Westminster City Council (202121910)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121910

Westminster City Council

13 September 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. A leak in the property.
2. Fire stopping works.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord who is a local authority. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the 11th floor.
The resident’s wife has multiple sclerosis and has had two previous cancer diagnoses.
The term ‘resident’ used in this report refers to both the resident and his wife.

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The tenant’s handbook states that:
1. Emergency repairs are those which pose an immediate health and safety risk.
2. It aims to respond to urgent plumbing works within 2-4hours.
3. It aims to respond to and start work on all other urgent repairs within 24 hours.
4. Tenants have a responsibility to provide access at reasonable times for repairs to be carried out, for the repair to be inspected if required before and/or after completion and for gas safety checks to be completed. The landlord can take legal action if you do not provide access when reasonably requested but it hopes this will not be necessary.
The landlord’s ‘best practice guide for effective complaints handling’ states that:
1. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 calendar days and issue a response within 10 working days.
2. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 10 working days.
3. A holding response will be sent to the resident to provide a new date if the landlord cannot meet that timescale.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s ‘compensation and payment schemes’ guidance states that the landlord will consider one off compensation claims and out of pocket expenses, as follows:
1. It can offer £50-£250 per year for time and trouble. It states that, as a general rule, it should not be offered at stage 1 as time and trouble will be minimal.
2. For delays in carrying out repairs it can offer £500 for minor repairs outstanding or incomplete for more than a year. It can pay up to £1000 per year for repairs causing a significant impact on daily life and £2000 per year for those in properties that are unfit or cause injury to health.
3. It can offer £500 – £2000 per year for distress and/or inconvenience dependent on the severity, number of people affected and risk to health and safety.
The Housing Act 2004 and Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (FSO) says that in blocks of flats, each flat should be designed to be a fire-resisting ‘box’. It is important to maintain the integrity of this compartment, particularly when building work and alterations take place. The FSO imposes duties on persons who may include freeholders, landlords, managing agents and contractors who maintain fire safety measures and those who carry out fire risk assessments.

Summary of events

The resident emailed the landlord on 23 May 2021 in relation to a leak in his property which occurred on 6 May 2021. He said:
1. The leak had had come into his kitchen storage cupboard “at a rapid rate” and was still dripping through intermittently.
2. He reported it to the landlord on 6 May. The landlord carried out an inspection of the property directly above the following day. It was not able to find any leaks or cracks coming from the bathroom or kitchen.
3. He was of the understanding that the leak had been referred to a contractor to investigate further but he had not received a further update.
4. Each time he called the landlord he was told it was “being looked into.”
5. He was storing items from the cupboard in his front room, which were taking up space, and he did not want to move them back until the leak had been fixed.
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 May 2021 to advise that it had raised a works order for its contractor. It said it had asked the contractor why there had been a delay in its response.
A number of emails relating to the leak were exchanged between the landlord and resident on 14 June 2021. The resident had spoken to the landlord’s contractor who advised it was waiting for the landlord to assist with access to a number of properties in the block. The resident contacted the housing team who advised that it was unaware that access was an issue.
On the same day, the resident also advised that when a contractor attended his property at the end of May it informed him that there was a hole between his ceiling and the upstairs flat. He said he had been advised that this was a fire risk and that a separate works order had been raised to fix it “as soon as possible.”
On 17 June 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that the contractor was due to inspect his neighbour’s property the following day. In response, the resident flagged the hole in the storage cupboard, and asked if this could be resolved. An internal email sent by the landlord on 21 June sought to clarify which contractor was responsible for filling in the hole.
The landlord’s contractor provided it with an update on 23 June 2021. It said:
1. There was no evidence of a leak on the 2 occasions it visited the upstairs neighbour.
2. The resident had said the leak intermittent so it did not believe it would be connected with the heating/hot water network.
3. The resident had refused access.
4. It did not know why there was a hole in the storage cupboard. However, it had not cut it in.
The resident emailed the landlord on the same day to confirm that the contractor had not been able to find a leak. He asked the landlord to raise an order to check the bath waste now that a possible leak from the pipework had been ruled out. As he had not received a response, the resident chased the matter on 15 July 2021.
Meanwhile the landlord made enquiries to establish the status of the plumbing repair. Enquiries were also made the contractor. It was established that an appointment had been booked with the neighbour to investigate the leak; and that the resident should be updated accordingly.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 10 August 2021. He said:
1. He first reported a leak into the kitchen storage cupboard in June 2021 and it had still not been resolved.
2. He was concerned as:
  1. He had been told that there might be asbestos in the same cupboard, on the main waste/water pipes.
  2. There was a hole between his ceiling and his neighbour above which he had been told was a fire hazard.
3. He felt he was being passed from contractor to contractor without any progress.
4. He said his wife had multiple sclerosis and two previous diagnoses of cancer. Due to her health risks he wanted the issues dealt with as a top priority.
