did not indicate a pattern to, or primary source of the leaks. With respect to the kitchen drain blockages it said despite the communal stack pipes being sufficiently maintained and of sufficient diameter it would look to install a non-return valve and bottle trap. The landlord confirmed its consideration of his complaint would cover the 12 months prior to the complaint, in accordance with its complaints policy, and that if compensation was due it would only be in relation to this period and no further back. The landlord’s complaints team liaised with its insurance team to establish which elements of compensation fell to each to consider.
The landlord told the resident it had arranged for a plumber to attend on 10 March 2020 to a leak it considered related to Leak 1 and would also install the non-return valve which it did not now consider to be down to the neighbour. The resident said he was frustrated that each time he reported a leak it was treated as a new issue without reference to the history and that the landlord’s records (which only went back as far as 2012) were inconclusive as to the source of the leaks. The landlord said it would consider compensation for service failure after its plumber had concluded its investigation.
On 10 March 2020 the plumber attended but his investigation in other properties was restricted due to Covid. The landlord also attended the resident’s report of kitchen sink blockage which he believed was arising from the communal pipework, but was found to be caused by grease and fat from the resident’s flat. It unblocked the drain.
On 11 March 2020 the resident reported that:
1. Current new leak: Contractors were working to resolve the kitchen leak, involving inspections of other flats but their information of the history of investigations was just two years from when their firm took over from the previous firm.
2. Blocked kitchen drain: Results of inspection found an inadequate drop from the neighbouring flat’s waste pipe into the communal pipe in the resident’s kitchen and so fitting a separate pipe for his sink might resolve the issue. This suggested the landlord’s twice previous replacement of the communal drain had been unnecessary.
3. Kitchen leak (‘Leak 1’): Only resolved when a plumber attending a neighbouring flat identified the source.
On 23 April 2020 the landlord settled the resident’s liability claim for out of pocket expenses, including reimbursement of his travel to the property; damage to a bathroom cupboard; loss of rental income; reimbursement of utility bills paid while unable to rent out the property; damage to a dishwasher and cost of redecoration. The resident continued his compensation claim with respect to the other issues.
In June 2020 the resident reported a persistent leak from the stack pipe in the kitchen which could originate from any of the ten flats in the building. He was unhappy his earlier report of this had been closed as resolved.
In July 2020 contractors attended to what appears to have been a different report of a leak from the resident. It found a faulty seal around a bath in one of the neighbouring flats to be a possible cause and the neighbour agreed to reseal the bath.
Stage 2 response: On 8 October 2020 the landlord provided the resident with the outcome of its review, partially upholding his complaint. It apologised it had failed to adequately investigate and respond at Stage 1 and its Stage 2 response had been delayed. It said under its complaints procedure it would consider issues from June 2017 [12 months before he raised his formal complaint in June 2018]. In summary it found:
1. Leak 1: It had no records other than his report on 1 September 2017 which was cancelled with no evidence of a repair. This was a service failure.
2. Leak 2: Reported on 1 February 2018, was repaired on 24 February 2018. This had not been visible on attendance but a slight leak was found on the soil pipe behind the communal boxing.
3. Leak 3: Two reports received on 19 March 2018 for the same leak, and were found to be coming from a defective radiator value in a neighbouring flat. It was isolated the same day and a repair arranged for a valve replacement.
4. Leak 4: Reported 17 January 2019 and attended to the same day. Traced back to the same neighbour’s radiator. Radiator drained and isolated to prevent further leaking and radiator repaired at a later date.
5. Other than Leak 1, all leaks were attended to within 28 day target response time and either repaired or isolated until final repair was completed.
6. Windows: Its Stage 1 response had failed to address the resident’s complaint that windows were damaged by contractors during major works and that as contractors had not completed all work anticipated under the major contract he considered the deduction he had been given in his final bill inadequate. It noted he wanted deduction for the cost of the window element of major works and not to have to pay for future window replacement.
7. There was no evidence his windows had been damaged by contractors. No detailed window surveys were conducted prior to the tender process for major works contract, but done once awarded, at which point contractors attempted to source restrictors, were unable to do so and the cost of this was removed from the final account. There was no breach of contract.
8. Blocked kitchen drain: Noted the resident’s complaint that he had suffered for years with drain blockages because his flat shared a kitchen drain on the ground floor with one other flat, and his neighbour put fat and other debris down the sink. It noted its failure to address this in its Stage 1 response or subsequently but found:
9. Its February 2019 drain survey (which it now shared) found the drain system in good condition and clear of physical defects, with no blockages attributable to lack of maintenance.
10. It had records of 12 drainage jobs at the building since June 2017 with three internal jobs relating to his property where blockages were cleared and no evidence the cause was his neighbour’s flat.
