Brighton and Hove City Council (202208056)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208056

Brighton and Hove City Council

31 May 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 where 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 is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s bathroom and his subsequent request for compensation following a leak to the property.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident reported a leak in his bathroom on 14 January 2022 reporting water ingress into his home from the hallway where a water tank is located. He reported water damage to the bathroom, its floor coverings, walls, and hallway floor. He reported that the hallway and kitchen vinyl floor coverings were also warping due to the water.
4. The landlord attended on 15 February 2022. It noted damp and heavy water saturation in and around the bathroom and the surrounding area from an unidentified leak. It explained this would require drying out before it could conduct a visual inspection to locate the leak.
5. The landlord’s plumber attended on 25 February 2022 for repairs. The operative attributed the water ingress to adaptations to the bathroom, as tiles did not reach all the way from the bath to the ceiling, causing water to ingress in the dry wall behind. He confirmed that dehumidifiers were in place and in use.
6. The landlord attended on several occasions throughout April 2022 to inspect the bathroom and hallway flooring, before tracing the leak to the resident’s water tank in the hallway, and stopping it on 13 April. A new leak was reported on 25 April, the cause of which it was unable to verify, but it agreed that more time was required to let the areas dry before works to restore the bathroom and hallway flooring could begin. The resident’s toilet and bath were reinstated on 27 April. The landlord carried out a further investigation on 4 May, but no further leaks were found.
7. The resident raised a complaint on 23 May 2022, stating that he did not have full access to his bathroom and that the repair delays were affecting his mental and physical health and wellbeing. He requested that the landlord cover the £300 increase to his water utility bill, which he attributed to the delays in identifying the leak. He also raised concerns that his floor coverings in the bathroom and hallway were now damaged.
8. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 8 June 2022. It confirmed a timeline of events to the resident, and said that works to seal and make the bath watertight, replace the hallway flooring, tiling and wall repairs would be completed on 14 and 16 June 2022 respectively. It declined to reimburse the resident’s water utility costs, as it disputed that there was a leak in the property, attributing the water ingress instead to the resident’s shower adaptations.
9. The resident escalated his complaint the same day, disputing the landlord’s decision. He attributed the leak and water ingress solely to the water tank in his hallway cupboard. He was frustrated that the repairs to the property were still outstanding, and wanted the landlord to consider a rent reduction for the period he was without a working bathroom. The landlord confirmed in its communications to this Service that all repairs to the bathroom were completed on 1 July 2022.
10. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 12 October 2022. It said that it had changed its view on the resident’s increased water costs. It reviewed his bills and offered £225 compensation towards his costs. It apologised to the resident for the delays in its complaint response, offering £50 compensation. It said it would not reduce the resident’s rent, as it attributed the initial repair period to the water ingress caused by the resident’s adaptations. It said it agreed to replace the floor coverings, but this would need to be arranged separately with the resident.
11. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to offer a rent reduction and brought his complaint to this Service. Additionally, he said his request for increased compensation for the electrical costs of running the dehumidifiers had been overlooked.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. The resident, in his communications to this Service, has requested for legal fees to be compensated as part of his complaint. However, in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service is unable to consider legal aspects of a complaint, which are more appropriately considered through the courts. As such, this aspect is outside the scope of this report.
13. In an email to the landlord following its final complaint response the resident referred to paintwork repair which he said was not yet complete. It is not apparent if the resident intended this issue to be part of the Ombudsman’s investigation. Nonetheless, this particular matter has not been raised as a formal complaint with the landlord, which is what the resident would need to do before the Ombudsman could potentially investigate it.

Policies and procedures

14. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, it is required to make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours. Routine repairs are to be completed within 20 working days. The policy acknowledges that complex repairs may take longer, but does not specify a timeframe. It says that floor coverings are a resident’s responsibility to maintain and replace.
15. In accordance with its compliments and complaints policy, the landlord is required to respond to all stage one complaints within ten working days. When a complaint is escalated, it is required to issue its final response within 20 working days. When an extension is required, the landlord is to contact the resident providing both a reason for the delay and when next to expect a response.