5. He requested compensation in the form of a 2 month “rent break” due to the issues raised.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 24 August 2021, and said:
1. It had upheld the complaint.
2. The first report of a leak was received on 25 May and a repair was raised for 26 May. When the contractor attended, it was unable to gain access.
3. When the contractor returned and investigated the leak, it found a large hole in the riser void between the resident’s flat and the flat above. The contractor stated the hole needed to be fire sealed, but further investigation needed to be carried out on the riser for the leak first.
4. The contractor reported that the leak was intermittent so the issue could not be related to heating. It advised it could be due to a possible waste-water leak from the flat above.
5. The contractor managed to gain access to flats further up but could not see a visible leak. It then tried to attend the flat directly above but the neighbour was not available and asked for the appointment to be moved to the following day. On that day, the neighbour cancelled the appointment again.
6. A new appointment had been scheduled for 2 June, but this was also cancelled by the neighbour in the property above.
7. On 15 June a works order was raised to investigate the hole in the riser void. The contractor attended on 17 June, but access was refused. The job was then passed back to the landlord for a plumber to attend. Prior to a new job being raised for a plumber, the original contractor managed to gain access into the flat above but no leak was found.
8. On 25 June a works order was raised for a plumber to investigate the leak. A contractor attended on 28 July and checked the cupboard where the leak was, but the engineer could not see any water coming down. It stated it was an intermittent leak, possibly originating from the kitchen or bathroom. The resident had confirmed that the leak occurred when his neighbour used the bath.
9. The pipes needed to be checked but there was asbestos covering the pipes and a test was required first. On the 30 July a works order was raised to carry out an asbestos test. The order also included a request to attend the flat upstairs and investigate the leak further. The leak detection team visited the property on 2 and 4 August but could not gain access on either of those days.
10. The leak detection team managed to gain access on 13 August but found asbestos on the pipes which needed to be removed first. A works order was raised on 18 August 2021 to test the pipes for asbestos in the flat above.
11. The landlord advised that the survey could take up to 7 days to complete and a further 7 days until it received the results. It said that if the results confirmed there was no asbestos present, an appointment would be scheduled to carry out the works to the pipes. If asbestos was found, this would have to be removed first and, following removal, the works could be carried out.
12. The landlord apologised for the lack of progress experienced in relation to the issues raised.
13. The landlord confirmed that the repairs raised were attended to within the expected timeframe but unfortunately, it experienced several access issues into the flat above which caused more delays.
14. It identified that it should have attended to investigate the leak by 23 July 2021, but attended 5 days late on 28 July. The landlord apologised for this.
15. The asbestos survey raised on 30 July 2021 was carried out on 2 August 2021 to the riser and no asbestos was found.
16. The landlord said that once the leak was resolved it would arrange for a surveyor to attend and carry out an internal inspection to assess the damages caused to the resident’s property from the leak. It would then raise all necessary jobs to make good any internal damages as well as repair the hole to the riser as access would not be required once the leak has been resolved.
17. In recognition of the failing, the landlord offered £25. This was calculated using the Housing Ombudsman guidelines and in line with its guidance for £25 to be paid for delays and inconvenience caused.
18. It signposted the resident to stage 2 of the complaints procedure should he remain dissatisfied.
On 25 August 2021 the landlord said it was awaiting asbestos reports/removal on pipe lagging in both flats. It also noted that access issues with the upstairs flat had delayed inspections. It had ‘added’ a further contractor to the works order.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 August 2021 to request that his complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the complaints process. He said:
1. He was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response and did not wish to accept the £25 compensation.
2. The leak was first reported on 6 May 2021 by telephone, not the 25 May as the landlord said in the response.
3. Several contractors had attended his property to investigate the leak but none had provided a resolution “nor had any repairs been made.”
4. He had previously been informed there was asbestos in the property but the landlord was now saying there was none present.
5. The landlord had asked him to ask his neighbour to run a bath as this was where the leak was coming from. The resident explained he was not comfortable doing this “due to previous incidents”, and wished for the landlord to make the arrangements.
6. His wife had multiple sclerosis which presented a “greater health risk.” He said she had cancer twice previously and therefore the thought of asbestos in the property was worrying for them.
7. He asked the landlord to tell him when the following repairs were to be carried out to the:
  1. Leak from the waste pipe area above
  2. “Fire risk gap.”