11. Regarding the neighbour’s waste trap it said this would not prevent blockages in his flat as this could emanate from anywhere in the building. It said it had reviewed records to identify any underlying issues but this had not revealed any inherent defect behind the blockages or that it emanated from a particular property, and the number of blockages was not excessive.
12. It explained ground level properties were more like to experience blockages and its fitting of a non-return valve to his property to prevent back surges from blockages in the communal stack – although this would not prevent blockages within his own property – had been delayed because of Covid but would be completed shortly.
13. Replacement keys: It noted the resident sought reimbursement of keys lost by contractors and it had not previously addressed this, and despite it occurring prior to June 2017 and that the contractors had provided the standard number of replacements, it would offer £50 but increase this on receipt of evidence.
14. Major works communication: It noted it had not addressed at Stage 1 or subsequently the resident’s complaint that its major works communication lacked sufficient information of the work to be undertaken. The landlord said it had since changed its communication and its letters now provided a clear description of proposed works.
15. Resident engagement: It noted it had not addressed at Stage 1 or subsequently his complaint that its resident engagement was unrelated to core service delivery and his request to join its residents’ panel. It explained it was reviewing the structure of its engagement with residents but in the meantime provided a link to opportunities and said it would ensure, if it reinstated resident panels, that his request would be considered.
16. Compensation: His claim for loss of rent; reimbursement of expenses for attendance at the property; replacement dishwasher and cost of redecoration after Leak 1 were considered by its insurance team. For the remaining items it found:
17. Relief from paying windows element of major works and from paying for future replacement – It had already removed £1119.42 from his bill after contractors were unable to source the restrictors. There was therefore no evidence to support his request to not pay the remaining amount or to not pay for future works.[Note: The landlord has told the Ombudsman this statement was incorrect and has apologised for the confusion. It explained that as it not fitted the restrictors it had not billed for this element of the works and so no adjustment was required.]
18. Compensation for damaged windows – There was no evidence the windows were damaged by contractors.
19. Compensation for stress, time and trouble in dealing with issues – In January 2017 it paid the resident the £216 he requested for expenses incurred in attending contractor appointments. Although its Stage 1 response did not adequately address the window issue it did, in its response in June 2019, offer £1250 compensation and did not consider more to be warranted. It noted he had declined this offer at the time but now re-offered it.
20. Compensation for delayed repairs – Referencing his December 2019 claim it noted this predated June 2017. But from that date it found:
21. Leak 1 repair was delayed by six months (from 1 September 2017 to 24 February 2018) for which it would offer £250 compensation (based on pro rata of its £500 per annum rate).
22. Blocked kitchen drain – all blockages when reported were attended to and cleared, with a suggestion made to prevent blockages from the communal stack.
23. Window damage – no evidence of damage during major works but £216 had already been offered for inconvenience of appointments and £1250 for the delayed major works.
24. Compensation for failures in complaint handling – Its Stage 1 failed to address all points and failed to advise of time limitations to its consideration; its Stage 1 and 2 responses were both delayed and there were ‘failures in the information provided.’ It awarded as follows:
  1. £50 – wrongly advising escalation to LGSCO rather than HOS.
  2. £50 – wrongly advising at Stage 1 what would be considered by insurers and what was covered under its compensation policy.
  3. £50 – failure to advise its investigations were time bound.
  4. £50 – for replacement keys.
  5. £565 – time and trouble in pursuing complaint from when it was first submitted in June 2018 to October 2020 (based on pro rata of £250 per annum rate).
  6. £1125 – distress and inconvenience for same period (based on pro rata of £500 per annum rate).
  7. £100 – ‘lost opportunity’ for failing to address all elements of complaint at Stage 1.
  8. £100 – ‘lost opportunity’ for failing to escalate his complaint to Stage 2 as requested.
  9. £100 – failed to provide him with escalation details in its responses on 24 May 2019 and 11 June 2019.
  10. £100 – delayed Stage 2 response.
  11. Total compensation offer = £3790. [This total omitted the £216 for attending appointments.]
On 26 October 2020 the resident reported that the leak in his kitchen was unresolved but when the landlord attended the following day it found no evidence and the tenant reported there had been no leak for months. It inspected neighbouring flats and pipework but also found no evidence of a leak.
The resident has since reported more kitchen drain blockages which have been cleared by the landlord. But there is now a firm dispute between the parties as to the cause. The resident points to the contractors’ assessment of there being a potentially inadequate drop in the property’s drain configuration. The landlord disputes this, explaining the resident’s kitchen drainage is similar to elsewhere on the estate where there are no similar issues, and that its contractors’ assessment of the blockages is that they have emanated from the resident’s kitchen sink as a result of grease and fat being put down the sink, and are therefore his responsibility to resolve.
