Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited (202111043)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111043

Nottingham City Homes

24 June 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a reoccurring leak from the property above.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat/maisonette situated in a building comprised of similar properties. The neighbour referenced in the below report, lives in a property directly above the resident’s.
  2. In the six months prior to the complaint, the resident reported a leak from the flat above to the landlord on two separate occasions. On 12 April 2021 the resident reported the leak to the landlord. A delay occurred due to the neighbour in the flat above not allowing the landlord access to his property. On 27 April 2021, the landlord installed a new flow switch and the waste pump was checked. The resident reported that the leak had returned on 26 July 2021, and on the 30 July 2021, the landlord had installed a new shower pump.
  3. On 11 August 2021, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord regarding the leak. The resident stated that the issues surrounding the leak had been ongoing for five years. He remained unhappy that the neighbour above did not report the leak when the water began to come through the ceiling into his property, which meant that he had to actively report the issue to the landlord. The resident felt that due to the neighbour denying the landlord access to his property, the leak could not be fully investigated and resolved.
  4. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 25 August 2021. It stated that the neighbour had denied access to their property on multiple occasions, which had led to delays in repairing the leak. It also stated that the leak occurred due to a cold-water feed issue in the shower. The landlord apologised for how long it had taken to repair the leak. The landlord also stated a form would be sent to the resident, so he could request compensation for the cost of paint used to decorate the ceiling.
  5. The resident reported that the leak had reoccurred on 30 November 2021. The resident requested his complaint be escalated on the same day.
  6. The landlord issued its stage two response on 23 December 2021. The landlord stated that contractors attended the property above on 1 December 2021, but found no obvious cause of the leak. However, it arranged for the shower room to be resealed and a shower curtain to be installed in an attempt to resolve the leak. The landlord again apologised for the time taken to resolve the leak.
  7. The resident referred this matter to the Ombudsman on 18 January 2022. The resident felt that the landlord had done nothing to help resolve the leak. The resident also stated he believed that the neighbour was doing something to cause a leak as he only allowed access when he chose to. As a resolution, the resident wants the leak to be investigated and resolved.
  8. The resident contacted this Service again on 24 February 2022, reporting that a further leak had occurred on 8 February 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident said that the leak has been ongoing for nearly five years. The Ombudsman appreciates that this has been a longstanding issue; however, it is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to consider events dating back five years. As a general principle, the Ombudsman will consider events up to six months prior to a formal complaint being raised to the landlord; this is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which sets out the rules which govern our service. Landlords are not expected to keep detailed records indefinitely and the landlord would not be expected to have much information about the leak dating back five years. For this reason, whilst the historic issues provide context to the current complaint the Ombudsman’s investigation does not consider any specific events prior to March 2021, which is six months before the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord in August 2021.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states that minor plumbing leaks should be dealt with within seven days but it may take up to a maximum of thirty days.
  2. The tenancy agreement states that residents must allow contractors to access the property in order to carry out necessary maintenance or repairs. Typically, 24 hours’ notice will be provided informing residents that access to the property is needed.

Assessment

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that repairs should be completed within a maximum period of thirty days. The landlord did attend the property within these timeframes on every occasion that the leak was reported. Therefore, the landlord acted within its policy in this regard.
  2. This Service understands the resident’s frustration that the leak was reoccurring every ‘couple of months’ and appreciates the inconvenience and distress this may have caused. However, it is accepted that locating leaks can often take multiple attempts, before the leak can be identified and fully repaired. In this case, the landlord has completed a number of different repairs including: resealing the shower room, installing a shower curtain and replacing shower pipes. On every occasion the leak stopped, and was believed to be repaired by the landlord. Therefore, whilst the number of leaks would have caused inconvenience to the resident, it was reasonable for a landlord to have to attend on multiple occasions in this case, as the leak appeared to be fixed on every occasion of repair.
  3. It is noted that the landlord tried to gain access to the property above, but was denied on a number of occasions. This Service appreciates the resident’s frustration that the property above refused access to the landlord. However, this Service has seen evidence that the landlord had taken proactive measures to gain access to the property to resolve the leak, which demonstrate that it took matters seriously. It also acted in-line with good practice, as when access was denied, the landlord issued a tenancy warning to the neighbour above and subsequently, forced entry on a number of occasions in order to repair the leak. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably in taking appropriate steps to gain access to the property above. Going forward, it is recommended that the landlord undertakes a full survey of the property above to confirm if there are any further repairs required to prevent the reoccurrence of leaks in the future.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a reoccurring leak from the property above.

 

 

Recommendations

  1. As the leak is an ongoing problem, this Service recommends the landlord carries out a survey to the flat above confirm if there are any further repairs required to prevent the reoccurrence of leaks in the future. The landlord should update the resident once the survey has taken place to confirm if any further repairs are needed.