Magenta Living (202121513)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121513

Magenta Living

7 July 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. reports of a boiler leak;
    2. request for a combination (combi) boiler.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 13 February 2006. The landlord is a registered provide of social housing. The property is a mid-terraced house.
  2. Based on the landlord’s records, the resident initially reported a leak coming from her boiler in or around December 2020. The resident made further reports in early 2021, following which the landlord’s operatives investigated in or around July 2021.
  3. The landlord’s operative’s report noted that the leak was associated with the hot water cylinder (an insulated tank which stores water after being heated). The operative rectified the leak, and their report notes that the boiler was still within its projected lifespan and was not liable for replacement at that time.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 4 November 2021. This service has not been provided with a copy of the original complaint. The resident reported that her water cylinder had leaked for a third time, and that water had seeped through her hallway ceiling and had damaged her property and belongings. She reiterated her concerns about further leaks coming from the cylinder and advised that she had previously claimed on her insurance twice for damages caused by the leaks.
  5. The resident requested that the landlord remove the water cylinder and replace it with a combi boiler (which does not require a water cylinder) to avoid further issues. The landlord records showed that a repair was raised on 4 November 2021 and its operatives attended that same day. It reported that the cylinder and all supporting pipework was dry and there were no signs of overflow from the cylinder, tank, or in the hallway, nor damp patches or marks on the ceiling. The resident raised further concerns in early November 2021. She advised that her electricity box was located directly under the previous leaks, and that she believed the cylinder was a safety risk that posed a danger to her and her family. She also reported that she had fallen because of the leak, and the issue caused her distress. The landlord carried out a further inspection on 10 November 2021 to identify any damages or issues with the water cylinder.
  6. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 11 November 2021 and apologised that the resident had reason to complain. The landlord recalled that following the resident’s report on 4 November 2021 its operatives attended her property and found that the water cylinder and pipework were dry at the time. It said that its operatives did not identify any active leaks during the visit and reported that the ball valve worked correctly. It noted that it had arranged a further inspection on 10 November 2021 in which it identified no signs of a current leak or new damage. The landlord explained that its operative found that water had pooled under the bath due to poor sealing around the bath, which it believed caused damp to the hall ceiling. The landlord noted that it had offered to renew the overflow pipe on the cylinder, but that the resident had decline this offer. The landlord concluded that there was no evidence to support the resident’s request for her water cylinder to be replaced with a combi boiler at this time.
  7. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 15 November 2021 explaining that the water cylinder issue was ongoing and had caused damage when it leaked. She said that her insurance company recommended removing the water cylinder. The resident also explained that the insurer’s contractor had suggested that the water cylinder needed a new valve and outlet pipe as it was causing the leak, and that water damage appeared recent. She also reiterated her concerns regarding the leaks and electrical safety.
  8. The resident also disputed that the water was due to a bath leak, as the pooled water was beneath the boiler and not the bath. She advised that she considered there to have been no immediate evidence of the leak in the cupboard because it had dried prior to the inspection.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s comments but advised that it was unable to escalate her complaint as the points she had raised had already been considered in its stage one response. It reiterated its inspection had not uncovered any leaks and so it did not consider there to be an ongoing leak. The landlord also advised that as the resident had installed the bathroom herself, it considered her to be responsible for arranging any repairs. The landlord also advised that should any issues arise with the electrical installations, to report this as an emergency repair.
  10. The landlord also advised that it had reviewed the resident’s insurer’s report, and that it found no suggestion that the leak and damp issues she experienced were caused by the water cylinder. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and that she considered its position had been influenced by its reluctance to replace the boiler. The landlord subsequently arranged a further inspection on 15 December 2021.
  11. The landlord provided a stage two response on 16 December 2021. It advised that its most recent visit had concluded that the central heating and hot water systems were all functioning correctly. It noted that its operative had also identified that the resident had installed a cupboard over the boiler, and that this had altered the line of the condensation pipe, preventing it from running freely. The landlord acknowledged that the initial leak in 2020 had been due to the incorrect installation of a ‘ball valve’. It noted this was repaired in it is initial visit and assured her it did not consider it likely this problem would recur. It apologised for the distress this had caused and acknowledged that the resident remained concerned of a recurrence, but that it did not consider there to be sufficient evidence to replace the boiler.