The landlord has explained that it no longer recommends installation of a ‘non-return valve’ because blockages have been found to emanate from the resident’s property and no further investigation is justified. It has confirmed that responsibility for unblocking his kitchen sink lies with the resident, although he may wish to consider reconfiguring its drainage to prevent blockages. [This position appears appear to supersede the landlord’s agreement in July 2021 to conduct a camera survey of the pipework.]

Assessment and findings

As explained, the Ombudsman has considered the complaint brought to the landlord in June 2018, and its consideration of events back to June 2017.
Leaks: Under the lease the landlord was responsible for the communal elements of the building, including its services and installations. There does not appear to be any dispute that the resident was not responsible for the repair of the leaks in this case as they were either related to the building’s shared pipework or to another property. (Under its leasehold obligations the landlord was responsible for resolving a leak from a tenanted property or if from another leasehold property it would be for that leaseholder to resolve on the landlord’s instruction.)
The resident has explained that the property had suffered leaks for years and that the estate was known for having drainage/plumbing issues. Whether or not that is the case is not for the Ombudsman to consider, but rather whether in responding to the resident’s report of leaks from June 2017 the landlord responded in accordance with its repair obligations.
Under the lease the landlord was responsible for leaks to water pipes up to and including the main stopcock; with leaks beyond the stopcock would be the resident’s responsibility. And leaks to the waste pipe including up to the soil stack were for the resident to resolve, with leaks to the main soil stack being the landlord’s responsibility. Under its repairs policy up to March 2018 the landlord undertook to resolve emergency repairs within 24 hours; urgent repairs within 3 – 7 days; and routine repairs within 20 days, which later changed to 28 days (effective date unclear).
It has not been possible for the Ombudsman to piece together a clear comprehensive account of the leaks from the landlord’s records. Nor has it been possible to satisfactorily reconcile those records with the resident’s account, in part due to the different ways in which the parties have referenced the leaks and also the time which has since elapsed. Nevertheless, the landlord’s repair records indicate a background of having responded to the resident’s reports of leaks from the communal piping in his kitchen from November 2016 – September 2017. (This has been referred to as Leak 1 & 2). There were a number of visits by contractors, investigations of pipework in other flats, and access issues encountered in relation to these and the resident’s own flat. The records also indicate the intermittent nature of the leak, but ultimately the source of Leak 1 was not identified and the repair was cancelled.
The landlord has acknowledged its service failure in closing this repair without resolving it until it was reported again in February 2018. It has also, in responding to the resident’s complaint, offered compensation of £250 for the six month delay (paragraph 47). As the landlord’s compensation scheme allowed for a maximum of £500 for a 12 month delay in carrying out a minor repair, the £250 offered for six months was in accordance with its guidelines. The Ombudsman considers that to have been reasonable compensation for the delayed repair.
The third leak – Leak 3 – appears to have been from a neighbour’s radiator and was reported first in March 2018 when action was taken to isolate it pending a fix by way of a replacement valve, and then again in January 2019 when it was once more isolated and the landlord says it was later repaired. The evidence does not indicate service failure by the landlord in its response to these leaks, be it of undue delay in responding to either report or that a previous repair failure was the cause of its later recurrence. But nor has the Ombudsman seen a record of the fact that the repair was completed on both occasions and in the absence of such a record the Ombudsman can understand why, following the second occasion, the resident was reluctant to accept the issue had been resolved until an inspection confirmed this; which it did.
Other leaks, for instance a further leak related to Leak 1 (March 2020) and a leak from a neighbour’s bath (July 2020) were attended to by the landlord within its target response times. Although there appears to have been a delay in attending to the resident’s report in June 2020 of a further leak from the communal kitchen piping, when inspected in October 2020 no evidence of a leak was found. In the main what the evidence indicates is a series of subsequent leaks, some related, some not, which were responded to by the landlord in accordance with its repair obligations in attending initially to isolate the leak and returning within the further 20 day (or later 28 day) target timescale for routine repairs to finalise the repair. The evidence indicates the timescale for eventual repair of the leak was often dependent on access to other flats as well as the resident’s which on occasion caused some delay. The Ombudsman has not, however, seen evidence of service failure by the landlord in its response to these further leaks.
Nevertheless, it is understandable why a resident might view a recurring or related leak as indicative of an underlying problem. In the Ombudsman’s view, cases such as this involving intermittent but repeated reports of leaks – particularly when there is a dispute as to the source and cause of the leaks – highlight the importance for a landlord to maintain sufficiently detailed records of reports received and work undertaken. Not only will this help prevent inappropriate cancellation or premature closure of a repair, but it will enable a landlord to assure itself and a resident at the earliest opportunity that a repair has been completed in accordance with its repairing obligations and why it is not indicative of an underlying fault or wider systemic issue. The fact that the contractors in March 2020 told the resident that they only had records on the property going back two years highlight a potential risk of record keeping gaps when work is transferred between contractors and will not have helped give the resident confidence that sufficient oversight was being maintained of the leaks in his property.
