Citizen Housing (202002427)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002427

Citizen Housing

25 February 2021

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 landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint and request for compensation for an increased water bill.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. According to the landlord’s records, the resident contacted it by telephone on 15 January 2020 to report that the cistern in her toilet was continuously running. The resident also made a compensation claim for her increased water bill. The landlord told the resident that as it had only been made aware of the leak on that day, it would not be liable to pay for the increased water bill.
4. The landlord sent the resident acknowledgment of her complaint and compensation claim on the same day. It explained that it would only be liable to pay the increase in charges if it had been negligent in fulfilling its legal responsibilities.  Therefore, it would have to have directly caused the leak or failed to respond to her reports of it. It advised the resident that she was responsible for purchasing her own home contents insurance policy, as per the tenancy agreement, and this would cover claims for when the landlord had acted negligently.
5. The landlord arranged for its contractor to attend the property and fix the leak on the same day that it was notified of the matter.
6. On 17 January 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that the flush mechanism on her toilet was not working. Two contractors attended the property on the day and fitted new flush valves in the upstairs and downstairs toilets.
7. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 24 January 2020. It discovered a leak in the downstairs toilet which was then resolved on 27 January.
8. On 27 January 2020 the landlord issued its response to the resident’s complaint and compensation claim. It repeated what it had previously said about liability. It said that it had reviewed the case and could not find any indication of negligence and therefore would not uphold her complaint.
9. The landlord advised the resident of what action she could take if she was struggling to pay her water bill. It also offered “support and advice on bills, budgeting and benefits”. It provided a “compensation claim investigation report”, which detailed the chronology of events from when the resident reported the toilet problem. The investigation concluded that this had been the resident’s first report of an issue since she had moved into the property.
10. On 28 January 2020 the operative who attended the resident’s property on 15 January clarified with the landlord what action it had taken. He said that he had discovered that the flush valve was not shutting correctly on the upstairs and downstairs toilet, so he fixed both of them.
11. On 14 February 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that she would obtain written proof that her bill had “never been as high as it was during the issue with the toilet”. She said that she should not be held responsible for this problem.
12. On 31 March 2020 the resident contacted the landlord again. She said that she had been informed by her water provider that as her water bill was still outstanding, she should contact her landlord as she did not consider herself responsible for the increase. She said that an operative from her water provider had visited her property and advised that she had “water escapage”. She did not explain when this visit had happened. She said that although the landlord had said it was only responsible for an issue once it had been reported, she did not understand how she could report something that she did not know was occurring.
13. The resident explained that the individual who had attended the property on 15 January 2020 to initially repair the toilet had “blamed [her] child for the way he flushed the toilet”. However, she said that her child had been flushing the same way for the preceding five years and there had been no problems. She said that it was an “invalid” and a “rude” comment to make. 
14. She said that she had only learnt about the issue with the toilet upon receiving a letter from her water provider. She said that several of the landlord’s staff members had subsequently said that she “would never have known” about the issue so could not be responsible for it. She acknowledged that she was responsible for reporting repairs, but said that the landlord was responsible for plumbing issues.
15. On 21 May 2020 the landlord issued its final response. It reiterated that it could not be held liable for costs incurred from a leak before it had been aware of such an issue. It said that it could only be deemed as liable if it had caused the leak or had failed to respond to the report correctly and it had done neither.
16. It said that despite the additional information provided by the resident, it could not agree with her claim that it was liable for the increased water bill. It acknowledged that the resident had said she was unaware of any leak, and that she had not used extra water, but said that this did not support her claim of negligence on the landlord’s behalf.
17. The landlord concluded by explaining how the resident could approach this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

18. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that a tenant should report any repairs to the landlord. Upon being made aware of an issue, the landlord is then obligated to respond to repairs that fall under its remit in line with the timeframes stipulated it in its repairs policy. Failure to act accordingly once it has been notified of an outstanding repair may constitute as a failing by the landlord and could result in compensation being offered to the resident.
19. It is understandable that the resident sought to be compensated for the increased water bill, as she did not believe it had been caused by any direct damage or action by herself. Similarly, the landlord was also unaware of this problem until 15 January 2020. Its repair obligations commenced once it is made aware of such an issue; therefore, costs incurred beforehand would not be expected to be its responsibility. If the leak had been the result of previous unsuccessful repair work, then there would have been an argument to hold the landlord accountable for the increased water bill. However, from the evidence provided for this investigation, there is no indication that the leak was a direct result of any work conducted by the landlord. Instead, the resident first notified the landlord of a problem with her toilet on 15 January. The landlord responded immediately in an attempt to resolve the situation. Although the initial repair was unsuccessful and subsequent work was needed, the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its obligations once the report had been received.
20. The landlord maintained that it did not consider itself responsible for the increased water bill throughout the entirety of the resident’s compensation claim. It explained why it did not consider itself to have acted out of line with its obligations, and on what grounds it could have been deemed negligent. It offered the resident advice, and suggested options she could discuss with her water provider. It kept the resident informed and managed her expectations for the duration of the complaint. Although the resident remained dissatisfied with the response, the landlord had closely examined her complaint and explained why it would not provide compensation. 
21. It has to be noted that the increased water bill, on its own, could have been due to a range of different causes. Nothing presented for this investigation demonstrates a clear or sole link to the problem with the toilet.
22. Overall, nothing in the evidence indicates that the leak and subsequent increased water bill was a result of any action or inaction by the landlord. Likewise, nothing suggests that the resident acted in a way which might have led to the increased water bill, and the resident said that she had been told by various individuals that she was not responsible for the problem. However, if the problem was not caused by the resident, it does not automatically follow that the landlord must therefore be at fault, especially when the link between the toilet problem and the increased water bill is not wholly clear. Because of that, the landlord’s response to the resident was reasonable. 

Determination (decision)

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord’s in its response to the resident’s complaint and request for compensation for an increased water bill.