Kirklees Council (202322104)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322104

Kirklees Council

29 April 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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of leaks and the damage caused by those leaks.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy which started on 23 May 2016. The property is a three bedroom house. No vulnerabilities were reported or recorded at the start of the tenancy. However, the landlord has since acknowledged being made aware of vulnerabilities, including ‘a child with a disability’, in the household during the complaint process. 
3. The resident reported a leak around the toilet on 15 April 2023. The related works order was recorded as ‘no access’ later that day. The resident disputed that the engineer attended the property and was told that they would not attend again until the next day. The resident raised a stage one complaint that day about her experience. The leak was fixed the next day.
4. The resident reported further leaks from the bathroom over the next three months, which caused damage to the kitchen ceiling. A stage two complaint was raised around the landlord’s management of the leaks but the resident remained unhappy with the outcome of the complaint. 

Policies and Procedures

5. The landlord’s repair policy has three repair timeframes as detailed below:
   1. Instant response – Up to 4 hours – “Where there is immediate danger to the occupants or there is risk of further damage to the property”. 
   2. Emergency – Up to 2 working days – “Repairs that put the health, safety or security of our customers at risk but there is no immediate danger to the occupants or further serious damage to the property”.
   3. Responsive – Appointment to meet customer needs within 25 days – Encompasses all other repairs.
6. The landlord’s complaint policy utilises a two stage process as below:
   1. Stage one – Landlord should acknowledge complaint within 5 working days and provide a final response within 10 working days.
   2. Stage two – Landlord should acknowledge complaint within 5 working days and provide a final response within 20 working days. 