As the Ombudsman makes clear in its Complaints Handling Code, landlords should proactively learn from complaints to revise policies and procedures, train staff and improve record-keeping. It therefore welcomes the steps now taken by the landlord to improve its repairs process and record keeping which at least should prevent any future premature closure of a repair.
Finally, the resident has told the Ombudsman that the issue of leaks on the estate was widely known and considers the issues he has experienced to be reflective of a wider problem. The Ombudsman, however, is not considering a group complaint from a number of residents, nor has it received complaints to indicate a potential systemic failure with regard to wider plumbing issues on the estate. It would therefore be neither appropriate nor possible for the Ombudsman to form a view or speculate on this wider point.
Blocked kitchen drain: Under the lease, the clearing of blockages to the main soil stack is the landlord’s responsibility. If the blockage is from a property’s sink it would be for the resident to resolve. It is not disputed that the resident has and continues to suffer a protracted problem with regard to the repeated blocking of his kitchen drain. This is not the result of a permanent blockage but again of an intermittent problem but one which is understandably frustrating for the resident. The evidence indicates, however, that whenever a blockage was reported the landlord attended on each occasion and took steps to remove the obstruction. The evidence also indicates that the landlord appropriately sought to take an overview of the repeated blockages and investigate a potential cause. This resulted in it taking a number of measures to try and resolve the issue, ie renewing sections of pipework, jetting the pipework, conducting a CCTV survey, and investigating a potentially faulty valve when the dishwasher/washing machine was in use.
The fact that by the time of the resident’s complaint none of those measures had provided a longer-term solution was not, in the Ombudsman’s view, indicative of a service failure by the landlord. As is clear, diagnosing intermittent problems of this nature can sometimes involve a lengthy process of elimination, and consideration of potential causes and proposals for resolution. With respect to this the Ombudsman considers the landlord was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its contractors with regard to next steps.
The evidence indicates the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s formal complaint about the issue by commissioning a drainage survey of the property which identified no underlying cause, and the landlord’s review of the number of reports received over the years found these not to have been excessive. The Ombudsman can appreciate the resident’s frustration at the situation, particularly as he disputed the finding of no underlying fault with the design of the system and the landlord’s view that reported issues were not excessive. On this point the resident has told the Ombudsman that conversations he had had with landlord staff had contradicted that view and that they had said the drainage system on the estate was poor.
The Ombudsman, however, can only base its finding on the documentary evidence. This indicates that both before and during its consideration of the complaint the landlord was taking reasonable and proportionate action in accordance with its obligation to keep the drainage in good repair by both addressing each blockage when it arose and investigating whether any potentially wider underlying defect was the cause. The Ombudsman considers that to have been an appropriate and reasonable response from the landlord. It was appropriate it ascertain if it was a problem with the pipework for which it was responsible which was causing the issue. And it was reasonable that, while it was investigating this, it resolved the blockages as they occurred, even if those blockages turned out to have arisen from the resident’s sink and were therefore his responsibility. The fact that the landlord’s investigations did not identify an underlying cause for which it was responsible and consequently result in more fundamental work to the property’s drainage system was not a service failure by the landlord and therefore not an issue on which compensation would be justified.
Since the resident’s complaint, however, matters have progressed, more blockages have been reported and there is now a firm dispute between the parties as to the cause – whether it be down to communal pipework; what the resident is putting down his sink; or the configuration of the drain. It is not for the Ombudsman to resolve such a dispute as that would be for those professionally qualified to make such a determination and the resident will need to seek his own advice if that is a matter he wishes to pursue further.
Damage to windows: During the course of his communication with the landlord it became apparent that the damage reported by the resident was primarily in relation to the knock-on effect the removal of restrictors had had on the operation of the tilt and turn mechanism of the windows, although he also reported faulty stop mechanisms on sash windows which he said were not faulty prior to the works. The evidence indicates it took nearly two years for repairs to be resolved by the landlord, during which time there was initial confusion on its part as to whether restrictors had been removed and then the nature of the fault being reported.
As the resident himself had focused initially on seeking replacement of the restrictors it was not unreasonable that the landlord similarly focused at the outset on replacement, exploring feasible alternatives while explaining why like-for-like replacement was not possible. It is unclear whether the alternative form of restrictor offered by the landlord – and declined by the resident – would also have resolved the problem with the tilt and turn mechanism but it was reasonable that the landlord offer the alternative restrictor in order to try and resolve what it reasonably saw to be the issue at that time.