Assessment and findings

Boiler leak

  1. The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy, which notes that it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the gas and water fixtures and fittings are in good working order. The policy prioritises repairs into emergency, urgent, and routine repairs, wite urgent repairs described as those necessary to prevent damage to property. These repairs must be completed within 5 working days.
  2. As noted above, the landlord’s repair records indicate that the resident initially reported a leak from her boiler in December 2020. It is not evident whether the landlord investigated this report at the time. While this has not been raised by the resident as an issue in dispute, the Ombudsman notes that it is best practice for a landlord to use its formal complaint responses as an opportunity to provide transparent detail about the history of a complaint, and the actions it took. Given that a leak has the potential to cause damage to property, it would have been helpful had the landlord explained what action it took and when in relation to the initial report. The landlord did not do this, however.
  3. Following the resident’s further reports of a leak, the landlord appropriately attended the property to carry out an investigation. Again, it is not clear from the evidence provided to this service whether this was within the timeframes noted in its repairs policy.
  4. As part of its investigation, the landlord identified that the ball valve had not been installed correctly and it took steps to rectify this. It is also evident that at this time the resident made claims for damage to her possessions through her insurers, which is the appropriate approach in such circumstances.
  5. Following the resident’s further reports in November 2021 along with her concerns about the leak affecting her electrical installations, the landlord appropriately attended the property to investigate the reports within the timescales of its repairs policy. As noted in its stage one response, given that these investigations did not identify any damage or active leaks, it was reasonable that no further repair works were carried out.
  6. The landlord appropriately provided its position on the cause of the water damage reported by the resident and noted that its operative considered this to be due to a lack of seals around the bath and shower. It would have been helpful had the landlord given its position on whether it considered itself responsible for any repairs to the seals, however, it did not do this at this time. It did, however, appropriately outline that it had offered to carry out works to the boiler overflow pipe and documented that the resident had declined this offer.
  7. The landlord has provided this service with its ‘complaints resolution process’ which indicates that it operates a two stage complaints procedure. This document also indicates that if the grounds for appeal are not sufficient, it may refuse to escalate a complaint. It does not explain what it considers to be sufficient grounds for appeal.
  8. As part of her complaint escalation request, the resident noted that her insurer had carried out an inspection of the leak and concluded that there had been recent damage and that works were required to the valve and outlet pipe. The landlord subsequently declined to escalate the complaint on the basis that the resident’s points had already been considered in its stage one response. Given, however, that the landlord’s stage one response had not commented on the insurer’s report, the landlord’s reasoning was not sufficient. This would have led to a finding of service failure on this basis had the landlord not subsequently agreed to provide a stage two response.
  9. It is not disputed that the resident installed the bathroom at her property. Following the resident’s concerns that the leak had caused damage to the bathroom, the landlord advised that it did not consider itself responsible for repairs to the bathroom. Given, however, that the landlord accepted that the initial leak was caused by the incorrect installation of a ball valve, it should have provided greater detail regarding its position that it was not responsible. The Ombudsman considers that in such instances, while such damage may be a matter for an insurer, a landlord should facilitate this claim through its own insurer where it has accepted responsibility for the cause of the damage. Further clarity about why the landlord did not consider itself responsible would therefore have been helpful for the resident when considering how to pursue her complaint.
  10. Following the resident’s additional comments regarding her insurer’s inspection, the landlord again appropriately carried out an inspection of the property and of the insurer’s report. The further inspection did not find that there were any ongoing issues and so once again, it was reasonable that it did not raise any further works. It was also appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the residents concerns about a recurrence of the issue in its stage two response and that it reassured her what the initial issue was, and that its position was this was unlikely to reoccur.
  11. The landlord also appropriately provided its position that it did not agree that the resident’s insurer’s report identified the boiler or water cylinder as the cause of the leak.
  12. The Ombudsman considers that following the landlord’s inspection in July 2021, it responded appropriately, and the further inspections carried out following the additional reports were reasonable. It identified in its formal responses, however, that the initial leak was not caused by a deterioration or malfunction of the boiler, but an incorrect installation, for which the landlord was responsible. This resulted in distress and inconvenience for the resident due to the impact on her possessions and the time and trouble in chasing the repairs.
  13. While the landlord offered an apology to the resident, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was not sufficient to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused by its initial incorrect installation. Given that the landlord also missed opportunities to outline the history of the complaint or provide sufficient detail about its position in its formal responses, in the circumstances, this amounted to service failure. An amount of £100 compensation is appropriate to recognise this service failure.

Request for a combi boiler

  1. While a landlord has an obligation to carry out repairs, it is not obligated to carry out improvements. These are usually only complete at a landlord’s discretion. A landlord has a responsibility to maintain the gas and water installations at a property in good working order. This responsibility does not, however, require it to upgrade these installations where they can be repaired. A landlord also has an obligation to manage its resources effectively and not incur unnecessary expenses.
  2. Following the repairs carried out by the landlord in July 2021, its operative noted that the boiler and water cylinder were now fully functional, and that both were still within their operational lifecycle. As noted above, the landlord carried out multiple further inspections following the resident’s reports of additional issues, which did not conclude that the boiler or water cylinder had caused any further leaks.
  3. Given that the landlord was unable to identify any ongoing leaks from the boiler or water cylinder, and that it provided its position that the pooled water reported by the resident had come from another source, it was reasonable for the landlord to refuse the resident’s request for a combi boiler.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports of a boiler leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s request for a combi boiler.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £100 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to initially install the ball valve correctly, and its subsequent missed opportunity to outline the history of the complaint or provide sufficient detail regarding the positions it took in its formal responses.
  2. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.