Halton Housing (202105167)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201911759

Halton Housing

14 February 2022


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 landlords handling of the resident’s reports concerning toilet repair issues.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant and of a one-bedroom bungalow since March 2019.
  2. The tenancy agreement notes it will keep in repair and working order the installations for sanitation including toilets (but not the toilet seat), flushing systems and waste pipes.
  3. The repairs policy notes it will aim to complete the majority of repairs right first time. As a rule, its first principle will be to repair rather than replace.

Summary of events

  1. On 14 December 2020, the landlord raised a repair noting the resident believed there was an issue with the toilet cistern as it was making noises.
  2. On 17 December 2020, a plumber attended and repaired the toilet, records noted actions taken had been ‘overhaul WC’. The resident contacted the repairs team following the plumber leaving, noting the continuous flushing noise continued. A priority visit was booked, and the plumber returned hours later to rectify the issue.
  3. The resident complained later that day stating following the plumber attending to repair her toilet flushing system, the washer was changed, and the plumber flushed the toilet and left the property without checking if the system shut down after flushing. She complained that the flushing noise had not stopped since and the water was trickling from the system continuously into the toilet bowl. She noted that the sound usually took 1 minute 5 seconds to refill but now the noise was constant. She advised it was an inconvenience to have the plumber have to reattend. She noted the plumber (with another operative) adjusted the system, but it still flushed as long as before, and the pressure did not seem as strong. She advised that following the works, the plumber had left bits of dust and dirt around the rim of the toilet. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day.
  4. On 5 January 2021, the landlord responded at stage 1 and did not uphold the complaint. It noted the plumber had attended the initial repair and changed the required part, leaving the toilet in working condition. It noted following her further reports the plumber had reattended with another operative and had confirmed the flushing system took 65 seconds to fill compared to 45 seconds it previously took, however the toilet was still in good working order, although taking slightly longer to fill. It noted that both the plumber and operative had confirmed the area had been cleaned following the job and no dirt or dust had been left behind.
  5. On 5 February 2021, the resident raised the issue with the noise coming from flushing the toilet and that it was now taking 114 seconds to refill.
  6. On 10 February 2021, an operative attended and fitted a new flush, noting this now took 40 seconds, records note the work as ‘fitted new flush’. The resident advised she was content with the fix and subsequently complained that the previous plumber had not replaced the old part hence why the noise continued, however it had been changed this time round and the time taken to fill the toilet system was normal again. The resident questioned why the previous plumber had not completed the work as advised. The resident provided pictures of the old parts which had been removed.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the escalation, and a panel meeting was booked for 1 March 2021.
  8. The resident chose not to attend the meeting scheduled via video link, given her concerns of how she had been treated by the landlord in the past. The landlord apologised she felt this way and advised the meeting would go ahead but for to submit any further information she wanted considered. The resident submitted further correspondence in support of her complaint on 25 February, reiterating her previous concerns.
  9. On 3 March, the landlord provided its response. It noted in line with its repairs policy it had attempted to complete a repair rather than automatically replace parts to resolve issues. It noted at no time was she left without a working toilet. It noted on the third visit it was decided that replacing the part was reasonable given the previous two repair attempts. It appreciated her belief that three visits were excessive but stated it had acted in line with its repairs policy. It noted its notes relating to the first 2 visits could have been more detailed, but there were no further actions necessary.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied and referred the complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident complained about an issue with her toilet flushing system and the landlord attended shortly after. In line with the landlord’s repairs policy a repair was undertaken to the toilet and the operative left this in working condition. Given that the noise continued once the operative had left, following the resident’s further report, the landlord arranged for the operative to return on the same day and this was reasonable.
  2. The landlord has accepted that the time taken to refill the toilet had increased following the repair. Whilst this may have posed an inconvenience to the resident, the toilet was in working condition and therefore the Ombudsman cannot deem that there was service failure on the landlord’s part.
  3. Given that over time the noise continued, and the time taken to flush increased, it was reasonable that the resident raised the matter again. In line with the repairs policy the landlord’s operative attended and replaced the part. Given that there had been previous attempts to repair the toilet, it was now reasonable that a replacement took place. This was in line with the landlord’s policy that it would attempt to repair prior to replace.
  4. The Ombudsman does note that confusion was caused by the landlord in its initial complaint response when it noted that the parts had been replaced, when in actual fact it had been ‘overhauled’ (refurbished). Whilst this error was noted, it was clear in the landlord’s records that a replacement had not been made at the first 2 visits which occurred on the same day, but rather at the later visit in February, which resolved all issues.
  5. Whilst the resident would have preferred the landlord carry out replacement work immediately, in line with its policy carrying out a repair initially was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning toilet repair issues.

Reasons

  1. The landlord attended and attempted to repair the issue but following further reports parts were then replaced. This was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy and at no time was the resident left without a working toilet.