Summary of events

7. The resident reported a leak from the toilet around midday on 15 April 2023 and an emergency works order was raised by the landlord. The resident said that she called the landlord around 9pm and was told that it had been recorded as ‘no access’ at 8:05pm. During that call, she said she was told that the plumber had refused to return that day and the job would be attended the next day.
8. The resident emailed the landlord at 9:30pm and raised a complaint around the failed appointment. The resident disputed that the plumber had attended and said she had ‘CCTV proof’ that he had not attended. She indicated that this had caused her stress due to the bathroom floor being a mess.
9. The landlord’s repair log shows that on 16 April 2023, the plumber attended the property and fixed the leak. During the visit, the resident requested that the landlord attend again to investigate the bathroom for leaks.
10. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 April 2023 and explained that she wished to add to her complaint that she “was not happy with the attitude of the call out plumber and his refusal to return”. The landlord issued an acknowledgement of the complaint on the same day.
11. The landlord issued a stage one response on 25 April 2023. Within the response, it apologised for the failed appointment but said it had obtained tracker information for the plumber’s vehicle, which showed they had attended on 15 April 2023. The landlord said its records showed the repair as having been completed the next day and that they had since raised a request for an inspection of the bathroom and an appointment would be communicated to her in due course.
12. The resident emailed the landlord on 1 May 2023 and said that she was unable to open the stage one response but had received a call to arrange the inspection. She requested a change to the appointment, which had initially been scheduled for 3 May 2023.
13. The landlord’s repair log shows that the inspection took place on 6 June 2023.
14. Following the inspection, a team leader at the landlord reviewed the inspection notes and photographs and raised several repairs for the bathroom. These were added to the works order on 12 June 2023. A scheduler called the resident that day to arrange the works but noted that the resident was unhappy with the description of the proposed works.
15. The resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours service on 24 June 2023 to report a leak through her kitchen ceiling after the shower had been used. An operative attended and reported that there were “visible leaks on the pipework”. They requested follow on works to ensure the bath panel was fitted securely to prevent water from cascading under the bath and onto the ceiling below. The landlord recorded that an electrician was unable to access the property on two occasions that day, following reports of a smell from the fuseboard after the leak.
16. The repair log shows a works order being raised on 27 June 2023 to plaster the ceiling. The landlord said the resident refused these works.
17. The landlord arranged for an electrician to attend on 28 June 2023 due to concerns around the smoke alarm following the leak. The repair was completed that day.
18. On 30 June 2023, as part of the follow on works request, a joiner attended and fitted an end panel to the bath.
19. The remaining follow on works were scheduled for 17 July 2023 but the works order was closed as ‘no access’.
20. A further works order for the remaining follow on works was raised on 19 July 2023. This included the bath waste and pipe work being checked for leaks, renewing sealant around the bath, renewing a shower rail and retiling boxing around the bath. These works were completed on 26 July 2023.
21. The resident reported that the toilet was leaking into the kitchen each time it was flushed on 2 August 2023. The works order recorded a ‘no access’ at 11:30pm. The landlord said that the tracking information from the plumber’s vehicle confirmed attendance.
22. A plumber attended the property on 3 August 2023 and repaired the toilet.
23. The resident contacted a local councillor on 8 August 2023. The resident reported that there had been “three leaks from my toilet in the last two weeks causing leakage through to my kitchen”. She said that “they haven’t sorted the damage to the kitchen, the ceiling is ruined, as is my flooring in the bathroom”. She said that works orders were “raised as an emergency but it takes them two days to come and numerous phone calls, as they don’t turn up”. The resident claimed that she had raised complaints but “they just close them without my consent”. This was forwarded to the landlord on 11 August 2023.
24. The landlord issued an insurance claim form to the resident on 8 August 2023 for damage to the flooring.
25. A works order was raised on 9 August 2023 for an out of hours appointment to board the kitchen ceiling. The operative that attended reported that there was no active leak but requested a plumber attend to carry out a further inspection. A works order was raised on 10 August 2023 for an investigation into the leak.
26. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 August 2023 to escalate her complaint to stage two. The landlord noted that this was allocated for investigation on the same day.
27. A plumber attended on 14 August 2023 to investigate the leak and the works order was marked as completed that day.
28. The landlord contacted the resident on 17 August 2023 to acknowledge the complaint; a letter was also sent to acknowledge it. The resident provided the landlord with photographs of the kitchen ceiling and the flooring on the same day.
29. A works order was raised on 28 August 2023 to remove the toilet and renew the floor. The works order said “flooring is badly damaged and so is the joists”. The order noted that the tenant would be away until 9 September 2023.
30. A few minutes after the works order was raised, the resident emailed another complaint handler that she had dealt with previously and explained that the ceiling had still not been repaired. She added that when reporting a further leak earlier that day to the out of hours team, the operative said it was not an emergency and refused to send somebody out until the next day.
31. Another works order was raised shortly after the email was sent. This works order said “uncontainable leak – cannot turn off water supply”. Further detail said that water was leaking from the bathroom to the kitchen ceiling near the light fitting but the resident was told to call back when it started again as “not been able to locate where the leak is coming from”. This works order was completed around an hour later with a follow on works order being raised to “fit over bath shower screen”.
32. The landlord called the resident on 29 August 2023 and she raised the issue with the out of hours team operative. She reiterated that the initial operative dismissed her request as it was not an “emergency” but the second operative had raised the request and the issue was resolved. This was forwarded to the out of hours team manager, who listened to the call, agreed there had been a service failing and fed this back to the operative. The manager called the resident to explain his findings. It was noted “the tenant is happy with what we discussed”.
33. The landlord raised a works order on 12 September 2023 as part of the complaint investigation. This was to “remove the bath and wash hand basin so joiner can repair bathroom floor and return to refit”.
34. The landlord’s complaint system was noted on 14 September 2023 that either the landlord or contractor agreed for an operative to attend and complete the works to repair the floorboards during the week commencing 17 September 2023.
35. The landlord issued its stage two response on 15 September 2023 and apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused due to the water leaking in the property. The landlord acknowledged that there had been several recent visits to the property due to leaking water. It acknowledged that on one of the visits it had identified an issue with the toilet cistern that had caused leaking but this had been repaired. However, outside of that repair, the landlord said that it had not able to find an active leak and it felt that any leaks were caused by spillages from the bath or sink. The landlord confirmed that it would attend the property on 18 September 2023 to review the required works to repair the damage to the kitchen ceiling, with the work being completed at a later date. It also said it would be attending on 19 September 2023 to carry out the repair works to the bathroom floorboards, which had shown signs of water damage. It said that following the completion of that work, it would also carry out an inspection of the pipework to ensure that there were no leaks. The landlord explained that due to the age of the bathroom suite, it would not look to replace it, as per the resident’s request. 
36. The landlord’s repair logs show that the bathroom works were started on 19 September 2023 and completed on 20 September 2023, with the notes showing that no leaks were found following an inspection. The repair logs show that the inspection of the kitchen ceiling also took place on 19 September 2023, with the required works being completed on 27 September 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of leaks and the damage caused by the leaks.