By the time of the resident’s complaint in June 2018, however, it was clear that it was the tilt and turn mechanism that needed fixing but it was not until May 2019 that the repairs were completed. During this time it appears there remained some confusion on the part of the landlord as to outstanding repairs which resulted in the sash window repair taking three months to complete (from January 2019 – April 2019) and in February 2019 the landlord considering it had repaired the windows’ tilt and turn mechanism when it had not.
The landlord has recognised this delay and service failure in its offer of £500 compensation, which is in accordance with its compensation scheme for minor repairs outstanding for more than a year. It also offered the resident reimbursement of expenses for attending appointments, and £750 for distress and inconvenience. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was reasonable redress for the time, trouble and ongoing frustration experienced by the resident in seeking to focus the landlord in on the relevant repair issues with regard to the windows so that they could be resolved.
Window repairs aside, the Ombudsman notes a central concern for the resident was his view that there had been a contractual breach by the contractors in carrying out the major works to the windows and that the landlord ought to require them to replace the restrictors as anticipated in the original contract. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine if there had been a contractual breach but the Ombudsman finds that in responding to this element of the resident’s complaint the landlord provided a comprehensive explanation of the position. It explained the tendering process, why bids were not based on a full window survey, that replacement of restrictors was ultimately removed from the contract and, as a result, he would not be billed for this element of the works. That was an appropriate response from the landlord.
While the resident has told the Ombudsman he did not receive the final adjustment to his bill to this effect, the Ombudsman notes that the undertaking for an adjustment was made in error and that there were no grounds for such. That an adjustment was not warranted is borne out by the evidence, and so it is unfortunate that the landlord, in its Stage 2 response, raised the expectation of an adjustment being made and has only now noted it was wrong to say otherwise. It is right that the landlord apologise for this error and the clear confusion it caused, as it will have undoubtedly undermined the resident’s confidence in its review of his complaint.
With respect to the final bill for the windows, however, the landlord maintained the resident was liable for payment of the works which were undertaken on the grounds that the resident benefitted from the works carried out in terms of labour and costs. Other than the repair issues, now resolved, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to indicate the landlord’s position in that regard to be an unreasonable one.
In addition the resident was unhappy that the landlord had declined to agree to his request that he not be expected to pay for any future works to the windows. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine any future liability for payment with respect to the windows but in so far as his current request was concerned, on the basis of the evidence, the Ombudsman does not consider the landlord’s decision to have been unreasonable. With the repairs now made good, any future improvement to the windows would be distinct from this current complaint and would ostensibly be of direct benefit to the resident’s property.
Complaint handling: In explaining his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint handling and offer of compensation, the resident considers the landlord has not gone back far enough in time. He considers restricting the period under consideration was not in accordance with its policy and he was not notified of the time limitation prior to making his complaint.
While it is unclear the extent to which this was raised directly by the resident during the course of his complaint, it is clear that in his communication more generally with the landlord that he was not happy about the time limitation, particularly as it limited the period for which compensation was calculated.
For a complaints policy to specify the timescales in which it expects a complaint to be brought is standard complaints practice and exists in order to ensure complaints are brought within a reasonable timeframe to enable timely resolution and avoid the practical difficulty of investigating more historic matters. In the Ombudsman’s experience, a time limitation of anything from six to 12 months of the matters arising is not unreasonable.
The landlord has explained in its complaint response and communication with the resident that this meant it would not consider matters that occurred more than 12 months before he brought his complaint. The Ombudsman notes the landlord’s complaints policy in operation up to 31 March 2019 and then from April 2019 both stated that: ‘complaints that are more than 12 months old i.e. where the matter that gave rise to the complaint was known about by the customer but which was not reported to the [landlord] within 12 months may not be accepted, unless there is a good reason for the delay.’ [Its 2021 complaints policy says similar.] As the Ombudsman sees it, the policy explains the landlord expects matters about which a resident wishes to complain to be brought to its attention – as a complaint – within 12 months of the matters arising.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s frustration at the time limitation as he claims he always reported matters directly to the landlord as soon as he became aware of them, but also that he should not be penalised for having sought to resolve matters initially without recourse to the formal complaints process. With respect to the first point, there is no doubt from the evidence that the resident did report issues to the landlord without delay and continued to raise them when he considered they had not been resolved. But the reporting/raising of an issue or service request is distinct from making a formal complaint about an issue and there is no evidence or suggestion that the resident formally complained to the landlord until June 2018.
With respect to the second point, the process of reporting an issue and maintaining an ongoing dialogue in order to resolve it are separate from a complaint to be responded to under a formal complaints process. In the Ombudsman’s view, the resident has not been treated unfairly or penalised as a result of this distinction. It was always open to him to raise a formal complaint sooner than he did and he was given the opportunity to do so. The Ombudsman notes his earlier potential complaint in 2017 was informally resolved by the landlord rather than dealt with as a formal complaint at the resident’s request, and on a later occasion when asked by the landlord if he wished to make a complaint he chose not to do so at that time. The Ombudsman does not see that the resident was prevented from making his complaint sooner than he did, which could constitute ‘good reason for delay’, it was that he chose not to do so.