  3. Asbestos surrounding the waste pipe on the gauze.
8. He considered the repairs to be “life/health risks” and asked they be carried out urgently.
The landlord discussed the case through a number of internal emails in September 2021. It said it had carried out a repair to the property above and that there should be no more leaks. It once again considered whether it should inspect flats higher up. Another contractor attended the flat above on 14 September 2021 and found it clear and dry. Several dye tests had been carried out which proved negative. The landlord concluded that if the contractor had found no evidence of leaks then it did not need to attend again and the case could be closed.
On 29 September 2021 the landlord received a report of a further leak from the resident. The resident expressed concern that there could be an issue with the bath overflow. The landlord requested that an emergency job be raised to attend the property above and check the bath overflow. The records show this was confirmed as actioned. The resident was to be contacted with details of an update or appointment. The works order was assigned specifically to a plumber to attend to trace the source of the leak and report any damage and/or causes. It said that if the inspection was negative, it would investigate the flats above.
The landlord’s internal emails dated 12 October 2021 say that it attended the property above on 8 October. The wash hand basin, toilet and syphon, bathtub and fittings, tiles as well as kitchen sink and fittings were all checked and found to be “dusty dry’.” It noted its intention to visit both properties as a 2 man visit. It considered that the leak might be caused by an issue with the waste pipe within the walls. It sought to establish whether the contractor was “picking up” the job and sent an email to its contractor to enquire. Its intention was to update the resident once it received an update.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 29 October 2021, as follows:
1. It partially upheld the complaint.
2. It corrected the error in its stage 1 response which said the resident first reported leak on 25 May 2021. It confirmed he reported it by phone on 6 May. The landlord’s records showed it raised an order on 7 May and the job was issued to a contractor as an immediate priority. The original order was raised against the upstairs flat which was not identified when the stage 1 investigation was carried out.
3. The resident was promised redecoration in damaged areas of home.
4. It apologised for asking the resident to liaise with the neighbour, as it was not aware of the circumstances at the time.
5. An appointment was arranged with the neighbour above for 7 September 2021 but the landlord could not gain access so it was rearranged for 14 September.
6. When it attended the property on 14 September to assess the leak the area where the leak originally came through was dry. A bucket which had been placed there was also dry. The resident had told the operative there had been no further leaks since the heavy leak in May 2021 or during a period that he had been away.
7. The landlord inspected the property above and found the area, including the kitchen and beneath the kitchen sink to be dry. The washing machine was in use at the time and there was no leak. There was no leak under the bath panel following dye tests.
8. An operative had returned to the resident’s property and confirmed that no water or dye had come through at that point in time. A container was left in place and the resident asked to notify the landlord if any coloured water came through.
9. The landlord received a received further report of a leak on 17 September and the resident expressed concern it may be coming from somewhere higher up. The landlord confirmed it was making enquiries with those residents.
10. It had previously confirmed a 5 day delay between 23 and 28 July 2021 in its contractor attending and offered £25 compensation. It had since concluded this did not comply with the Housing Ombudsman’s guidelines so revised the offer to £80. It provided a breakdown of the compensation:
  1. £35 for the 5 day delay attending repair between 23 and 28 July 2021 (based on £500 for minor repair, per annum pro rata).
  2. £35 for inconvenience caused during the same period (based on £500 for minor repair, per annum pro rata).
  3. £10 for the delay in providing complaint response.
11. The resident was signposted to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
On 22 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to say that the leak was not resolved. He said he was not experiencing an ingress at that time, but the neighbour had refused access for the appointment on 5 November. It is unclear what transpired immediately after this.
The resident’s wife emailed the landlord on 9 December 2021 in relation to the hole in the kitchen storage cupboard. She said:
1. Earlier that day, the washing machine in the property above caught fire. The smoke came through the hole, filling the kitchen with smoke and the “whole flat smelt of smoke.”
2. The attending fire officers were “shocked” at the condition of the kitchen cupboard.
3. The landlord had known about the hole for a year and the repairs had not been carried out.
On 10 December 2021 the landlord sent an internal email confirming:
1. It had allocated the repair to its contractor on 29 July to attend the following day. It had experienced setbacks due to multiple failed access attempts and the requirement for an asbestos survey.
2. It inspected both properties on 14 September, found no evidence of a leak and marked the job as complete. This remained the case following a later inspection.
3. When a further leak was reported on 29 September it was passed to a plumbing contractor but its attendance was delayed due to access issues.
4. Access was provided to the property above on 5 November but the neighbour refused to allow the landlord to remove the bath panel because she was concerned about whether the landlord would make good any damage caused.
5. It was passed back to the ‘original’ contractor on 8 December 2021. The Repairs Quality Inspector confirmed that throughout his involvement in the case he had not been made aware of the “fire hazard” in the property.
