Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (202216500)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216500

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

20 March 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

  1. The complaint concerns the level of compensation offered by the landlord following a water leak in the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a house. Both the resident and his wife corresponded with the landlord during the period of the complaint. For reasons of clarity, the resident and his wife have been collectively referred to as “the resident” within this report.
  2. The landlord’s records and repair logs state that its contractor attended the property on 25 January 2022 following reports from the resident of a blocked drain and toilet at the property. A CCTV survey of the property’s drains was undertaken on 27 January 2022 and a temporary repair was put in place. The records state that drainage works were completed on 2 February 2022 and follow-on work completed on 4 February 2022.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 February 2022 and requested to raise a complaint into how it was handling the matter. He described the elements of the complaint as:
    1. The length of time it was taking the repairs to be completed was unacceptable and he had experienced poor communication from the landlord and its contractors.
    2. He had to replace a section of carpeting due to damage caused to it by the contractors.
    3. The property has only one toilet and while it was out of use, he had to travel over a mile to use a family member’s toilet facilities. The landlord only offered a temporary toilet on 1 February 2022.
  4. The landlord opened a formal complaint on 2 February 2022, then provided responses at stage one on 11 February 2022 and at stage two on 14 March 2022. It also visited the property to discuss the complaint with the resident on 7 and 21 February 2022. In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that following the CCTV survey that took place on 27 January 2022, an emergency repair was raised to replace the section of pipe that was leaking. Its contactor called the resident the evening of 27 January and informed him that it would attend the following day. On attendance, the contractor determined that more extensive work was required, and a further appointment was arranged for 1 February 2022. The work was completed on 2 February 2022 and the follow-on work to box in the repaired pipework was completed on 4 February 2022.
  5. The landlord further explained that the resident reported the blocked toilet on 25 January 2021. The contractor found that the toilet was usable, but draining slowly and further investigation was required. The contractor offered the resident temporary toilet facilities for the property on 1 February 2022, which was declined. The landlord acknowledged that there was a delay in making an offer of temporary facilities and apologised to the resident.
  6. The landlord confirmed that it had advised the resident to claim on their contents insurance for the damage to the living room carpet caused by the leak. The resident informed the landlord that he did not have insurance and had made a claim against the landlord’s liability insurer. This claim was declined on the grounds that the insurer did not find evidence of negligence by the landlord. The landlord agreed, as a goodwill gesture, to offer up to £450 towards the replacement of the carpet and to fit it. This offer was accepted by the resident. The existing carpet was removed on 10 February 2022 and the new carpet installed on 16 February 2022.
  7. The landlord stated that during a visit to the property, the resident had requested compensation for the replacement of the hallway carpet and redecoration as the proper steps were not taken by its contractor to protect the area from contamination during repairs. The carpet had already been replaced and decoration undertaken when the landlord visited. It was therefore unable to inspect the condition of the area and to determine whether its staff or contactors had been at fault. It therefore had declined the resident’s compensation request for this aspect of the complaint. The landlord also explained that it had interviewed its operations manager about how the repairs were conducted, and the manager advised that dust covers were put down to protect the hallway carpet during the repairs.
  8. The landlord noted that during the visit to the property, the resident had stated his dissatisfaction that he had not been offered temporary accommodation while the repairs were in progress. The landlord explained that the leak in the living room was able to be contained and while the living room was not able to be used for the ten days it took the work to be completed, that the other rooms in the house were not affected (although the landlord did note that the furniture from the living room was stacked in the dining room during this time period). The landlord then explained that it would not consider offering a household temporary accommodation in these circumstances.
  9. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the time it took to complete repairs and for the delay in offering temporary toilet facilities.
  10. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issue of the complaint as the level of redress offered by the landlord, which did not properly reflect the level of inconvenience caused by the repairs or cover the total costs of replacing carpeting and redecoration undertaken as a result of damage caused by the landlord’s contractors. The resident stated that he would accept an additional £650 compensation as a resolution to the case. The resident broke this down as: £250 for new carpeting for the stairs and hallway, £250 for new carpeting for the dining room and £150 for redecoration.
  11. Following mediation by the Ombudsman, the landlord increased its compensation offer for the length of time it took to complete the work and the delay in offering temporary toilet facilities from £100 to £300. The resident did not accept this offer.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. Sections 3a to 3c of the tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s repair responsibilities. This, in part, states that the landlord “will maintain the structure of your home, in line with the responsibilities we have by law. We will keep essential services for gas, electricity and heating in repair. We will complete all other repairs which we are responsible for under law. Further guidance is available on our website”. The landlord’s repair policy states that blocked drains and soil stacks are its responsibility to resolve and should be attended to within 24 hours. Section 3 of the tenancy agreement also provides advice to tenants on insurance, stating that “we strongly advise you to insure the contents of your home for accidental damage”.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises its repair types as “Emergency” (to be completed within 24 hours), “Urgent” (to be completed within three working days), “Priority” (to be completed within seven working days and “Routine” (to be completed within 25 working days). The landlord’s website defines an emergency repair as a repair that “puts someone’s safety, security, or health at risk – for example, structural damage, broken heating, blocked drains, burst pipes or dangerous electrical or gas fittings”. The website also notes that the landlord “aims to deal with emergency repairs within 24 hours. We may have to carry out a temporary repair to deal with the situation, and then carry out the full repair at a later date”. An urgent repair is defined by the landlord as “a repair that needs to be done quickly to prevent more damage to your home or discomfort to you and your family – for example, minor leaks or electrical repairs”. The website does not define a priority repair but gives as examples of when a priority repair should be considered as “a leaking roof or a door-entry phone not working”.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering financial redress when it fails to meet its target times for its repair types. The policy also states that it will pay 20% of the weekly rent for the loss of use of a living room in the property after seven days. The policy notes that it will only consider this payment when a tenant has lost the use of the room as a result of service failure by the landlord.
  4. In regard to service failure for not properly providing a service, the policy states that compensation will be offered in circumstances “where there has been a service failure which has caused inconvenience and/or distress to the customer. Each complaint will be considered individually and assessed as having a low, medium or high impact based upon the nature of the complaint and how this has affected the complainant”. The compensation policy’s remedies guidance suggests a payment of £50-100 for low impact, £100 to £500 for medium impact and £250 to £1000 for high impact. Medium impact service failure is defined as “a succession of service failures and/or not resolved within reasonable timescales.”