The resident has said he was never told of the time limitation or the consequences of not making a complaint at the time. The Ombudsman notes there is no evidence of the landlord having been approached for advice on the matter, but also notes the landlord’s complaints policy/procedure was available online. In light of the fact that the landlord made the information available, the Ombudsman does not consider it a service failure for the landlord not to have proactively offered advice when it had not been sought.
Accordingly, the Ombudsman finds that in its explanation that it could only consider matters back to June 2017, the landlord was acting in accordance with its complaints policy and that no service failure on its part delayed the resident’s formal complaint.
This brings the Ombudsman to its review of the landlord’s complaint handling, as this formed a significant aspect of the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman:
Confused handling between complaints and insurance team: When the resident made his formal complaint in June 2018 it ought to have been clear to the landlord, despite the resident saying he wished to settle matters through compensation rather than a liability claim, that some aspects for which he sought financial redress fell appropriately to be determined by its insurers. While the landlord’s insurers could determine financial loss directly attributable to a failure on its part, it was clear from the landlord’s complaints policy and compensation guide that compensation for delayed repairs, and for stress and inconvenience were matters that fell to be determined by the complaints team as part of the complaints process.
It appears the landlord failed to make this clear to the resident at the outset and it was only by the time he was seeking to escalate his complaint in January 2019 that it advised him to submit a liability claim. Even then, the landlord’s staff remained confused not only about which elements of the compensation claim fell to be determined by its insurance team or by its complaints team but also whether the claim was still for the ALMO to consider, despite the transfer of functions back to the landlord at the end of March 2019.
The landlord failed to clarify in its Stage 1 reply the distinction between the compensation and liability claim. Then in response to the resident understandably seeking clarification the landlord further confused the already confused picture by telling the resident in October/November 2019 that its insurance team would consider compensating for time, trouble and distress, with its complaints team only considering compensation for delays after his liability claim. It seems it shortly thereafter realised it had got the distinction wrong and told the resident it would get back to him. But it was still not until April 2020 that it concluded its consideration of his liability claim, and not until October 2020, over two years after his formal complaint, that it finalised its determination of compensation for delayed repairs, distress and inconvenience. Those were significant delays which required recognition in any eventual compensation award (see ‘Compensation’ below).
As the Ombudsman makes clear in its Complaint Handling Code, a landlord should not only provide redress for its mishandling, but should seek to learn from a complaint. It therefore asked the landlord what it had done to avoid similar confusion and delay in future. The landlord has explained that since the complaint it has run several workshops on redress and compensation, setting out what is covered by insurance and what should be considered under its complaints and compensation policy. The Ombudsman considers that to have been an appropriate response by the landlord to address the confusion highlighted by this complaint.
Stage 1 response: The landlord’s response at Stage 1 of its complaints process ought to have taken seven working days but took instead nine months, and only then appeared prompted by the resident’s request for escalation. That was a considerable delay and caused the resident obvious and understandable annoyance and inconvenience. The response itself failed to explain the time period to which its consideration was limited and failed to address all the elements of the resident’s complaint raised in the complaint and subsequently. For instance, it overlooked the fact that the resident had since told it that a leak (Leak 3) had recurred and it failed to address the issue of the kitchen drain blockages. It also failed to address his complaint about its approach to its major works programme, or his request for compensation. It would seem that the response had been put together without having received the appendices to which the resident had referred in his complaint and which provided full details. If the landlord had not received the appendices, its failure to request them meant its complaint response was never going to be able to fully address the complaint at the earliest opportunity, which ought to have been its aim at Stage 1 of its process.
The landlord’s failure to fully address the complaint at Stage 1, and its recall of the response understandably left the resident confused and further inconvenienced as he had then to seek to escalate the complaint for a review in order to obtain a more appropriate, considered response. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord recognise its failure to provide a timely and adequate Stage 1 response in its compensation award (see below).
Stage 2 response: Despite appropriately advising the resident to escalate his complaint for review should he be dissatisfied with its Stage 1 response, it then failed to do so and chose instead to issue a number of follow up responses in May, June and July 2019. While these appear to have been genuine attempts to resolve the complaint and resulted in an offer of compensation (albeit not one which was adequately explained), there remained outstanding issues, particularly in relation to compensation and the general confusion around what could be paid and by which team.