On 30 December 2021 the resident followed up his stage 2 complaint to the landlord. He said his wife had not received a response to the email she sent 3 weeks ago. Furthermore, he had not received any communication regarding the leak and/or “fire hazard.”
The resident contacted this Service on the same day. He said he was unable to live properly as the affected repair had still not been resolved. He said he was concerned his flat may not be “safe to live in” and the landlord had not provided any updates.
Landlord staff continued to exchange correspondence about the issues and noted that opportunities to visit had been limited as it needed to visit both flats at the same time. An appointment had been arranged for 6 January 2022. It noted the contractor had been ‘added’ to the order. A job was raised for both properties on 7 January 2022. The intention was to inspect any damage caused by the leak. The landlord noted it would link in with recommendations made on a health and safety visit scheduled for that same day. It added that the source of the water leak had been identified in the upstairs flat and resolved on 6 January.
The landlord treated the resident’s email of 9 December as a complaint and issued a stage 1 response on 21 January 2022. Within this, it said:
1. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about the leak and fire hazard affecting his home.
2. The resident made a complaint on 10 August 2021 following a leak in the storage cupboard in kitchen. It provided a stage 1 complaint response on 24 August followed by a stage 2 complaint response 29 October. The resident had raised new points, not included in original complaint, during December 2021. It therefore opened a new complaint.
3. Since 29 January 2021 it had attended both the resident and the property above on 5 November. The bath access panel needed to be removed which the neighbour did not agree to at the time of the visit. A new appointment was therefore required, and the resident advised he would not be available until 19 November.
4. A new appointment was scheduled for 10 December 2021 but access was not provided by the neighbour.
5. It returned on 6 January 2022 and found that the overflow in the pipes had not been capped off. Therefore, whenever the neighbour used the bath, water would overflow and leak into the resident’s home. The engineer repaired the issue and the leak was resolved. The resident confirmed on 20 January 2022 that the leak had stopped.
6. Its investigations identified a hole in the riser between the two properties. The hole would be sealed once the leak had been resolved or if it was concluded that the leak was not from the riser.
7. The resident experienced smoke in his home when the neighbour’s washing machine caught fire on 9 December 2021. He was contacted by the its health and safety team on 10 December. It contacted the resident 31 December 2021 to carry out a further inspection.
8. The landlord apologised for the delays and lack of progress. It said these were due to access issues. It said it was sorry about the smoke issue, but it could not carry out remedial works to ceiling without first resolving the leak.
9. The resident was provided with details on how to escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
The landlord has informed this service that an appointment was raised for 22 January 2022 but access was not provided.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 January 2022 to raise a second stage 2 complaint because he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said the issue was first raised in May 2021 and not resolved until January 2022. He said the repairs process only sped up following the fire.
Meanwhile, the landlord attempted to access the neighbour’s property on 2 February, but was unable to do so.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 22 February 2022. It said:
1. The complaint was not upheld and the resident could contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
2. It accepted there was a delay in resolving matters in relation to the leak and fire stopping works. It acknowledged it was “frightening and frustrating” for the resident. It apologised for the level of service the resident experienced.
3. It said the leak was initially reported on 24 June 2021. The landlord needed access to flat above to resolve the issue, but access was initially refused. It made several attempts to gain access to the resident’s property and the property above which delayed works. Problems were compounded by restrictions related to Covid-19.
4. When the neighbour’s washing machine caught fire, smoke entered the resident’s home along heating pipework between his flat and the flat above. This happened because remedial works remained outstanding due to access issues to both properties.
5. It acknowledged the significance of concerns regarding safety and apologised for the time taken to carry out works.
6. Remedial work to the ceiling could not be carried out without first identifying the cause of the leak into the resident’s home and resolving the problem. This was completed on 6 January 2022.
7. Delays were caused by the need to access both properties simultaneously. Once this was achieved contractors carried out several inspections of each property to determine the cause of leak. The landlord added that while it endeavored to carry out repairs to leaks on the first visit this was not always possible in the case of more complex works.

Assessment and findings

Leak in the property

The leak was first reported on the 6 May 2021. The tenant’s handbook says the landlord aims to attend to urgent plumbing jobs within2-4 hours. This investigation has not seen evidence that it did so and this was therefore inappropriate. However, a job was raised for the following day and the property upstairs was inspected. This was in accordance with the landlord’s timescales for ‘urgent repairs’. The landlord was not been able to find an immediate source of the leak and said it would require further investigation. While this was an appropriate course of action, the evidence does not demonstrate that a job for further investigation was raised, or that a plan to investigate the source of the leak was agreed. This was inappropriate, and as a result the resident was left to chase the matter.
The landlord appropriately made enquiries with its contractor. However, there was no further communication with the resident until 14 June, almost 3 weeks later. It is unclear why; however, during this period the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations around steps being taken to resolve the leak.
