Brighton Housing Trust (202000807)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000807

Brighton Housing Trust

20 April 2021 (amended 6 August 2021 following review)

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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the water installation at the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a one bedroom second floor flat in a building comprising of 24 self-contained flats. The tenancy start date was 10 October 2016.
3. The landlord’s complaints procedure, as outlined on its website, provides for a two stage complaints process, with a 20 day response timescale at stage one and no published timescale at stage two.
4. The tenancy agreement provides an obligation for the landlord to repair installations provided by the landlord for space, heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas, electricity, including: Baths, sinks, basins, toilets, flushing system and waste pipes; electric wiring including sockets and switches, gas pipes and water pipes. This is in accordance with the landlord’s obligations under The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
5. The landlord’s Repairs Policy provides that all emergency repairs will be dealt with within 24 hours, urgent repairs within four to seven days and routine repairs within 28 days.

Summary of events

6.   On 16 October 2019, the resident sent an extensive email to the landlord to outline issues she said that she had experienced due to water leakage at the property, which had resulted in her receiving high utility bills. She said that she had experienced issues with her water bills since the beginning of her tenancy, with the bills at a level equivalent to the water usage of 3 or 4 people, despite her being the only resident. She said that she had taken steps to lower her usage, yet her bills remained high. She also said that the water company had identified a constant drip that was overfilling the water tank repeatedly.
7.   The resident further stated in her email of 16 October 2019, that she had reported the issue to the landlord, following which it had attended the property (date not specified), investigated and concluded that there was nothing wrong. The resident also said that the landlord’s operative had bent the ballcock to stop the drip. Following the landlord operative’s visit, the resident had appointed a plumber to attend, who had identified that the water meter continued to move, even when the water was switched off. The plumber had also said to the resident that the landlord operative ought not to have bent the ballcock’s position and that this may have worsened the issue.
8.   The resident also reported that, following the above visits to the property, the landlord had contacted her as there was water damage starting to show in a downstairs flat. It had attended the property and concluded that there was no leaks at the property at that time. A further month after this, she received another landlord visit as the downstairs property was again showing water damage – following this visit, the landlord had identified a hole in the resident’s water pump, from which water was pouring constantly. The resident questioned why this constant flow of water had not been identified by previous visits and whether her water works were in fact attached to neighbouring properties.
9.   On 23 March 2020, the landlord scheduled an inspection of the water meter to check whether adjoining properties were linked to her meter.
10. On 29 April 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to state that bills she had sent appeared consistent with water usage since she moved in, though it suggested she question her latest bill with her water company as it showed a significant drop in water usage. The landlord informed the resident that it could not see any reason why it ought to cover the costs of her water. It also noted that the resident had not made any payment since 2018 and stated that even though the resident was disputing the bill, she should still make payments towards her usage. The landlord asked the resident to send a complaint form if she disagreed with its findings, upon which she could also make a claim for compensation.
11. On 3 June 2020, the resident made a stage one complaint to landlord. In her complaint, she stated that she had experienced water issues dating back to beginning of tenancy, including high bills. She said that she had periods of time without any water coming from her hot taps at all. She said that her water pump had been changed numerous times and eventually failed leaving her without water again. She also complained about the extractor fans from the top floor flats dripping water from the roof – an issue she said that she had reported three years prior but remained unresolved. She also said that she suffers with severe anxiety which had been explained to the landlord numerous times by her mother and that, as a result, any landlord visits would need to be pre-arranged. However, she stated that landlord operatives would often turn up unannounced and knock on her door numerous times the same morning, causing her to experience panic attacks. She also said that she had contacted the landlord on multiple occasions regarding these issues, but that her emails and phone calls had been ignored.
12. Internal landlord correspondence dated 10 June 2020 stated that the resident’s partner had moved into the property around May 2017 and that the resident’s usage from then until October 2019 was consistent for a two-person household. The landlord had then fitted a shower to the property, which might explain increased usage from that point. The landlord noted that its surveyor had checked in conjunction with the water company and confirmed that the water meter was not running when the water supply had been switched off. It also identified that the resident had not paid the balance on her bills, leaving arrears of £810.12, including a charge for debt collection. The landlord said that it had identified a faulty water pump in May 2019, which it had then replaced in August 2019, the delay at least in part relating to a difficulty in accessing the property to carry out works.
13. The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 22 June 2020. It said that its maintenance supervisor had visited the property and that it had also consulted the water company as part of its complaint investigation. The water company had confirmed that the property and the neighbouring properties each had separate pipework supplying respective water supply to each self-contained unit and that all meters were running fine. The landlord broke down the resident’s bills from 16 November 2017 to 31 March 2020 and identified nothing untoward – It stated that the resident had not kept up with the payments and had only paid £150 towards the overall costs, resulting in the large bill which the resident was disputing. There was no evidence that the pump at the property had caused the flood into a neighbouring flat and on 6 August 2019 when contractors attended, they were not able to gain access but were informed the bath had overflowed. The resident’s pump had been checked and replaced on 7 August 2019. Regarding the resident’s reports that the landlord had not responded to her communication, the landlord said that it had not identified any voicemails and apologised if all her emails had not been responded to. The landlord also asked the resident to specify what she was claiming for if she was requesting compensation.
14. On 26 June 2020 and 29 June 2020, the resident requested to escalate her complaint to Stage Two by email. She expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome of the Stage One of the complaints process. She also requested the landlord to pay for water which she felt she had been billed for by her water company but had not received due to the landlord’s ‘faulty plumbing and negligence’.
15. On the 31 July 2020, the landlord provided a stage two and final response. The stage one decision was upheld – the landlord stated that relevant procedures had been followed, and the stage one investigation had been conducted in an appropriate manner. The landlord confirmed that the resident had exhausted the complaints procedure of the landlord.
16. On the 2 October 2020, the resident’s complaint came within the formal remit of the Ombudsman when she confirmed that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her request for repairs to be undertaken at the property and the outstanding bill charges.