The level of compensation offered by the landlord following a water leak in the resident’s property.

  1. When informed by the resident of the drainage problems in the property, the landlord had a duty to respond to the issue in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately to the resident’s reports and in line with the categories and timescales set out in its repairs policy detailed above. It raised emergency repairs to inspect the toilet and drains. When the CCTV survey identified the source of the leak, a temporary repair was made, and an emergency repair was raised in order to replace the affected section of pipework. This work was completed over the next three working days. Follow-on work to box in the pipework was then raised as a priority repair and completed two days later.
  2. However, the landlord also accepted there was service failure in how it responded. It noted that the ten days it took to complete the work from when resident’s first report was longer than it normally expected for this type of repair to be resolved. It also stated that the contractor should have offered the resident should temporary toilet facilities during its first visit on 25 January 2021 rather than on 1 February 2021. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident in its complaint responses and offer compensation for its poor service for these elements of the complaint.
  3. The landlord’s compensation offer of £300 was calculated in line with its compensation policy detailed above for medium impact service failure. This offer is also broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £100 to £600 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration by a landlord. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. Therefore, a payment of £300 that recognised the length of time it took to complete repairs and the delay in offering the resident temporary toilet facilities was reasonable in the circumstances. The measures taken by the landlord to address what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
  4. It was also reasonable for the landlord to offer a £450 goodwill gesture towards the purchase of a new living room carpet and arrange to have it fitted. A tenant would normally be expected to claim on their own contents insurance for damage to their personal items from an issue which had not been directly caused by the landlord’s actions, as set out in the tenancy agreement. The repair logs for the property do not show any reports from the resident about issues with leaks or poor drainage prior to January 2021, therefore there is no evidence that the damage the leak caused was as a result of inaction by the landlord. However, as there was no dispute that the leak had damaged the living room carpet and the landlord had previously recognised the length of time the repair took to be completed was longer than it normally expected, it was appropriate for the landlord to contribute to the costs of replacing the carpet as part of its compensation offer.
  5. The resident has also requested further compensation to cover the costs of replacing the carpets in the hallway and dining room, and the costs for redecoration. This was declined by the landlord on the grounds that there is no evidence that any damage was caused to these areas as a result of the repairs and the hallway carpet and redecoration was completed before it was given the chance to inspect the area. The landlord also explained that it had interviewed the manager overseeing the work who had stated that the hallway carpet was covered while repairs were ongoing. Therefore, the landlord’s position of declining compensation for this element of the complaint was reasonable. No evidence has been provided to show any damage to the areas highlighted by the resident and it was not given the opportunity to inspect the areas to determine if any damage had occurred and put to right any damage that it found. Unlike the condition of the living room carpet, where it was not in dispute that it had been damaged by the leak from the pipe, there is no corroborating evidence that shows damage to the other areas of the house highlighted by the resident were as a result of the leak or the actions of the landlord’s staff members or contractors. The landlord is therefore under no obligation to compensate the resident through its complaint process.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of the level of compensation it offered following a water leak in the resident’s property which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. As the finding of reasonable redress was made based on the landlord’s offer of £300 compensation, it is recommended that this is now paid to the resident it has not already been paid.