The evidence shows that the landlord was trying to progress the investigation into the leak but had experienced access issues. However, its records dated 14 June 2021 suggest that responsibility for this had been passed from one team to another. This meant the process lacked ownership needed to drive the matter forward in a timely manner.
By 23 June 2021 the landlord had carried out 2 inspections of the property above, on each occasion there was no evidence of a leak. It had removed the bath panel which was dry. It considered that the problem might be elsewhere, in a property higher up. The landlord concluded that because it was intermittent, it was unlikely to be caused by the heating/hot water network. It was appropriate that the landlord had made more than one attempt to find the source of the leak and that, in the absence of any evidence, it was considering possible causes.
Given that a leak from the pipework had been discounted, the resident reasonably emailed the landlord on 23 June to ask that it inspect the bath waste. There is no evidence that the landlord considered doing so or that it contacted the resident about his concerns.
The landlord sent an internal email on 20 July 2021 to establish the status of the plumbing repair and whether the leak was continuing. It queried the delay as the works order had been raised on 24 May. While it was appropriate for the landlord to follow the matter up, it is unclear why there was a 2 month delay. In the absence of any explanation, the delay was undue. In addition, the fact that the landlord was unable to establish the answers to those questions from its own repair records is evidence of poor record keeping.
On 29 July 2021 the landlord sought to establish which contractor was leading on the repair. It said that ongoing access issues caused a delay in resolving the issue. The majority of examples given by the landlord relate to failure to access the property above. However, this investigation notes there are times when the landlord was not able to access the resident’s property, and that this contributed to the delay.
Within the stage 1 response of 24 August 2021, the landlord concluded that the leak could be the result of a waste-water leak from the flat above. In his escalation request, the resident advised that he was not comfortable asking his neighbour to run his bath – as had been requested by the landlord. He asked if the landlord could communicate this instead. There is no evidence that the landlord attempted to do so and it is not clear as to the reason why. The landlord appeared to agree with resident’s assessment that the bath waste could be the cause of the leak. It would therefore have been appropriate to investigate the bath waste as soon as possible in order to prevent any further leaks.
During September 2021 the landlord focused its attention on carrying out further investigations into the pipework. It carried out dye tests and discussed whether the leak could be coming from a property higher up. It concluded that because it had found no evidence of leaks, the case could be closed. While the reasons for the landlord’s decision are noted, closing the case was premature. The landlord had acknowledged that the leaks were intermittent and may be caused by waste water, but had not yet tested to see if that was the case.
The resident experienced a further leak on 29 September 2021. He said it had happened after the resident above ran a bath and was concerned that the bath overflow may be the cause. He was understandably concerned that the landlord had not checked this as part of its investigation. The landlord’s records show that it raised an urgent works order to be specifically assigned to a plumber which was appropriate. However, the landlord’s inspection of the property above did not take place until 8 October which was not in line with the its response times for urgent plumbing repairs. The landlord cites that this was due to access issues to the property above. Again, this investigation has not seen evidence that the landlord took steps to expedite this process. This could have included speaking with the neighbour to ensure they had a full understanding of what works the landlord proposed to carry out and why.
On that same day, the landlord concluded that the issue may lie with a waste pipe within the walls. It sent afurther email to establish which contractor was responding to the works order. It would be reasonable for the landlord to keep an accurate audit trail detailing jobs that had been raised, and who they had been allocated to. That the landlord was unclear about who was completing the job is indicative of poor repairs management and record keeping.
The resident was aware that his neighbour had refused the landlord’s request to look under the bath panel on 5 November 2021. He did not receive a subsequent update from the landlord with an indication of what it intended to do next. This meant the resident had to go to the time and trouble of chasing the landlord on 22 November 2021 which was unreasonable. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord provided a response to the resident’s update request. This was inappropriate and further eroded the resident/landlord relationship, causing distress to the resident.
The landlord’s records show that the leak was passed back to a previous contractor on 8 December 2021. In an email dated 10 December the Repairs Quality Inspector confirmed that throughout his involvement in the case he had not been made aware of the “fire hazard” in the property. It is unclear why this was the case. However, it is concerning given that in its complaint response of 22 February 2022, the landlord informed the resident that the ceiling could not be repaired until the source of the leak had been identified. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for all staff who were dealing with the leak to be aware that the hole in the ceiling needed to be repaired as a priority.
Internal emails sent by the landlord during December 2021 describe ongoing access issues causing further delays in completing works. It says access was particularly difficult because it needed to access both properties simultaneously. It stated that the water leak had been sourced and was found to be caused by the bath overflow pipes not being capped.