Assessment and findings

17. The scope of an Ombudsman investigation is limited to issues that were raised by the resident with the landlord in a reasonable timeframe. It is evident that the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord primarily focussed on what she considered to be excessive water bills at the property, an issue that was investigated and responded to through the landlord’s complaints procedure. Whilst this issue has been considered below, it is of concern that there is no evidence of a landlord response to additional issues raised by the resident as part of the formal complaint, specifically a lack of hot water at the property for extended periods and a concern about water leakage from extractor fans from neighbouring properties. As these issues were not explicitly raised as points of dissatisfaction when the resident escalated her complaint with the landlord, they have not been addressed here. The landlord has the option of providing its position on these issues as doing so will offer transparency and reassurance to the resident on these issues. The resident can also choose to progress these issues through the landlord’s complaints process for further consideration.
18. It is also of concern that the landlord’s complaints procedure, as detailed on their website at the time of writing, does not comply with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (housing-ombudsman.org.uk), which came into effect in January 2021. The code includes  prescribed timescales for responses at each stage of a landlord’s complaints process, timescales that differ from those detailed in the landlord’s online complaints policy. In this specific case, no issues have been identified with the landlord’s complaints handling. Nonetheless, it is recommended that the landlord review its complaints policy in light of the code and make any necessary amendments.
19. It is evident that issues were both reported to the landlord by the resident and independently identified by the landlord in relation to the water installations at the property and the neighbouring properties within the block. The landlord’s investigation of its repair responsibilities identified that, whilst there were issues within the property itself, there was no evidence of any service failures in how it responded to them. It acknowledged that there had been a delay in replacing a faulty water pump in August 2019, but referred to access issues that contributed to this delay. It also identified that the faulty water pump had not resulted in a failure of water supply at the property.
20. The landlord also addressed the resident’s concerns that its operative had potentially caused a problem with the water supply when a ballcock was bent as a temporary fix to the supply, stating that its operative had acted appropriately. The Ombudsman is not in a position to consider the merits of the operative’s actions in light of the issue that they were looking to address as this Service does not have the technical knowledge to assess such actions.
21. The main focus of the resident’s complaint related to water supply charges, that she believed were significantly in excess of the amount she expected given the size of her household. The landlord’s response to these concerns was reasonable – it analysed the bills provided and identified that the usage was, in the main, consistent with expectations for a household the resident’s size. To this end, the landlord identified that there was a period during which the resident had not lived alone, resulting in a likely increase in water usage. It also identified that the installation of a shower at the property would likely have increased usage and that there was the potential for an issue with more recent bills that showed a significant reduction in usage compared to what might have been expected.
22. The landlord also consulted the water company, who confirmed that, there were no issues with how water meters were running within the building, the water meter for the property was not continuing to register usage when the supply was switched off and individual properties were not linked through their respective water supplies. The landlord’s response therefore addressed these specific concerns that had been raised by the resident. Whilst the resident might not agree with the landlord’s position here, there is no evidence to contradict the landlord’s overall response. It was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to the water company, with whom she had a contractual agreement for any water usage. It was also reasonable, having identified that the resident had not made payments towards her water bill, for the landlord to alert the resident to the possible issue relating to her reduced usage and to signpost her towards its tenancy sustainment team.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the water installation at the property.

Reasons

There is no evidence that the resident’s water usage, whether excessive or otherwise, related to any service failures on the part of the landlord. As such, the landlord’s decision to not make any financial contribution to these charges was appropriate. Having identified that there was a significant water bill outstanding, it was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to the water company and to its tenancy sustainment team.

Recommendation

The landlord to review its complaints policy, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code.

Additional recommendations following review

The landlord to provide the details of the inspection it carried out in or around March 2020 to consider whether the water supply continued to run when the water supply at the property was switched off. In the event that this inspection did not take place, a further inspection to be scheduled.

The landlord to make contact with the water company to discuss responsibility for ensuring that any joint supply issues are identified within the building. The landlord to then act upon any recommendations that result from this liaison.