Arun District Council (202338005)

Background

1. The resident told the landlord that there were issues with the water pressure in his home. He later complained that it had not resolved the matter. He also raised concerns that the landlord had not followed its complaint procedure.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about the water pressure in his home.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the water pressure in his home.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord attended to the resident’s initial report within a reasonable timeframe. While it was not able to resolve the matter at the time, it proactively sought further investigations from a third party to help identify the cause. It then committed to carrying out further investigations if the third party was unable to resolve the issue.
5. While the landlord took some reasonable steps to ensure that its complaint handling was adequate, it did not fully respond to the resident’s concerns, which caused him frustration.

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.

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.

6. Following the resident’s report about the water pressure on 29 March 2024, the landlord attended on 8 April 2024. Taking into consideration the Easter bank holiday weekend and the landlord’s office closures, this was within 4 working days. The evidence suggests that at this time, while the landlord did not have a published priority repair response timescale for different repairs, it had a 5-day response timescale for urgent repairs. Given the resident’s circumstances, that the landlord attended within 4 working days of the initial report was reasonable and within its timescale.
7. The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor carried out several visits between 8 and 12 April 2024 in an attempt to resolve the matter. It is noted that this would have caused the resident inconvenience. However, it is acknowledged that sometimes it may take landlords several attempts to identify the cause of a more complex issue. In this case, we are satisfied that the several visits were not unreasonable in the circumstances.
8. Following the visits, the landlord:
   1. Informed the resident that the external pipes may have been the cause of the issue. It explained to him that the utility company was responsible for the pipes.
   2. Contacted the utility company and arranged an appointment for it to investigate the matter on 9 May 2024.
   3. Informed the resident of the appointment date with the utility company and offered an additional interim appointment to see whether it could take any further actions to mitigate the inconvenience in the meantime.
9. The landlord’s actions demonstrated that it was taking proactive, reasonable and appropriate steps to resolve the issue and to mitigate any further inconvenience and distress.
10. It is noted that the appointment with the utility company on 9 May 2024 did not go ahead. The evidence provided demonstrates that this was outside of the landlord’s control. Therefore, we are satisfied that the missed appointment was not due to the action or inaction of the landlord.
11. The evidence suggests that at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response, the appointment remained outstanding. Re-booking the appointment would have been between the utility company and the resident. Therefore, the landlord’s response that it would carry out any further required investigations once the utility company attended was appropriate. This demonstrated that while it was unable to progress the repair itself at the time, it was committed to resolving the issue if the investigation from the utility company did not resolve the matter. This was reasonable.
12. What transpired following the landlord’s stage 2 response is unclear. While it is noted that the resident made another complaint about the matter in mid/late 2025, we are unable to investigate the events that led up to it, as they did not form part of this complaint. The resident may refer that complaint to us for separate investigation if he wishes.

13. The landlord’s applicable complaints policy says that it will respond to complaints within 10 working days of confirming receipt at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. If it is unable to respond within these timescales, it will provide regular updates at least every 10 working days.
14. The landlord’s stage 1 response was due on 22 April 2024. However, on that day, it extended its response deadline to 30 April 2024. It explained that it had extended the deadline because it had not resolved the issue and it was waiting to hear back from the utility company. Our April 2024 Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) says that “any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.”
15. The landlord’s stage 1 response was due on the day it extended the deadline. This was a shortcoming as it should have notified the resident of the extension sooner. This would have managed his expectations. However, that it informed the resident and provided an explanation for the reason of the extension was in line with its policy and the Code.
16. It is acknowledged that the resident raised concerns that the landlord did not provide its stage 1 response in line with the Code, which says “a complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed.” However, the evidence provided demonstrates that the landlord did not have a sufficient answer at the time to provide an appropriate response to the resident. In particular, this was because it had not had a response from the utility company at that time.
17. Therefore, we are satisfied that the landlord’s decision to extend the response deadline was reasonable in the circumstances. It is noted that the landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 1 May 2024, which was another shortcoming as it was later than the expected extended date. Still, it was within the Code’s 10-working-day extension timescale.
18. However, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about its decision to extend its response deadline. That it did not meant that his complaint was not fully responded to, which caused him frustration.
19. The resident was concerned that the landlord had not followed its obligations under the government’s repair scheme because it had not resolved the repair issue within 3 days. The landlord told the resident that it ensures that it adheres to the scheme and its explanation for the reason that it responded within 5 days was reasonable. However, it would have been appropriate for it to have specifically addressed his concern.
20. The scheme says that landlords should respond to partial loss of water within 3 days, not resolve the matter within that timeframe. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have clearly and specifically explained this to the resident. This may have mitigated his frustration as he considered that it had not resolved the issue within the government’s repair scheme timescale.
21. It is also noted that the landlord did not provide our contact details when it informed the resident of its extension. This was not in line with the Code.
22. The landlord issued its stage 2 response within its 20-working-day timescale. This was appropriate and in line with the Code.
23. Taking into consideration the shortcomings identified above, alongside the things the landlord did appropriately, an order has been made for it to pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord’s records were clear. This allowed the sequence of events and actions taken to be easily understood for this investigation.

Communication

25. The evidence suggests that the landlord’s communication and complaint handling can be strengthened. Therefore, it may wish to complete our eLearning on complaint handling and communication, which it can find on the Centre for Learning section of our website.