Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Islington Council (202328211)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328211

Islington Council

5 November 2024

 

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 how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident lets a property privately to 2 tenants. The property is a flat within a block. The landlord owns and lets the flat above the resident’s.
  2. On 2 July 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that water was leaking into his property from either the flat above or a communal pipe. On 3 July 2023 he called and emailed the landlord and asked it to resolve this. The resident advises that the landlord said he would have to wait until the following day for it to attend. He then enlisted an emergency plumber later in the evening of 3 July 2023, and the tenant of the flat above allowed them access to complete a temporary repair which stopped the leak.
  3. The landlord raised a works order to investigate the leak on 4 July 2023 but was unable to access the flat above. The resident made a complaint on the same day. He complained that he had been forced to enlist a private plumber on 3 July 2023 to stop the leak because the landlord had refused to act. He explained this had cost him £610 and asked the landlord to reimburse him for this. On 5 July 2023 the landlord raised a works order for a plumber and carpenter to force entry to the flat to investigate the leak, but it cancelled this once it realised the resident had resolved the leak himself.
  4. On 20 July 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged that it had delayed in acting on his report and that it should have raised an urgent repair to “make safe” the leak on 3 July 2023. It apologised for this delay and asked the resident to supply his invoice from the private plumber.
  5. On 21 July 2023 the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He explained that he had only enlisted the private plumber due to the landlord’s refusal to send out a contractor. He also supplied the invoice and reiterated that he wanted it to reimburse him. The landlord attended the flat above his on 17 August 2023 and completed a permanent repair on the wash basin where the leak originated from.
  6. On 7 September 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It advised that it was still investigating whether it would reimburse him for the cost of the private plumber and would be in touch when it had decided. The resident was not satisfied with this and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 20 October 2023. In a phone call with the Ombudsman he advised that since sending another copy of the plumber’s invoice to the landlord in November 2023 it had not contacted him. To resolve his complaint, he would like the landlord to reimburse him £610.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property.