There is evidence that the landlord experienced repeated issues gaining access to the properties in order to carry out its investigation into the leak. The landlord has made frequent reference to this as the reason for the delay in its response. This investigation accepts that access issues would have impacted on the landlord’s ability to investigate and resolve the leak. It also accepts that on at least one occasion this was due to covid-19 related issues and restrictions in place at the time.
However, the landlord did not fully reflect on what had gone wrong and failed to identify a number of its own failures which contributed to an unacceptable delay:
1. It failed to take proactive steps to gain access to the property above in a timely manner when it was appropriate to do so.
2. It failed to monitor and manage the investigation into the leak. This included the works being passed from one contractor to another without a clear audit trail.
3. It was slow to investigate the possibility that the bath waste may be the source for the leak despite acknowledging that it may be a contributory factor. This included failing to arrange for the resident in the property above to run a bath, a relatively simple test it had previously asked the resident to carry out.
The general response to the leak was not coordinated or managed effectively which added to the resolution being drawn out. This was due in part to poor record keeping. Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Service when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property. It enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents. An order has been made so that the landlord reviews its record keeping practices. This should help to prevent a recurrence of similar issues in the future.
The resident experienced additional inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s handling of the repair. The resident made the landlord aware that he was storing items from the cupboard in his front room, which were taking up space, and he did not want to move them back until the leak had been fixed. The landlord did not appear to acknowledge this, or the impact it was having on the resident and his wife. Furthermore, the resident had to make repeated efforts to seek an update from the landlord in the absence of any communication from it. The failures in the landlord’s response to the leak and its communication with the resident was the cause of distress, inconvenience and time and trouble.
It is also noted that throughout the complaint, the resident made the landlord aware of his wife’s health conditions, and that he asked if the repairs could be dealt with as a priority given the risks to her. When asked by this Service, the landlord said the only information it held regarding the resident’s wife health was that she had “long term health issues”. Given that the resident made the landlord of his wife’s specific conditions, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to update its records accordingly. Not recording the vulnerabilities within the household was a record keeping failure which limited the appropriateness of the landlord’s response. It would have also been reasonable for the landlord to enquire if there was anything it could do to support the resident’s wife while the repair was outstanding. That the landlord did not take such action was a missed opportunity.
When responding to the complaint, the landlord identified a failure for a works order which should have been attended to by 23 July 2021, but was attended on 28 July which was 5 days outside of its service level agreement. The landlord apologised for this and offered £25 compensation which was reasonable.
However, the landlord did not identify failings in its overall handling of the repair and therefore missed an opportunity to learn from the complaint and put things right with the resident. The issue was resolved on 6 January 2022, 8 months after the leak was first reported on 6 May 2021. Given the failings identified through this investigation, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident some compensation for the inconvenience he and his wife were caused during this time.

Fire stopping works

The resident said he first reported the hole in the kitchen cupboard in May 2021. The first note of the hole in kitchen cupboard in the landlord’s records is 14 June 2021. While the resident’s comments are not disputed, in the absence of any other evidence, the Ombudsman has taken the date of the first report as 14 June 2021.
When the resident emailed the landlord about the hole on 14 June 2021, he said he had been told it was a fire risk and asked for it to be fixed as soon as possible. He repeated his concerns in his email to the landlord on 17 June.
An internal email sent by the landlord on 21 June 2021 sought to clarify which contractor was responsible for filling in the hole. This suggests the landlord was not proactively managing and monitoring the completion of the work. This was not appropriate because of the risk posed to the resident and his neighbour as a result of the fire compartmentalisation being compromised. It is also evidence of poor record keeping, as the landlord had failed to maintain a clear audit trail in relation to the matter.
The resident’s wife emailed the landlord on 9 December 2021 after the fire in the upstairs property. Within her email, she expressed concern that the landlord had known about the issue and that they had been affected by the fire upstairs as the issue had been left unresolved. The landlord had known that compartmentalisation between the two flats had been compromised for at least 6 months. It also caused significant distress because of the impact of the smoke on the resident, his wife and their home. This was compounded by the resident’s concerns about his wife’s health.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s wife’s email of 9 December. The resident was left to chase the matter on 30 December as a result. This was unreasonable, particularly given the nature of the incident they had reported, and the distress this had caused them. The resident was so concerned that he contacted this Service, also on 30 December, because he was concerned that the property may not be safe to live in.
The landlord’s records show that it took steps to consider the health and safety risks associated with the presence of the hole between the two properties. It has told this service that the health and safety team contacted the resident on 10 December and arranged a health and safety visit for 7 January 2022. While this is not disputed, evidence of this contact has not been provided for the purposes of this investigation. This is further evidence of poor record keeping and is particularly concerning given the significance of the situation.