37. The initial leak on 15 April 2023 was recorded as an emergency repair with an ‘up to two working day’ response time. The landlord attended and repaired the leak the day after it was reported, meaning it adhered to its repair policy timeframe. It is understandable that the resident would be disappointed with the failed appointment, as a broken toilet and an associated leak would cause concern in a family household. However, given that the landlord identified that the vehicle tracking information showed the operative to have attended, it cannot be considered a failing on the part of the landlord.   
38. As part of the initial response to the resident’s complaint on 25 April 2023, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange an inspection of the bathroom at the request of the resident. As there was no active leak at the time, it is understandable that this would have been arranged as a ‘responsive’ repair and completed within the 25 day timeframe. However, that inspection did not take place until 6 June 2023, some 42 days later. This is a service failing as it falls outside of the landlord’s standard timeframe and shows a lack of urgency around the resident’s concerns.
39. Given the nature of the complaint, the landlord should have inspected the bathroom for anything that could cause potential leaks. However, during that inspection, it failed to identify an issue with the bath end panel. This was later identified after a further leak on 24 June 2023 when follow on works were scheduled to “fit a wooden panel to the end of the bath to make it water tight”. This demonstrates that the inspection on 6 June 2023 was not thorough, as it failed to identify a potential cause of leaks in the bathroom. This was a further service failing which contributed to another leak and damage to the property as a result. This caused the resident further frustration in the damage caused to the property and the time and trouble experienced in getting it repaired. 
40. The landlord said that the resident refused works to plaster the kitchen ceiling around 27 June 2023, so it is understandable that there was a delay in completing this job. However, as it was aware of the requirement for the repair work, it should have taken further steps to pro-actively progress the required works. Although this was raised again on 9 August 2023, this was over a month after the initial work was refused and was only done so following further contact from the resident. The landlord could have written to the resident in that time and requested access to the property in order to complete the required work, reducing the possibility of further damage during that period. This is a service failing by the landlord that left the resident with outstanding works and a concern around further damage to her home.
41. It is clear that following the operative attending to board up the ceiling on 9 August 2023 and the escalation of the complaint to stage two, further works were identified and requested by the landlord. The works to repair the floorboards and the joists in the bathroom were raised on 28 August 2023 and these works were completed within the ‘responsive” repair timeframe of 25 days. However, given that the complaint was escalated on 10 August 2023, the 18 days taken to raise these works was excessive. During this time, an inspection of the pipework was carried out on 14 August 2023. Although it found no active leaks, it should have identified the damage to the flooring during that visit and raised the required follow on works immediately after. This is another service failing by the landlord, with a lack of urgency to arrange works causing further delays for the resident. This has caused the resident further distress and inconvenience during that delay period.
42. Although works were completed in late September 2023, following the stage two response, these should have been identified and carried out sooner.
43. When providing its stage two response, the landlord failed to issue it within the timeframe set out in its policy. This took 25 working days instead of 20 and an extension was not agreed with the resident. Within its stage two ‘complaint response form’ the outcome of the investigation recorded the complaint as ‘not upheld’. This demonstrates a lack of acknowledgement of its failings, in either managing the repairs or the complaint itself. This is a failing on the part of the landlord that could only have added to the resident’s frustration with the complaint process.
44. The resident requested compensation from the landlord for damage caused to flooring in the property. It is clear that the landlord provided an insurance form for the resident to make a claim for the damage to the flooring and she would need to follow this process to seek compensation for any damage.
45. It is the view of this Service that the landlord failed to carry out an adequate inspection of the bathroom on 6 June 2023. Had it done so, it could have identified the potential for leaks and the historical water damage to the flooring earlier and arranged the required works to repair and prevent further damage. Even when it did identify these issues in August 2023, the landlord failed to take more prompt action or provide adequate oversight of the management of the required repairs. These delays meant that the resident experienced further instances of water leaks unnecessarily. The delays likely caused inconvenience to the resident and she reported that they affected her and her children’s use of the property. She also experienced time and trouble in having to continue reporting these issues, waiting on further appointments to resolve the matter. These combined service failings mean the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration.

Determination (decision)

46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks and the damage caused by the leaks.

Reasons

47. The landlord failed to identify and address potential causes of leaks in the bathroom, despite attending several times. When it did identify them, it failed to act promptly, allowing further occurrences of the leaks and requiring further works to address them. Had it completed a thorough inspection and undertaken the required work sooner, this would have prevented further instances of those leaks.

Orders

48. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in the report.
49. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused by its handling of the leaks and the damage caused by the leaks.