North Tyneside Council (202125364)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125364

North Tyneside Council

21 March 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 complainant 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 complainant’s reports of a leak into the bathroom.

Background

  1. The complainant is a leaseholder of the property of the landlord and will be referred to as the ‘leaseholder’ in this report. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a flat. There is another flat located above the property, which is owned by the landlord. The leaseholder does not reside at the property and sublets the property to a sublessee from time to time.
  2. On 23 November 2021, the leaseholder reported a leak into the bathroom from the flat above. He reported that water was coming down the walls of the bathroom and had affected the light fittings.
  3. On 29 November 2021, the leaseholder raised a formal complaint. He advised that he had not received an update as to whether the leak had been repaired. The leaseholder requested for this to be resolved as soon as possible.
  4. In the landlord’s formal complaint response, it stated that it attended the neighbouring property on 24 November 2021 and did not identify any leaks. However, during a follow up visit (the date of which is unknown) a small leak was identified in the bathroom pipe which was subsequently remedied. The landlord further advised that if there had been damage inside of the leaseholder’s property he would need to submit an insurance claim.
  5. On 15 February 2022, the leaseholder informed the landlord that his insurance claim had been rejected due to the property being empty at the time of the leak. Therefore, he requested compensation towards the internal repairs he had to complete himself totalling £2,500.
  6. The leaseholder referred his complaint to this service on 24 April 2022. The leaseholder remains unhappy with the level of compensation offered, as he would like the landlord to pay towards the costs of remedial works which cost £2,500.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is acknowledged that in his referral to this service, the leaseholder has referenced that there had been historical issues surrounding a leak in his bathroom dating back to 2020. Paragraph 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaint which were not bought to the Ombudsman’s attention within 12 months of exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, while this provides historical context to the issues raised, the investigation will not make a determination about the historic leaks.

Assessment

  1. The lease agreement sets out the responsibilities of the parties. The landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the building in good repair. The leaseholder is responsible for the internal decoration of the property.
  2. Upon receipt of a report of an external leak entering the property, the landlord has a responsibility to carry out a reasonable investigation to determine if it is liable for any repairs. In this case, the landlord carried out an inspection into the leaseholder’s reports within 24 hours. It is not evident, however, that it kept the leaseholder informed of its actions, which caused him some distress and led him to expend time and trouble chasing an update.
  3. The landlord’s investigation did not detect a leak. While it is the case that a leak was later detected, based on the evidence provided to this service, the landlord’s contractor’s initial investigation was reasonable, and the Ombudsman understands that it can take multiple inspections to determine the cause of a leak. This is not in and of itself service failure.
  4. The landlord carried out a further inspection, although the Ombudsman notes that the landlord has not provided this service with the records of this further inspection, which would have been helpful for this investigation. It is nevertheless evident that this further inspection uncovered the cause of the leak, which the landlord subsequently remedied. This was in line with its repair obligations, and it is not evident that it unreasonably delayed these repairs. Once again, however, it is not evident that it effectively communicated its actions to the leaseholder, once again causing him distress, which led him to expend time and trouble pursuing a formal complaint.
  5. Given that it is not evident that any unreasonable delays in the landlord’s actions occurred, it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the leaseholder to make an insurance claim for any internal damage. The Ombudsman notes that the leaseholder was unable to make a claim; however, the Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim. The Ombudsman can only consider the actions of the landlord, and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the leaseholder’s insurers. In the event that the leaseholder is uninsured, the Ombudsman notes he has the option to seek further legal advice in relation to any other legal remedies.
  6. In summary, as set out above, the landlord took reasonable steps to inspect the leaseholder’s reports and carry out any necessary repairs. Its communication, however, was below what is expected in the circumstances and led to distress and inconvenience for the leaseholder. This amounted to service failure in the circumstances, for which an amount of £100 compensation is appropriate to reflect the impact of its failure to keep the leaseholder informed about its inspections and the outcomes.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord for its response to the leaseholder’s reports of a leak into the bathroom.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the leaseholder £100 compensation, in light of its poor communication surrounding the identification and subsequent repairs of the leak.