  1. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sets out that the landlord is responsible for keeping water supply facilities in good working order in properties it rents under short leases like assured or secure tenancy agreements. The resident’s occupancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for keeping communal water pipes in working order.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs issues within 2 hours. These are defined as when there is an immediate danger to a person or risk of serious ongoing damage to the property. Serious leaks are noted as an example of such an issue. It goes on to state that when such issues are reported out of hours it will attend and “make safe” the situation. The policy defines urgent repairs as those which affect a tenant’s day-to-day living including heating or being without hot water. It states it will attend these issues within 24 hours.
  3. On 2 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and reported that a leak was coming through his ceiling. He explained it seemed as if it was coming from the flat above, or from pipes in between both properties. He noted in the email that he had also phoned the emergency repairs team but that it did not answer. The landlord has not supplied any call records with the resident or his tenants, and so there is no objective evidence available for us to verify this. However, we can see the resident sent the landlord a significant volume of emails over the 48 hours following this to try and resolve things. Given the persistence with which he attempted to progress things over email, we consider it likely that he did attempt to report the leak to the emergency team.
  4. The resident has advised that he and his tenants then made several calls to the landlord throughout the day on 3 July 2023, but it declined to send a plumber to investigate. There are no records of these calls. However, an internal email exchange from the landlord acknowledges that the resident called and reported the leak on 3 July 2023, but that it had failed to get back in touch with him as agreed. At this stage the resident did not know whether the leak was coming from the flat above or a communal pipe.
  5. However, the Landlord and Tenant Act and his occupancy agreement together entail that the landlord was responsible for addressing the leak in both instances. Given he had reported that the leak was worsening and spreading into different rooms, the landlord should have logged this report and raised works to address it as an emergency repair. It then should have attended the property to “make safe” the leak within 2 hours. It failed to do so, and we recognise why the resident at this stage began to consider taking matters into his own hands to stop the leak.
  6. At 8pm on 3 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to explain that the leak was continuing to worsen, and that the tenant upstairs had refused to engage with him about it. He asked the landlord to take urgent action, however, there is no evidence the landlord responded to this. At some point after this on the night of 3 July 2023 the resident hired an emergency plumber, and the upstairs tenant allowed them to access their flat. The plumber fixed the leak by replacing a section of the hot water pipe and charged the resident £610.
  7. The landlord should have attempted to access this flat on 3 July 2023 as per its policy. It also failed to provide any timescales to the resident for when it might do so, and we recognise why this further inclined the resident to address it himself. The resident had a responsibility to protect his tenants and the property from any further damage. With this in mind, we consider he acted reasonably by addressing the leak himself following the landlord’s failure to address the issue within the timescales set out in its policy.
  8. On 4 July 2023 the landlord attempted to access the flat above to investigate the leak, but the tenant did not allow it access. The resident made a complaint on the same day and asked the landlord to reimburse him £610. The landlord raised a works order on 5 July 2023 to force entry to the flat on 10 July 2023 to investigate the leak, but cancelled this once the resident’s tenant advised it the following day that he had resolved the leak already. On 20 July 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It apologised for failing to “make safe” the leak when it was first notified on 3 July 2023. It also asked the resident to provide the invoice from the plumber.
  9. On 21 July 2023 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 and provided the invoice. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 September 2023 and advised it had “not upheld” his complaint, because it was still considering whether to reimburse him his costs. Following this there is no evidence of any further communication between both parties. The resident advises that he sent an email chasing a response in November 2023. However, we have not seen any evidence of this. There is also no evidence that the landlord has considered the invoice at any stage or whether to reimburse him the costs. This is disappointing given it had agreed to do so, and it is unclear why it has to-date still not done so. We consider this has likely caused the resident frustration and inconvenience.
  10. Ultimately, the landlord failed to act appropriately to address the leak, and we consider the resident was therefore left with little choice but to pay an emergency plumber to do so. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies sets out that, where possible, an appropriate remedy should put the resident (or leaseholder) back in the position they would have been in but for the landlord’s failure. Had the landlord attended the flat above on 3 July 2023, or at least given a timescale for when it would attend, it is likely the resident would not have been compelled to enlist the private plumber at cost to himself. Therefore, to put this right, we will order the landlord to reimburse him these costs.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it will address stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It explains that, if it is unable to do so, it will update the resident and explain the delay.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that landlords must decide whether an extension to these timescales is needed when considering the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for a response. Any extension must be no more than 20 working days without good reason, and the reasons must be clearly explained to the resident.
  3. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 4 July 2023 and the landlord responded on 20 July 2023, which was 2 working days late. Given how slight this delay was, it would not be proportionate to describe this as service failure. He escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 21 July 2023 and the landlord responded on 7 September 2023. This was 14 working days past the timescales in the landlord’s policy, and there is no indication it updated him on the reasons for the delay. We consider this likely caused the resident some frustration.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 response then failed to address the resident’s request for reimbursement, despite him first raising this on 4 July 2023. It is unclear why the landlord was still considering whether it would provide this since it has not provided any records related to this consideration. We recognise that sometimes a landlord may have to take longer than 20 working days to reach a decision on some issues. However, in these instances we expect them to set out clear timescales for when it will have reached a decision. In this instance, the landlord had not reached a decision 14 working days past its timescale but sent the stage 2 response out regardless. It then failed to give any indication as to when the resident could expect a decision. This was not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and we consider it has likely caused the resident frustration and inconvenience. For this reason, we will order it pays compensation to put this right.
  5. The Ombudsman’s guidance on compensation sets out that payments between £100 and £600 are typically sufficient to put right failures which have adversely, but not permanently, affected a complainant. We consider that a payment at the lower end of this scale is sufficient to put right the frustration these complaint handling omissions caused. While this likely caused some frustration and inconvenience, it would not be reasonable to describe this impact as particularly severe, especially since we cannot see that the resident spent much time chasing any update following the stage 2 response. With this in mind, we will order the landlord pays him £125 to put this right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is to reimburse the resident £610 for the costs he incurred in hiring a plumber to fix the leak.
  2. The landlord is to pay the resident £125 for its complaint handling omissions.