Westminster City Council (202012880)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012880

Westminster City Council

19 May 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of water leaks in the property.
2. The resident’s request for information from the landlord relating to repairs of leaks at the property.
3. ongoing repairs required to the pipework at the property following the leaks.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The resident’s request for information from the landlord relating to repairs of leaks at the property.

Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
When raising a complaint on 24 June 2020 and requesting an escalation of the complaint on 9 July 2020, the resident requested to receive the repair reports relating to leaks at the property. The resident also highlighted her dissatisfaction with the quality and level of information provided by the landlord during the complaint process.
The Housing Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about landlords’ responses to requests for information under the Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts. Matters relating to requests for information under the Data Protection and Freedom of Information acts fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and it is recommended the resident contact the ICO if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint further.

How the landlord handled ongoing repairs required to the pipework

Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.
On 28 January 2021 the resident’s Member of Parliament (MP) wrote to the landlord on her behalf and informed it that she had contacted his office regarding a reoccurring leak in the property. The landlord replied to the MP on 4 February 2021 and stated that it now opened a new formal complaint into the matters he had raised. Following this correspondence, further repair work was raised by the landlord concerned with the pipework.
The resident wrote to this Service on 11 March 2021 and again on 17 March 2021 to describe her dissatisfaction with how the landlord was handling repairs to the pipework and whether it had followed health and safety rules while undertaking the work.
It is not within the remit of this Service to consider this aspect of the complaint at this stage. The landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect before the Ombudsman can become involved. The resident may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

Scope of Investigation

In her 24 June 2020 complaint, the resident explained that she had been experiencing leaks in the property since 2017. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not consider complaints that were 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 view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to April 2019. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focussed on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in June 2020.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a two-bedroom maisonette in a communal building.
Page 18 of the landlord’s tenant handbook states that it is responsible for the upkeep of “the structure and outside of the buildings” and for “the services that supply water, gas, electricity, sanitation, heating and hot water”.
Page 17 of the handbook states that the tenant is “responsible for decorating inside your home and keeping it in a good decorative state”.
Page 20 of the handbook describes how the landlord prioritises repairs and its target response times. These are:
1. Emergency (respond within two to four hours). Issues which pose an immediate health and safety risk.
2. Urgent (respond within 24 hours). Plumbing works and blockages.
3. Non-urgent (by appointment). Substantial repairs such as joinery, plastering or damp proof courses. This category also includes major repairs such as structural work and roofing works.
The landlord operates a three-stage complaints process. On receipt of a complaint the landlord will attempt to resolve the complaint locally within two working days. If that is not possible, a formal complaint with be opened and a stage one complaint response will be sent to the complainant within seven working days.
If the complainant remains dissatisfied, they can request a review of the complaint within six months of receiving the stage one response. The complainant will then receive a stage two response within ten working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
Section 3.3 of the landlord’s complaint handling procedure document states that when it is not possible for it to meet these timescales, it will send a holding response to the complainant informing them of the delay and provide a new target date for when the full response will be sent.

