London Borough of Hackney (202209118)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209118

London Borough of Hackney

28 April 2023

 

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 handling of remedial works following a wet room leak.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The resident’s father lived with her during this time, who was severally ill. The resident reported health conditions affected his mobility and compromised his auto-immune system.
  2. The email correspondence confirms that the resident contacted the landlord on 4 January 2022. They asked the landlord to arrange for the wetroom drain to be inspected. Although the email does not reference this, the landlord’s repairs records suggest that the drain was making a loud noise when draining. The landlord replied the same day and confirmed an appointment for 6 January 2022.
  3. The landlord’s repairs records indicate that a contractor visited on 6 January 2022, but there are no details of what action was taken. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 January 2022 to ask if any further work was needed. The landlord replied the same day to advise that an electrician would visit. The resident and the landlord arranged this appointment for 12 January 2022. The booking for the appointment suggests that the purpose was due to the shower pump running continuously.
  4. The landlord’s repairs records show that a contractor visited on 12 January 2022. The notes from the appointment indicate that the electrician diagnosed that the problem was with the flow switch. The electrician referred the issue for another contractor to visit. The repairs records indicate that a contractor attended on 8 February 2022 as the loud shower noise remained. It is not clear what action was taken at this appointment.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord on 15 February 2022 to complain about a leak. She explained that since the contractors visited there was damage in the kitchen below the wetroom. The landlord attended on 17 February 2022 but could not locate the source of the leak.
  6. The resident complained about the leak again on 24 and 25 March 2022. On both occasions, the landlord attended within 24 hours but still could not identify the source of the leak. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend the resident’s property on 21 April 2022, however they also could not find the source of the leak so recommended pulling up the wet room floor to try and identify the cause. The landlord sent another surveyor to investigate the issue on 12 May 2022, they decided to instead pull out the kitchen ceiling and trace the leak from below.
  7. The resident submitted a complaint on 24 May 2022. She explained that multiple inspections of the wet room had taken place, without the landlord finding a resolution to the leak. She was dissatisfied with the delay in resolving the repair and felt the landlord had not taking ownership of the issue.
  8. Having checked its records, the landlord established that the resident’s kitchen ceiling contained asbestos, so it arranged to have this removed on 31 May 2022. Due to the resident’s concerns about her father’s health, the landlord arranged for the family to decant to a hotel for 30 and 31 May 2022 during the removal. On 31 May 2022, the landlord attended the property to remove the asbestos and trace the leak. It found the leak was being caused by a gap in the seal of an access panel in the wet room. It sealed the panel shut in the interim and ordered a replacement. It attended the next day and re-fitted the ceiling. However, the resident was dissatisfied that decoration works such as plastering and painting would be outstanding at the property when her father returned home.
  9. She asked the landlord to continue to decant her family, as she felt that the kitchen would not be safe for her father until the entirety of the works was completed. The landlord declined her request, stating that the kitchen had been made safe and was functional in the interim. It explained that re-decoration would be undertaken at the same time as the access panel was fitted. The resident asked to organize the redecoration works herself, to speed up the process. The landlord agreed and ultimately paid the resident £660.71 to cover the cost of the works. It also offered to post-inspect the works. It offered a daily food allowance of £40 a day for her father, who was staying with a relative between 1 and 5 June 2022 while the redecoration went ahead.
  10. The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 10 June 2022. It detailed the steps it had taken to trace the leak and concluded it had dealt with the leak appropriately. It stated it had also provided additional support to the resident in recognition of her father’s poor health, such as decanting the family to a hotel. It also explained that the kitchen had been made safe on 1 June 2022. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 June 2022. She stated that she remained dissatisfied with the time taken for the landlord to trace the leak. She disagreed that the kitchen was left functional on 1 June 2022, stating that the landlord had not taken the severity of her father’s condition into account. She did not think that the landlord had supported her family appropriately during this time and wanted to be compensated accordingly.
  11. The landlord attended the resident’s property again on 24 June 2022, and undertook more works to the access door to ensure it was properly sealed. On 28 June 2022, the landlord mistakenly sent the resident an email discussing compensation that was meant for a different resident. It sent its final stage complaint response on 28 July 2022, reiterating the steps it had taken to remedy the leak. It stated that finding the source of the leak had not been straightforward and the issue had therefore taken time to rectify. It reiterated that it had supported the resident through the provision of alternative accommodation during the asbestos removal, as well as providing her with reimbursements to cover the cost of redecoration and living expenses for her father. It concluded that as it had not found any evidence of service failure, it could not offer her any compensation. It also apologised for the administrative error which saw it send an email discussing compensation which was intended for another resident.
  12. The resident subsequently escalated her complaint to this Service. She stated the landlord had repeatedly failed to find the leak in her wet room which caused further delays to her repairs. She believed the landlord should have decanted her family for the full duration of works, considering her father’s health conditions. As such, she stated she wanted to be compensated accordingly for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment

