Abri Group Limited (202431979)

Background

1. The resident has lived in the property, a 2-bedroom, first floor flat, since 2017. She has reported various leaks since 2019. On 4 October 2023 she told the landlord her water bills had increased and she believed this was due to an unresolved toilet repair.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Compensation request for increased water bills.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s compensation request for increased water bills. We have made orders for it to put things right.
4. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

5. While the landlord’s decision not to award compensation was appropriate, it did not recognise a repair delay or put this right.
6. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was in line with its policies and our complaint handling code (the Code).

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The landlord’s repair policy says it aims to attend emergency repairs and make them safe within 24 hours. It does not specify a timeframe for completing any follow up work or non-emergency repairs. However, the social housing industry standard for routine repairs is around 28 calendar days.
8. Between 27 February 2019 and 29 January 2024, the resident reported at least 10 repairs involving water that was leaking or overflowing. These affected various plumbing fixtures including the boiler, toilet, taps, waste pipe and washing machine. The landlord attended those needing urgent action within its emergency repair timeframe. It also completed any routine or follow up work within 28 calendar days in 9 of the incidents.
9. However, on 11 August 2023, the resident reported a broken toilet and that she needed to use a screwdriver to activate its flush mechanism. She believed the issue was resulting in water overflow and may have been contributing to high water bills. Records show the landlord did not repair this until 5 October 2023. This was 54 calendar days from when the resident reported the issue and outside of the industry standard timeframe of 28 days for routine repairs.
10. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may pay compensation for financial loss (such as increased utility bills) after determining loss was actually incurred and caused by its actions. It is positive the landlord asked the resident to provide a copy of her water bills on 7 November 2023. It asked that they showed her water usage, before, during and after repairs.
11. The resident provided details of the overall water bill amounts since 2018. These ranged from £486.23 on 25 March 2019 to £1,471.31 on 10 October 2023. However, we have not seen she evidenced her actual water usage. She recently told us this was because this information was not previously available but she had now accessed it on her online water account.
12. We accept that the evidence the resident provided to the landlord showed that her water bills had increased significantly since 2019. However, this could have been due to several reasons such as general increases in utility costs and not just because she was using more water. Therefore, we understand why the landlord did not progress her request for compensation at that time. It would need to be satisfied that she had actually incurred extra costs before deciding if this was due to its action or inaction.
13. It is positive the landlord signposted the resident to her water provider in its stage 1 response to establish if there was a correlation between water usage and reported leaks. It also offered to check for further leaks, despite no outstanding reports of such. Records show an operative attended on 19 May 2024 and repaired the cold feed to the toilet cistern.
14. The landlord said it repaired leaks within its unspecified ‘service level agreement’ at both stages of its complaint process. However, its response to the reported leak of 11 August 2023 was outside industry standards.
15. The landlord has not acknowledged this service failure. It has missed an opportunity to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. We order it to apologise for this and pay £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for service failures that have caused distress and inconvenience to a resident and delayed getting matters resolved.
16. We also order it to review its repair policy to include a measurable timeframe in which it aims to respond to non-emergency repairs.
17. We have not ordered the landlord to pay compensation for increased water costs. This is because we have not seen evidence the resident’s water usage increased during the repair periods. However, we recommend the landlord reviews its decision not to award compensation for financial loss, should this position change.

18. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint policy. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint. The Code says landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with these timeframes.
19. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint the day after receiving it. While it told the resident it would respond in 20-working days, it did not do so until 2 October 2024. This was 1 day outside the 20-day extension period permitted within the Code. However, the landlord had already given the resident a revised timeframe. We have not seen that the short delay caused her detriment. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord provided a good summary of key events and supporting records. This helped us to assess its actions and reach a determination.

Communication

21. The landlord was responsive to the resident’s contacts and overall repair reports.