It was appropriate that the landlord undertook a health and safety inspection. However, given the potential risks caused by the presence of the hole this came too late in the process. The tenant’s handbook says that emergency repairs are those which pose an immediate health and safety risk. As such the landlord should have prioritised the repair to respond and make safe within 2-4 hours.
While the landlord appropriately sought involvement from its health and safety team, it is unclear why this was not done sooner. The resident had made the landlord aware of the risk several months earlier; however, steps to assess the risk were only taken after there had been a fire. The landlord did not consider its duty of care to the resident and his neighbour at the point at which it was put on notice about the hole in the kitchen cupboard. It failed to fulfil its responsibilities under the Housing Act 2004 and Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 which was inappropriate. It failed to respond to the repair as an emergency repair as set out in its tenants handbook. This was a significant failure in its handling of the fire stopping works.
Throughout the course of the complaint, the landlord acknowledged that the hole needed to be sealed; however, it maintained its position that it was necessary to remedy the leak first.
Due to the health and safety implications, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider the fire stopping works a priority. However, it did not consider them as such and therefore, did not take appropriate steps to minimise the risk posed to the residents. It was not unreasonable that it wanted to resolve the leak first but if that was the process it wished to follow, it would have been reasonable for it to take relevant steps to expedite this process.
The landlord said “Covid-19 restrictions” were the cause of no access at the early stages. It is not clear if this was because restrictions prevented contractors attending or because the residents themselves tested positive meaning access was not appropriate. However, there is no evidence that this was on the ongoing reason for lack of access. Knowing that critical fire stopping works were dependent on getting access to resolve the leak, the landlord could have considered its options for escalating the matter. At the very least this could have included liaison with housing colleagues at the very outset. There is no evidence to suggest it explained the critical nature of the works in relation to the leak, and ultimately the fire stopping works, to the neighbour. If initial attempts to mediate with the resident in the property above failed, the landlord could have then considered taking enforcement action.
The landlord knew that the leak was complex, requiring longer term investigation. Therefore, it should have considered sealing the hole in the interim. It was unacceptable that it knowingly left residents at risk. On 2 June 2023 the landlord provided evidence that, having experienced further access issues, the fire stopping works had been completed by June 2022, 12 months after the resident made the landlord aware of the existence of the hole.
In its stage 2 complaint response dated 22 February 2022 the landlord said “it recognised the significance of these works for the resident’s safety.” It also said that it accepted the experience had been “frightening” for the resident. On 2 June 2023 the landlord sent this Service a screenshot from its housing repairs data base showing that a works order for the firestopping works was raised on 19 January 2022. The invoice for works was accepted on 8 June 2022, 12 months after the landlord first recorded the problem.
The landlord’s handling of the fire stopping works had significant consequences for the resident and posed a significant risk to safety of the resident and his neighbours. The failings and the landlord’s response therefore amounts to severe maladministration. In accordance with the landlord’s compensation guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £850 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of this matter.

Complaint handling

The resident’s original stage 1 complaint was made on 10 August 2021. In its response the landlord incorrectly said that the leak was first reported on 25 May 2021 and the contractor tried to access the property above the next day, on 26 May. The landlord acknowledged the error at stage 2. It said that the original order was raised against the upstairs property which had not been identified when the stage 1 investigation was carried out. This was a failure.
The landlord failed to address:
1. The resident’s concerns about the impact the situation was having on his wife’s health; and
2. The request for a 2 month “rent break” due to the issues.
The resident raised concerns about his wife’s health again in his stage 2 complaint dated 30 August 2021. He was clearly worried about how the situation was affecting her. Again, there is no evidence that the landlord considered this point in its response to the ongoing situation. It failed again to address the resident’s concerns it in its stage 2 complaint response. This demonstrates lack of empathy for the added distress caused to the resident and his household as a result of the ongoing situation which was inappropriate. Furthermore, section 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlord must address all the points raised in the resident’s complaint. Not complying with the Code was a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 29 October 2021. This was 50 working days after the matter was escalated; and 30 working days outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy and the Code. The landlord did not provide any explanation for the delay, and the evidence provided to this service does not demonstrate that the delay was unavoidable. The delay in providing the complaint response were therefore, unreasonable. The landlord’s offer of £10 compensation for the delay did not adequately reflect the length of the delay and the distress this caused the resident.
The resident made a further complaint about the same issues on 9 December 2021. The landlord accepted the complaint as a new stage 1 complaint because it considered that the resident’s complaint about the fire added a new element to the complaint. The landlord exercised its discretion appropriately in deciding to investigate the same issues again however, it failed to communicate this to the resident which was inappropriate. The landlord’s communication was poor, it could have told the resident and provided reassurance that the matter was being taken seriously.
