London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202124952)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124952

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

12 August 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 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an uncontainable water leak from her bathroom sink damaging her flooring.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat.
  2. On 18 January 2022, the resident had an uncontainable water leak at her property from underneath her sink, which she reported to the landlord the same day, and the leak was repaired by it on 19 January 2022. Although she later stated that she had informed it of the leak at around 5am on 18 January 2022 and that it had attended to make this safe at almost 8pm on the same day.
  3. The resident also made a stage one complaint to the landlord on 8 January 2022 that she had put down her own wooden floors in her property’s hallway and living room, and these had been damaged by the water leak there. She believed that it should have been its responsibility to fix the damaged flooring because the leak was not her fault, and she was dissatisfied that it told her that her own flooring was her responsibility.
  4. The resident added that, in each of her children’s bedrooms there were rugs that had been present in the property when she had moved in, and that these had been heavily damaged by the water leak, which she considered should have been removed and replaced by it as an unsanitary health risk to her children. She was unhappy that it explained that the rugs had been gifted to her and were her responsibility.
  5. On 19 January 2022, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It advised the resident that it could not repair the damage to her flooring and would not replace or reimburse her for the damaged rugs. It accepted that the water leak at her property was not her fault, but that this sometimes occurred, and that when such damage was caused this was something she could claim for on her home contents insurance. The landlord advised the resident that, if she did not have home contents insurance, then the costs would have to be covered by her. It did advise her, however, that it had a preferential arrangement for home contents insurance for £1.31 per week that she could obtain from it or its insurer.
  6. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 19 January 2022. On 4 March 2022, after being contacted by her with regard to a delay in its final stage complaint response, this Service requested that it issue a final stage response within ten working days. On 11 March 2022, the landlord therefore issued its final stage complaint response, which upheld its stage one response. It reiterated that it was the resident’s responsibility to insure her own possessions, and its advice to her to take out home contents insurance for these.
  7. The landlord advised that, if the resident did not have any contents insurance, she could contact its insurance team to make a public liability claim for its insurer to investigate and decide whether it had been legally at fault. It explained that a this could take up to 40 working days, and that a reimbursement of her damages was not guaranteed or automatic. The landlord did, however, say that it recognised the time, effort and inconvenience that this matter may have caused the resident.
  8. The landlord therefore offered the resident £140 total compensation under its compensation policy. This was broken down into £100 compensation as a goodwill gesture to pay towards the cleaning or replacement of her flooring and carpets, and £40 compensation for its delay in escalating her complaint from a stage one to a final stage complaint, apologising that she had cause to complain to it.
  9. On 17 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and advised it that she appreciated the landlord’s offer of £140 compensation, but that this did not compare to the damage caused by the preventable flood that had happened in her home due to the delay in its response to this. She explained that this was because she had reported the flood to it at around 5am on 18 January 2022, and it had not responded to this until almost 8pm on the same date, while she had to scoop water from her damaged wooden flooring and carpet for hours that had affected her and her disabled child’s health. The resident therefore believed that the damage caused by the flood, and the fact that she did not have the funds to fix this, meant that the landlord should take responsibility for this.
  10. On 21 March 2022, the landlord advised that it would increase the compensation offer that it had made to the resident to £240, which was an increase of £100 for the distress and inconvenience experienced by her. She subsequently complained to this Service that she was still unhappy with its response to her complaint, as she wanted it to increase its compensation offer to her because she felt that it had not fully considered the distress and impact that the flood had on her and her family, and for it to reimburse her for the damage to her property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints concerning matters where the resident is seeking an outcome that is not within our authority to provide. Although the resident has raised reports of her and her children’s ill-health being affected, and of her belongings being damaged, by the landlord’s handling of the water leak at her property, we do not have the authority to determine liability or award damages for ill-health or belongings in the way that a court or insurer might. Therefore, these issues are outside the scope of this investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an uncontainable water leak from her bathroom sink damaging her flooring

  1. The resident reportedly notified the landlord of the water leak in her property at around 5am on 18 January 2022, and she described it as responding this by attending to make the leak safe at almost 8pm, which would have been approximately 15 hours later. This therefore would have been around 11 hours outside of the four–hour timeframe for emergency out of hours works that is stated in its repairs policy, for it to make safe and lower the risk of an emergency.
  2. According to the resident, as she reported the water leak as an out of hours emergency, the landlord ought to have instead attended her property to make this safe the leak by 9am on 18 January 2022. Although it did comply with the repairs policy’s 24-hour timescale for emergency works by repairing the leak on 19 January 2022.
  3. The landlord therefore ought to have acknowledged the effect of any repair delays by it on the resident, and to have apologised to and offered her compensation for this, as per its compensation policy. This states that it may do so when it has failed to follow its policies and procedures, in order to recognise the impact of service loss or failure on the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy gives it discretion to award compensation for it failing to respond to emergency defects, including uncontainable leaks, up to a maximum of £100 per defect. As it may have taken it up to 15 hours to respond to the resident’s report of the out of hours emergency water leak instead of four hours, it would have been appropriate for it have compensated her with £100 to reflect the seriousness of the delay and the significance of the impact on her.
  4. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord’s review of its final stage complaint response on 21 March 2022 offered the resident an additional £100 compensation in recognition of her distress and inconvenience, following her report that it had delayed responding to the out of hours emergency water leak. Furthermore, it previously offered her £140 total compensation in its final stage complaint response of 11 March 2022. £40 of this was offered in recognition of the landlord’s delay in escalating the resident’s complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure, and £100 as a goodwill gesture towards the cost of cleaning or replacing her flooring and carpets.
  5. This showed that the landlord acknowledged its failing in delaying escalating the resident’s final stage complaint from 19 January to 11 March 2022, and that it sought to remedy this at a higher level than that recommended by its compensation policy. This is because the policy stated that it should pay £10 compensation for failing to respond to formal complaints within the timescales published in its complaints policy.
  6. The landlord also demonstrated that it sought to help place the resident back in the position that she had been in prior to the leak by offering her a goodwill gesture towards cleaning and/or replacing of her damaged wooden flooring and rugs that she had notified it about. This was suitable, and this reflected the £100 per defect maximum compensation recommended by its compensation policy for a routine defect to an internal decoration.
  7. It was also appropriate for the landlord’s complaint responses to have advised the resident that it was not responsible for repairing her damaged flooring or carpets, as her own wooden flooring and carpets were considered floor coverings that its repairs policy made her and not it responsible for. This is unless the floor coverings are in kitchens or bathrooms, were provided by it, and were causing a trip hazard, which she did not report to it.
  8. The landlord therefore advised that, if the resident did not have any contents insurance, she could contact its insurance team as a public liability claim for its insurer to investigate and decide whether it had been legally at fault. This was appropriate because its compensation policy required it to refer damage to personal possessions and alleged injury from its or its contractors’ behaviour to its insurance team.


Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its response to her reports of an uncontainable water leak from her bathroom sink damaging her flooring satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Re-offer its compensation award of £240 to the resident, if she has not been paid this already.
    2. Review its staff training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy to ensure their timely escalation of and response to complaints in every case without this Service’s intervention.