ForHousing Limited (202400781)

Background

1. The resident has lived in her house with her partner and four children since 30 October 2023. She reported water repeatedly pooling under the dining room floorboards and asked the landlord for an enduring repair.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports about leaks and water pooling under her floorboards.
   2. The resident’s associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks and water pooling under her floorboards.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders and recommendations for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. By apologising, offering compensation that was proportionate to the circumstances of the case, completing works, and reviewing its practices, the landlord offered redress to the resident which resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
5. The landlord did not address all the resident’s complaints in its stage 2 response. It did not provide a timely resolution under its complaint process. This was not in line with the Complaint Handling Code. These issues led to avoidable time and trouble for the resident.

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 have not looked at and why

6. We are very sorry to hear about the resident’s circumstances, that she believed the landlord’s failures affected the health of her household. This Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about the impact on hers and her family’s health. However, it is not with our remit to determine causation, liability, or the impact on health. Matters of personal injury or damage to health fall outside the complaints process and are more appropriately addressed through the courts or the landlord’s insurer.
7. In her contact with this Service, the resident raised ongoing issues with her floorboards and damage she said was caused by the leaks. This included damp and a waterlogged garden. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised in the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues before our involvement. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord. She can progress this as a new formal complaint, if required.

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.

8. The tenancy says that the landlord is responsible for drainage repairs at the property. Its repairs policy states that it will complete urgent repairs within 3 working days. It says it will complete routine repairs within 30 working days.
9. On 23 November 2023, the resident reported that her kitchen and dining room floors were uneven. The landlord inspected the property the following day and found water pooled under the floor. On 27 November 2023 its contractor pumped out the water and replaced the floorboards.
10. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord raised another job for the water to be pumped, and necessary follow-on works to be requested. Its contractor attended on 15 December 2023 and drained the water. It did not request follow-on work until the resident called later that day. This caused the resident avoidable time and trouble, albeit the follow-on works were then attended to within its repair policy timescales. Repairs to the floorboards were raised and attended to on 18 December 2023. A dye test, to identify the source of the leak, was raised by the landlord’s surveyor on 21 December 2023.
11. It was reasonable for the landlord to initially conclude that the leak came from the plumbing infrastructure and arrange a dye test. However, the test completed on 22 December 2023 did not diagnose the cause of the leak. Following the test, the landlord missed the opportunity to carry out follow on investigative work that may have identified the cause sooner. This error meant that the resident was living with the issue longer than necessary. It also cost her time and trouble contacting the landlord again on 2 January 2024 when the water returned.
12. As advised in its stage 1 response, the landlord’s contractor attended the property on 8 January 2024 to drain the water. It could not gain access and the job was closed. A new job was raised the next day, and an appointment was attended on 15 January 2024. We have seen no evidence of an appointment being arranged and missed on 10 January 2024, which the resident referred to in her stage 2 complaint escalation.
13. We also have not seen evidence that the landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection at that time. The lack of a confirmed diagnosis meant the resident had to report again that water was pooling under the floorboards. The landlord raised a job on 17 January 2024, which it attended two days later to drain the water.
14. The resident reported on 29 January 2024 that the dining room floor was unsafe. The landlord attended the next day and made it safe. On 31 January 2024 the resident called the landlord, dissatisfied that the repair had not been fully completed. She was told follow on repairs had yet to be raised to re-lay the floor. That job was raised the next day. While that was well-intentioned in response to the resident’s frustration, re-laying the floor would be ineffective unless and until the source of the water pooling had been identified.
15. The landlord emailed the resident on 2 February 2024 and referred to a call with her that day. It explained that appointments had been made to repair the floor on 8 and 9 February 2024, but it first needed to identify the source of the leak. The landlord emailed the resident five days later to update her on her complaint. It confirmed that, following an earlier call with her that day, it had arranged an emergency appointment to make the floorboards safe. These were positive steps on the landlord’s part and showed a commitment to keeping the resident informed and progressing the required work. Its repair records do not confirm whether that appointment took place.
16. As promised in its stage 2 response, the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 8 February 2024.It was identified that a high-water table was causing the water ingress. The surveyor asked its contractor to install a sump pump as a permanent remedy.
17. Meanwhile, the landlord raised a job on 13 February 2024 to pump water from the floor. It attended on 20 February 2024 to complete this work. Repairs to the floor were also completed on 19 and 20 February 2024. We have seen no evidence of the pump installation being progressed in the meantime. Nor have we seen evidence that the resident was updated. This was despite the landlord’s assurances in its stage 2 response that it would monitor the complaint until the works were complete. This caused further inconvenience for the resident who had to chase the landlord on 27 February 2024.
18. Water was again pumped out on 5 March 2024 in preparation for the pump installation. Internal emails between the landlord and its contractor indicate the pump was also installed on 5 March 2024 and the resident has confirmed to this Service that was the case. Notwithstanding that, the landlord’s repair records show a job to install the pump was raised on 22 March 2024. While the landlord has told this Service that the installation was delayed until 8 May 2024 due to supply issues, the available records do not support that.
19. The water issue was first reported on 14 December 2023. The landlord did not complete a lasting repair until 5 March 2023. This was 55 working days after it was reported. The landlord’s policy states that routine repairs should be completed within 30 working days. This caused inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident.