Having decided to treat the resident’s concerns as a new complaint, the landlord waited until 11 January 2022 to raise the complaint, over a month after it was first received. In addition the response was not provided until 21 January 2022, 27 working days after the complaint was made. The stage 1 response was therefore 17 working days overdue. This investigation has been unable to establish any reason for this delay and it was therefore unreasonable in the circumstances.
The resident escalated his complaint and the landlord responded on 22 February 2022. There is a discrepancy between the response times set out in its best practice guide (10 days) and its complaints policy (20 working days). This investigation has taken the policy as the correct timescales. This is compliant with the 20 working day response time set out in the Code. An order has been made for the landlord to review its literature and ensure that the timescales stated within are correct.
Nevertheless, the landlord failed to adhere to its complaints best practice guide by not sending the resident a holding response to provide a new date when it could not meet its timescale. This was inappropriate, not only because it did not follow its own process but because it did not engage in proactive communication with the resident to manage his expectations.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response issued on 22 February 2022 incorrectly set out that the resident first reported the leak in his property on 24 June 2021. It is particularly inappropriate because the same error had been made in the landlord’s response of 24 August 2021, which it subsequently corrected in its stage 2 complaint response. This was evidence of poor complaint handling because there was a failure to learn from the error made at stage 1. Repeating the same mistake would have eroded the resident’s confidence that the landlord was taking his complaint seriously, and carrying out a thorough investigation.
The complaint responses issued during the second complaint were confusing and lacked consistency. At stage 1 the landlord appropriately set out its response. It advised that the complaint was not upheld however, it later apologised for the “delay and lack of progress” in resolving the leak from the property above. It said this was due to access issues. The apology suggested that the landlord took some responsibility for the delay however, this was not consistent with the narrative in the response. At stage 2 the landlord again concluded that the complaint was not upheld. However, elsewhere in the letter is said “please accept my apologies for the level of service you have experienced.”
If the landlord accepted that the level of service it provided was poor it would have been reasonable for it to set out the issues, identify where it had gone wrong, and what it could do to put it right. The landlord’s general response to the resident’s complaint, which spanned August 2021 to February 2022, is confusing and at times contradictory. The landlord failed to demonstrate compliance with section 6 of the Code which sets out expectations around landlords ‘putting things right’. This is because it failed to use the complaints process to remedy the substantive issues.
The landlord’s compensation and payment schemes guidance sets out that it can offer residents £50-£250 per year for time and trouble. It would have been appropriate to consider an offer of compensation for the failures. The landlord upheld the first stage 1 and stage 2 complaints. At stage 2 it offered £80 comprised of £70 for a repairs failure and £10 for the delay in issuing the first stage 2 complaint response. Despite its apologies, and acknowledgement of failings in the service provided, in both the second stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, it failed to consider offering compensation to the resident.
This investigation finds that the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling amount to maladministration. The landlord is ordered to pay £300 compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the fire stopping work.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not manage the repair effectively. It was slow to investigate thebath waste as a possible source of the leak, there was evidence of poor record keeping and it failed to communicate effectively with the resident.
The landlord failed to fulfil its responsibilities under the FSO and/or its repairs commitments. It did not prioritise works to address the health and safety risk posed to the resident.
Not all of the landlord’s complaint responses were timely. In addition, the landlord did not respond to all the issues raised by the resident. Its second stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses were confusing and contradictory. The landlord did not use the complaints process to expedite resolution of the substantive issues. It did not acknowledge and reflect on what had gone wrong or how it could put things right.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should pay the resident £1550, comprising:
1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the landlord’s response to the leak in the property, including poor record keeping.
2. £850 for the significant adverse effect caused by the failings in the landlord’s response to the fire stopping works, including poor record keeping.
3. £300 caused by the complaint handling failures, including poor record keeping, which caused distress, time and trouble to the resident.
Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this determination. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has done so, also within 4 weeks.
Contact the resident to gain an understanding of the vulnerabilities relating to him and/or members of his household and update its records accordingly. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has done so, also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should:
1. Carry out a review of any existing procedures and its approach in considering and addressing repeated incidents of no access. In doing so, the landlord should consider how it might take timely action to enforce the process if urgent access is required to resolve a health and safety issue.
2. Review the failings identified in this report which relate to complaint handling and carry out staff training to ensure that complaints are handled in line with its complaints policy and sections 5.6 and 6.1 of the Code. It should also ensure that response times set out in its best practice guidance is consistent with its complaints policy.
3. Review the failings identified in this complaint in relation to record keeping and consider how these failings might be avoided in future. This may include a review of current processes for recording repairs to ensure that appointments, progress, communication with the resident and completion of repairs are captured accurately, or staff training. The outcome of this consideration should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.