  1. According to the landlord’s tenancy conditions handbook, the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the structure of the resident’s home and any fittings it has provided. This includes repairing systems for supplying water and sanitation and keeping those systems in proper working order. The landlord defines urgent repairs as repairs where the fault does not cause danger to occupants but needs to be put right to prevent inconvenience and keep the property in reasonable condition. The landlord should attend urgent repairs within five working days. Routine repairs should be attended within 21 working days.
  2. The landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s initial reports of a leak on 16 February 2022. It attended promptly the next day and inspected the issue but couldn’t find evidence of a leak. After the resident reported the issue again on 24 March 2022, the landlord returned to the property to again inspect the issue. It returned the following day after the resident sent further reports of the shower leaking. After each report the landlord attended within the urgent timescales set out above and worked to find a solution to the problem.
  3. A delay in repairs is not always classed as a failing, if the landlord was acting proactively to solve a complicated problem. As the leak was intermittent, the landlord struggled to trace the source. It acted appropriately by organising for a specialist surveyor to attend the property on 21 April 2022. It also sent another surveyor to the property on 12 May 2022, to assess what type of exploratory works would be best to trace the leak. The surveyor concluded that is should remove the kitchen ceiling to trace and repair the leak, which was completed on 31 May 2022. Although the repairs were outstanding for several months, the evidence shows that the landlord acted reasonably, as it attended promptly following each report and continued to work to find the best solution to the repair problem. The landlord ultimately discovered that the leak occurred when the specialist disabled seat was used in the wet room, which caused some fluctuation in the access panel on the wall behind. This explained why the leak was difficult to trace when the shower was not in use.
  4. Due to there being asbestos in the kitchen ceiling, the landlord organised for this to be removed on the same day as tracing the leak. As the resident and her family were required to vacate the premises for the day during the asbestos removal, the landlord arranged for a hotel for the family to stay in. The landlord was not obligated to provide accommodation for the family, as the asbestos removal would only be during the hours of 8:00am and 5:00pm. It did so as a good-will gesture, in response to the resident’s concerns about her father’s health. To further ensure the comfort of the resident’s family, the landlord booked for them to stay in the hotel for two nights on 30 and 31 May 2022. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take and it was positive that it recognised the resident’s concerns regarding her father’s health and used its discretion when deciding to offer a temporary decant.
  5. Records show the landlord acted reasonably by managing the resident’s expectations effectively, sending her a schedule of works prior to them taking place. The schedule explained that if the ceiling joists were wet from the leak, the landlord may need to allow them to dry before re-installing the ceiling. However, if the ceiling was dry the landlord would re-install the plasterboard on 1 June 2022, and would redecorate at a later date. It explained that the kitchen would be safe and functional in the interim. The landlord’s repairs were completed in-line with this schedule and, on finding the ceiling to be dry, it replaced the ceiling on 1 June 2022.
  6. The resident was unhappy that the decoration works would be outstanding on her father’s return to the property. She explained that she was worried dust particles from the ceiling would compromise her father’s auto-immune system and asked for the landlord to continue to pay for the family to decant for the full duration of works. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was obligated to decant the family during any of the works taken place. It had done so during the asbestos works as a goodwill gesture and in recognition of her father’s condition. It acted reasonably in explaining to the resident that it would make the kitchen safe, but that as the room was functional and the property had several other rooms available for her father to reside in, it could not justify the expenditure of prolonging the family’s stay in the hotel.
  7. The resident requested that she be allowed to organise decoration works herself, in order to move her father back into the property more quickly. Although the landlord felt that the kitchen would be suitable in the interim, it considered the resident’s concerns about her father’s health and agreed to reimburse the resident for the cost of these works. This was a reasonable step for it to take. It also offered a food allowance for her father, who would be staying with relatives during this time. This was reasonable, as the landlord considered the resident’s concerns and took a flexible approach to try and achieve her desired outcome.
  8. In its complaint response, the landlord acted appropriately by explaining the steps it had taken to rectify the resident’s leak. It stated that it had attended within timescales and had continued to work to find a solution to the problem, which had been difficult to identify. Once a strategy for finding the leak had been identified, the landlord acted in-line with its schedule of works. The landlord also explained that it had already provided additional support for the resident, by accommodating the family in a nearby hotel, as well as providing a total of £854.71 reimbursement for the redecoration works and food allowance. As the landlord had handled the resident’s repairs appropriately and had provided additional support that already exceeded its obligations, the landlord was entitled to decline the resident’s request for further compensation.
  9. The landlord also apologised for its administrative error of sending an email discussing compensation with the resident which was not meant for her. This was appropriate, as the sending of that email was especially unfortunate, given that the resident had just requested compensation. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that instances of human error will inevitably occur from time to time, going forward the landlord should try to ensure that all correspondence is sent to the correct recipients.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of remedial works following a wet room leak.