Summary of events

On 24 June 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and requested to raise a formal complaint. She described the elements of her complaint as:
1. She had an ongoing leak in the property since 2017 which had caused damage to the front room, upstairs hallway, downstairs hallway and the flooring of the property.
2. She had been informed that the source of the leak was from the shower. This caused a back surge into the water tank which meant that her family had been bathing in dirty water.
3. Despite the shower unit being replaced twice, the leak had now reoccurred and had caused further damage to the ceiling of the front room.
As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord repair the leak, redecorate the ceiling and provide her with all the repair reports regarding leaks to allow her to consider taking legal action.
The landlord called the resident on 29 June 2020 to confirm that a complaint had been opened and to arrange a repair appointment.
The stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 8 July 2020. The landlord informed her that:
1. A disabled walk-in shower installed on the first floor of the property in 2017 was found to be intermittently leaking and the landlord also identified a blockage that was causing water to surge back into the water tank.
2. Prior to the resident’s complaint, the most recent repair report was recorded as being made on 5 May 2020 relating to a blocked hand wash basin. This was marked as completed on 13 May 2020.
3. The new shower that was fitted in August 2019 was still under warranty and the landlord had arranged an appointment for 8 July 2020 for the supplier of the shower to assess the leak.
4. Upon completion of the visit by the supplier, the landlord would arrange a further appointment to identify any damage that it was responsible to repair and make good. It would also provide copies of the repair reports as requested.
5. The landlord is only responsible for making good the damaged areas while the resident is responsible for decorations. It does not award compensation for damage to personal possessions and advises residents to have home contents insurance in place. However; if the resident felt that the landlord had been negligent in its actions, she had the option of making a claim against the landlord’s own insurance provider.
6. It apologised to the resident and her family for the inconvenience caused by the leak from the new shower in a short space of time since it was installed.
On 9 July 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and disputed its complaint response. She described the outstanding issues as:
1. The level of detail in the landlord’s report about prior leaks was not sufficient.
2. The landlord had not taken responsibility, or apologised, for the back surging which exposed her family to “contaminated water”.
3. The landlord sent the stage one response before the leak had been repaired.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 July 2020, confirmed that it had escalated the complaint to stage two of its process and that it aimed to provide a response by 24 July 2020. On 27 July 2020 it sent a holding response and informed the resident that it required further time to complete its investigations and now aimed to provide the full response by 7 August 2020. A second holding response was sent to the resident on 7 August 2020, where the landlord extended the stage two response deadline to 17 August 2020.
The full stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 14 August 2020. The landlord first apologised for the length of time it had taken to complete its investigations and then informed the resident that:
1. The intermittent leak was caused by the walk-in shower installed in 2017.
2. The walk-in shower was replaced with a standard shower cubicle in May 2019. The landlord booked follow-on work for 13 May 2019 to inspect the stack pipe to rule out other causes of the leak. However, this appointment did not go ahead as the operative was unable to gain access to the property. The job was then cancelled as landlord the received no response to the calling card that was left.
3. It could find no record of the job being rescheduled after the failed appointment. It apologised to the resident for this and accepted that it should have continued to monitor the situation.
4. An appointment was arranged for 7 August 2020 for an inspection of the bathroom stack pipe and the landlord were currently awaiting the outcome of the visit.
5. On receipt of the resident’s complaint, an appointment was arranged for 8 July 2020. It was determined that while the shower unit was in good condition, there was a broken seal around the shower mixer which was the cause of the leak.
6. The mixer was resealed and tested. This confirmed that the leak had been resolved. The landlord also confirmed that the latest leak was unrelated to the initial leak reported by the resident.
7. Follow-on work to make good the damaged areas had been raised by the landlord. However, due to the restrictions it was currently working under caused by the Covid-19 pandemic there would likely be a delay before it could arrange an appointment date.
The landlord concluded the response by informing the resident that it had partially upheld her complaint in recognition of the inconvenience and distress the matter has caused her and her family. It confirmed that while the latest leak presented as the same issue, it found no evidence that this was the case as the prior leak was due to the walk-in shower unit which was replaced in 2019 and the latest leak was due to a broken seal on the mixer of new shower unit.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s repair logs record that:
1. A work order was raised on 17 April 2019 to “trace & remedy leak via OT shower”. This was marked as completed on 29 May 2019 when the previous occupational therapy (OT) shower was replaced by a standard shower unit.
2. A further work order was raised on 9 May 2019 to “check two bathroom stacks”. This was marked as closed on 16 May 2019 with a note stating “no reply to calling card”.
3. The 8 July 2020 appointment for the suppler to inspect the shower unit does not appear in the repair logs. However, follow-on work after this appointment to “apply mist 2 coats emulsion, walls and ceilings” was raised on 13 July 2020. This is recorded as being completed on 2 August 2020
4. A work order was raised on 4 August 2020 to “check two bathroom stacks”. This was marked as completed on 7 August 2020. A note on the log states “checked all services and all draining fine. No blockage present”. The notes also state that the landlord called the resident on 10 August 2020 to confirm that the inspection was successfully completed.
In her complaint, the resident maintained that the leak had been an ongoing issue in the property since 2017. The landlord has said that the initial leak from 2017 was resolved by replacing the shower unit in May 2019 and that the subsequent leak reported in June 2020 was caused by a broken seal on the shower’s mixer. The landlord stated in its final response to the resident that it could find no evidence to suggest that the two leaks were connected.
After replacing the shower unit in May 2019, the landlord’s records do not show any reports of a leak until the resident raised a complaint on 24 June 2020 and informed the landlord of the new leak. After the seal on the shower mixer tap was repaired, no further reports of leaks are recorded. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to determine that the leaks were not connected and to follow the conclusions of its appropriately qualified contractors in this regard.
When the resident raised her complaint, the landlord called her the next day to arrange a repair appointment. This is in line with the guidance given in the tenant handbook for repairs classified as “Urgent”. Following the repair of the broken seal, follow-on work was raised by the landlord to repair the damage caused by the leak. This is again in line with its obligations relating to repair responsibilities as described in the tenant handbook.
The landlord did accept that it should have followed up after the May 2019 appointment to check the bathroom stack pipe did not go ahead. It apologised to the complaint and raised a work order to inspect the stack pipe following the repair of the shower mixer seal. this was an appropriate and proportionate response by the landlord to take steps to resolve this aspect of the complaint. It should be noted that when the work order was re-raised in August 2020, no issues with the pipe stack were observed.
While the frustration of the resident is wholly understandable, in some circumstances it can be difficult to locate the source of a leak. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the causes of the two leaks were not related, based on the available evidence.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect its response to the resident’s reports of leaks in the property.

Reasons

The landlord followed its policies and procedures during the complaint period. It adhered to its obligations relating to complaint and repair response times. It explained what work it had undertaken to resolve the issue and why it did not believe that the two leaks were connected. There is no evidence of service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.