Not escalating the complaint to Stage 2 appears to have resulted in the landlord itself becoming confused as to which stage of the complaints process had been reached, with its complaints team advising the resident he could escalate his complaint to the Ombudsman – albeit the wrong one (the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO)). This, and the fact that when it was queried by the resident the complaints team incorrectly told him the LGSCO and Housing Ombudsman were the same organisation, would have further undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s ability to effectively respond to his complaint, as he himself had to point out they were different organisations.
It is not clear why the landlord chose not to follow its own complaints procedure at that stage and not escalate the matter for review. As the Ombudsman sees it, had it done so it would have avoided the delay which inevitably transpired as it sought to address matters back and forth with the resident. Had the landlord responded to the resident’s dissatisfaction with its Stage 1 response as a Stage 2 complaint, its review would have enabled a line to be drawn under matters, have avoided the further confusion which arose around the liability/compensation claim and escalation options and, importantly, have ensured the resident received its determination regarding compensation for the delayed resolution of Leak 1 and for distress and inconvenience claim sooner than he ultimately did (in October 2020).
In taking over 18 months to issue its Stage 2 response (March 2019 – October 2020) – a response which was prompted by an approach from this Service – the landlord was significantly outside its 10 working day timescale. During this time the resident had been put to considerable time and trouble in pursuing his complaint. It was therefore right that the landlord consider compensation for distress, time and trouble in its Stage 2 response (see ‘Compensation’ below).
Aside from the delay in providing its complaint responses, the resident considers that with respect to the repairs issues he had encountered, the landlord never responded fully to his complaint about its repairs process and approach to major works programmes. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s view that the landlord’s past approach to major works had not focused on residents’ priorities, such as leaks and drainage issues. Whether or not that had been the case in the past is not being considered here. What is being considered is the landlord’s response to the resident having now raised it during the complaints process.
The evidence indicates that following its initial failure to properly address the issue at Stage 1, the landlord subsequently acknowledged the areas for improvement around the logging and tracking of repairs, and its communication on works programmes. It also responded to the resident’s request to be involved in future consultation and in sharing his views on areas for improvement, in particular from his perspective as a non-resident leaseholder. The Ombudsman sees that in its communication and discussions with the resident the landlord provided the necessary information to enable the resident to get involved and was appropriately open to the resident’s views on potential areas for improvement.
As the landlord had accepted its complaint handling was an area for improvement, the Ombudsman asked the landlord about steps it was taking to address this. In addition to staff training to better enable its staff to distinguish between and deal appropriately with liability claims and compensation requests, the landlord has explained that its training and workshops have included the need to ensure all points are addressed from the initial complaint; that complaints are timebound; and covered the calculation of compensation. The Ombudsman welcomes the fact that the landlord has taken the learning from this complaint to better inform its responses in future and hopefully avoid the difficulties encountered by the resident.
Compensation: The Ombudsman is not considering the substance of the resident’s liability claim for damages as a result of leaks. That has been determined by insurers, for which he has received damages for loss of rent; dishwasher repair; expenses for attendance at property; utility bills; and cost of redecoration after Leak 1. The Ombudsman has considered, however, the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s offer of compensation for service failure in the course of its consideration of his complaint.
The Ombudsman has already found that the compensation offered by the landlord for its delayed repair of Leak 1 and delayed repair of the windows, including for distress and inconvenience, provided fair and reasonable recognition of its service failure in those areas. This leaves the service failures relating to its complaint handing, namely of failing to correctly advise the resident on his compensation claim; failure to advise him of the time limited consideration of his complaint; wrongly advising him about escalation to this Service; failure to escalate complaint to Stage 2; and for the overall distress, time and trouble he experienced during the approximate 2.5 years (June 2018 – October 2020) it took the landlord to conclude its consideration of the complaint and decision on compensation/liability.
The Ombudsman notes the landlord’s comprehensive and detailed breakdown of its compensation calculation in its Stage 2 response. In the Ombudsman’s view it is helpful for a resident to see such a breakdown as it can serve to reassure them that the individual aspects of service failure have been recognised in the award and can also help them check for themselves that the amount awarded for individual components accords with the landlord’s own compensation guide. The Ombudsman sees that in this case, the individual aspects of service failure – other than a payment for the delayed processing of his liability claim – were factored into the overall award, including payment for his time and trouble, and the individual amounts for each service failure accorded with the ranges given within the landlord’s own compensation scheme and were calculated pro rata for the appropriate time period.
In determining whether in its opinion a landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable the Ombudsman will consider the individual aspects of service failure and the impact of those on the resident. This will enable a determination of whether overall the compensation provides appropriate recognition of the landlord’s failures. The remaining issue of compensation being considered here is exclusive of that which had already been offered by the landlord for the delayed repair of Leak 1, the window repairs, and the liability claim for damages. The compensation was for the poor complaint handling by the landlord for which the landlord had offered a total of £2,290 for its delays and errors in responding to the resident’s formal complaint since June 2018.