Summary

20. The landlord attended the property within its policy timescales when the resident first reported water ingress. However, it did not act proactively thereafter. Earlier investigative work may have identified the cause of the water ingress sooner. The landlord’s lack of urgency was unreasonable. It caused time and trouble for the resident. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the time taken to identify the cause of the leak and the impact of that on the resident. It offered £350 compensation. That was line with its compensation policy which states that compensation of £300 or more should be considered for prolonged inconvenience, distress, or detriment. The figure is broadly in line with this Services’ compensation guidance and therefore it therefore represents reasonable redress.
21. Offering redress also entails putting the matter right and learning from outcomes. As per our Complaint Handling Code, landlords are expected to prioritise complaint handling and a culture of learning from complaints. They must look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether service improvements can be made because of any learning from the complaint. In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised that follow-on works had not been arranged as agreed and said it would consider this issue as a service improvement to help prevent similar errors in future. It is evident from this that the landlord has sought to learn from the complaint.
22. When assessing whether there has been maladministration, this Service considers both the events that led to the complaint and the landlord’s actions through its complaints process. This Service will not make a finding of maladministration when the landlord has acknowledged its failings and taken reasonable steps to address them. In this case, the landlord apologised, offered compensation, and reviewed its practices. These actions provided redress that resolved the complaint. This finding does not mean that this Service considers the landlord’s handling of the water pooling, or its effect on the resident, to have been reasonable. It reflects that there were significant failings, and that the landlord provided redress in line with this Service’s approach.

23. The Code requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the Code. It acknowledged and replied to the resident’s complaint at stages 1 and 2 of its process within these timescales.
24. In line with the Code, when things go wrong the landlord should provide a timely resolution and remedy. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not meet this requirement, as it took 55 days to reach an enduring resolution to the issue. It failed to oversee the complaint through to an effective remedy in the 3 weeks after its stage 2 response, when it was prompted to chase its contractor by the resident. This prolonged the uncertainty and inconvenience for the resident, who had to continue chasing the landlord for an outcome.
25. The landlord’s responses to the complaint should cover all the issues the resident raised. Its stage 1 response clearly explained its decisions and the timetable for the outstanding actions, which helped manage the resident’s expectations. However, it did not fully address her concerns about missed appointments in its stage 2 response. That was a further service failing and reduced the effectiveness of the response.

Summary

26. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, a finding of Service Failure has been made. An order is made for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord provided enough information for us to provide a robust determination. However, records of some attendances at the property have not been provided. Its responses to our request for further evidence concerning the date of the pump installation were contradictory. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management says records should tell the full story of what happened. They should clearly state any decision made and the reasons for it, including any decision not to act.