Landlord’s handling of the repairs and the resident’s request for compensation

16. In line with its repairs policy, the landlord should have respond to the resident’s report of a leak on 14 January 2022 by attending and assessing the water ingress and any potential damage and completing routine repairs within 20 working days. In this case it attended on 15 February, two days over the 20-day target. Nothing in the evidence suggests the resident’s leak report should have been considered an emergency. Accordingly, the landlord’s initial repair response was delayed, but not significantly.
17. The resident disputed that his bathroom adaptations contributed to the damp and water ingress within his bathroom. The landlord’s repair records clearly state the operative’s view on this. While acknowledging the resident’s different view, it was reasonable for the landlord to accept its operative’s opinion. In the circumstances, it was also reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to take action to address the tiling problem at the centre of the issue.
18. In its effort to identify and resolve the leak the landlord investigated multiple times, stripped the bathroom walls, bath, and floor coverings, and removed the hallway flooring for a visual inspection. It appropriately referred to a damp specialist, requesting a drainage report, which contributed to the repair time. While the time taken to fully resolve the issue was long (14 January to 13 April), nothing in the evidence indicates these were inappropriate actions, or that there was some clear action the landlord could have taken to resolve the leak issue sooner.
19. As part of his complaint, the resident requested that the landlord consider his water utility bills. The landlord acted reasonably in its final complaint response by reversing its stage one decision, considering the information the resident provided, and offering £225 compensation towards the bill.
20. The resident needed to use dehumidifiers to help dry out the affected areas and allow for the repairs. In a supporting letter from his MP to the landlord in June 2022 the MP explained the resident was facing increased electricity usage and costs. However, it does not appear that supporting evidence was provided, in the same way it had been for the resident’s increased water usage. Accordingly, at that point there was nothing for the landlord to consider. A recommendation is made below to address this.
21. As part of his complaint, the resident asked the landlord consider a rent reduction, saying that he could not use the bathroom facilities. He had explained that due to his disability he needed to use a shower and could not use the bath. There is no automatic right to a rent reduction because of repairs, but when given such a request a landlord would be expected to consider a loss of utility, or room, where that room would be considered uninhabitable, or completely unusable over a protracted period of time, and compensate accordingly if it agreed that a loss of use had occurred.
22. It is not in the Ombudsman’s remit to say definitely whether repairs caused a loss of use of a home, or part of it. In this case, the landlord considered the resident’s request, and explained that as the repair issues were not due to any fault of its own, it would not provide a rent reduction. That decision was not reasonable because the question of responsibility for the cause of the damp and/or leak was not the only aspect that should have been considered. The resident’s actual loss of use of the bathroom, or at least some of its functions should also have been considered, especially in light of his particular disability circumstances, in order to make a fair and robust decision. Not doing so meant that his complaint was not fully considered in its entirety and was a failing.

Complaint handling 

23. The landlord, in accordance with its compliments and complaints policy, was required to reply to the resident’s complaint raised on 23 May 2022 within ten working days. It issued its stage one formal response on 8 June 2022, within its policy stipulated timescales.
24. However, the landlord significantly exceeded its 20-working day target for the resident’s escalated complaint (8 June to 12 October). This resulted in the resident chasing the landlord on several occasions throughout his complaint in June, September, and October, causing additional frustration as well as time and trouble spent pursuing his complaint.
25. The landlord acknowledged its delay, apologised, and offered £50 compensation. However, it did not update the resident about the delayed response until August 2022, or explain what it was doing to improve its complaint service.
26. This was an unreasonably lengthy and unexplained delay that was not communicated to the resident in a clear or transparent manner, as the landlord was obligated to within its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Accordingly, the £50 compensation offered by the landlord for the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing his complaint falls proportionately short.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s bathroom and his subsequent request for compensation following a leak to the property.
28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

29. Within four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £150 compensation for its failure to properly consider his request for a rent reduction.
    2. Pay the resident £100 for its poor complaint handling. These two payments are in addition to the reimbursement and compensation already offered by the landlord (£225 and £50 respectively), which should now also be paid. Evidence of these payments must be provided to this Service within four weeks of this report.
    3. Reconsider its decision not to offer a rent reduction and take into consideration all relevant aspects, including the time taken to respond to the initial leak report, the resident’s explanations of his circumstances, whether the bathroom facilities were usable or not, the time any facilities could not be used, and the steps the resident took to use alternatives. This reconsideration should include discussion with the resident about his experience. Evidence of this reconsideration, including a clear explanation for the decisions reached, must be provided to the resident and this Service within six weeks of this report.

Recommendation

30. The landlord should also invite the resident to provide evidence of his increased electricity usage over the period when the dehumidifiers were used and consider whether any reimbursement is appropriate based on the information he provides.