This was a relatively high level award but one which the Ombudsman considers was justified by the particular circumstances of this case, of which the landlord’s own tally of its errors (as detailed in its Stage 2 response) provided an accurate picture. The resident had to wait over two years – a significant period of time – for a final complaint response and decision on compensation, during which time he had been put to considerable inconvenience in seeking to resolve the confusion being generated by the landlord itself and on more than one occasion appeared better informed of the landlord’s own procedures than the landlord itself (ie appropriate escalation routes and division of compensation claim between its complaints and insurance teams). The resident’s increasing frustration and exasperation is apparent throughout his communication and the delayed and confused handling by the landlord will have understandably eroded the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s ability to appropriately consider his complaint and request for compensation which, in turn will have compounded the already stressful situation for him. The Ombudsman considers that overall, the landlord’s offer provided tangible recognition of the failures in its complaints handling, including the substantial delay to its determination of the liability claim and compensation request.
By way of further explanation, although when broken down to its individual component parts the compensation offer can appear relatively modest for individual elements of mishandling, in the Ombudsman’s view when taken together they do represent fair recognition of the overall complaint handling failure. For example, the £50 offered by the landlord for its failure to correctly advise the resident on his insurance and compensation claims might appear to provide inadequate recognition of the clear frustration and inconvenience the resident suffered in having to chase the landlord for clarification of its contradictory and confused advice. But taken together with the other elements of compensation, particularly those for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience provide an appropriate level of compensation that would accord with the Ombudsman’s own guidance on remedies.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident does not consider the offer goes far enough in recognition of the stress and inconvenience suffered by himself and his partner. Clearly, the resident considers the landlord responsible for years of leaks, drain blockages and mismanagement generally of repairs and major works not only in relation to his property but the wider estate. The distress and inconvenience he has described is in relation to this wider complaint. As already explained, however, that is not the complaint being considered here. The Ombudsman has considered a complaint in relation to events for a specified time period and in relation to those matters for which it has found service failure the Ombudsman considers the stress, inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident and his partner, while not erased by the compensation, at least offer a form of tangible recognition.
For completeness, the Ombudsman notes although the total sum offered at Stage 2 was more than the provisional total proposed by the landlord in December 2019, the sum for time/trouble and distress/inconvenience were marginally less. It would appear that the earlier proposal had been based on a 2.5 year delay at that point, which would mean the landlord was proposing compensating for poor complaint handling for a year before the resident had submitted his complaint in June 2018. As the above sum was for poor complaint handling the Ombudsman considers it appropriate that it cover the period from the date of the complaint (June 2018) and not before, and so the basis of the landlord’s final offer was correct.

Determination (decision)

Leaks: With respect to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks at the property, in accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolve the complaint satisfactorily.
Blocked kitchen drain: In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked kitchen drain.
Windows: With respect to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to his windows, in accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolve the complaint satisfactorily.
Complaint and compensation request: With respect to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and request for compensation, in accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

Leaks: Other than Leak 1 for which the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its delayed repair, in the main the landlord responded appropriately in accordance with its leasehold obligations and repairs policy in response to the resident’s reports of the other leaks.
Blocked kitchen drain: The landlord responded to the drain blockages in accordance with its leasehold obligations. It removed the blockages while investigating any underlying cause, and in determining this was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its contractors and officers.
Windows: There was a delay of approximately one year in the landlord’s completion of repairs to the resident’s windows following the major works, for which it has offered reasonable redress. The Ombudsman found the landlord had not billed the resident for work not done, but that it was not unreasonable that it expect him to pay for the work which had been done or was considered necessary in future.
Complaint and compensation request: The landlord acted in accordance with its complaints policy in limiting the period under consideration, but its complaint responses and consideration of compensation was significantly delayed. This was primarily because of confusion on its part as to the correct process for consideration of compensation/liability and escalation of the complaint. The landlord’s offer of compensation has taken appropriate account of the individual aspects of its service failures, learnt from the complaint and provided reasonable and tangible recognition of the impact on the resident.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends, if not already done so, that the landlord renew its offer to the resident of the £3790 compensation previously offered, comprising:
1. £1250 compensation offered in June 2019 for delayed window repairs.
2. £50 offered at Stage 2 for the replacement keys.
3. £250 offered at Stage 2 for the delayed repair of Leak 1.
4. £2240 offered at Stage 2 for the failures in its complaint handling.
It is recommended that the landlord ensure its staff dealing with complaints have been provided with a copy of the Code for reference.
It is recommended that the landlord review its complaints handling in light of this case to ensure all learning points have been captured and disseminated to staff.
It is recommended that the landlord review its record keeping for repairs to assure itself it is maintaining sufficiently clear and detailed records to enable it to identify a recurring or related repair or potential systemic issue.