Octavia Housing (202108938)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108938

Octavia Housing

31 July 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of leaks into the resident’s property from the flat above.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of faults with the kitchen sink and space for the cooker.
3. This service has also considered complaint handling in this investigation.

Background and summary of events

Legal and Policy Context

The landlord has a repairs handbook, in which it sets out its approach to handling repairs and both landlord and residents’ responsibilities. Residents’ responsibilities include.
1. Allowing the landlord’s contractors into the home, to carry out repairs, necessary inspections, and gas safety checks.
2. The landlord insures the building, but residents’ personal belongings are their own responsibility, eg, if there is a water leak, residents are responsible for any damage to their decorations, fittings, and belongings. It signposts residents to the National Housing Federation for affordable contents insurance for tenants.
The landlord has a complaints policy and a complaints roadmap on its website, which sets out its process for dealing with complaints. It has a two stage complaints process. Stage one is acknowledged within three working days and responded to within 10 working days. If a resident is unhappy with the response, it can request escalation to stage two, this will also be responded to within three working days. It will be investigated by a senior manager who has not previously been involved in the case, they will review to see if the complaint outcomes were in line with its policies, was fair and reasonable. The landlord will contact the resident to discuss the outcomes of the review and respond within 20 working days.
The landlord has a compensation policy it states that it will not offer compensation where:
1. We are unable to carry out a repair to target time because reasonable access was not given to your property.
2. The fault was caused by a third party or was outside of our control. For example, a water leak from a neighbour.

Handling of leaks into the resident’s property from the flat above.

According to the landlord’s records, repairs were carried out in September 2011, July 2013, February 2016 and August 2020 due to water ingress and leaks from the flat above. These matters will not be considered as part of this investigation as they occurred a number of years before the formal complaint was raised by the resident in June 2021, any reference to these matters in the report are for context only.
On Saturday 26 June 2021, the resident called the out of hours service as there was water leaking through her ceiling and light fitting from the flat above. When the landlord’s contractor attended, it advised it was unable to access the neighbouring flat. The resident refused to let the contractor in to check the electrics, she advised them the police had attended and found the neighbour had left their taps running, and had instructed them to turn them off.
The resident disputes this claim by the landlord, she has advised this service that she had no idea what was causing the leak, the neighbour would not respond to her, which is why she called the police.
On 28 June 2021, the resident sent the landlord, a video of water pouring through the ceiling and the pendant light fitting of her home. The landlord’s notes refer to the resident not wanting to make a complaint about a repair, “but something the resident wanted dealt with by the landlord”; this has not been elaborated on, in its stage one response.
The landlord said it offered the assistance of its contractor, who contacted the resident, but was advised by the resident that it was not a repairs issue, it was an issue with the neighbour leaving their taps running.
The landlord said it emailed the resident twice on 29 June 2021 to enquire on the current situation with the leak. Copies of these emails have not been seen. The resident’s complaint was then referred from the repairs team to the resident services team to follow up.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 13 July 2021, expressing her view that UK housing laws had been breached by the landlord, not maintaining a safe property for her to live in with leaks for the past thirteen years through the electrics, then failing to clean up and repair the damage and more recently ignoring her calls.
On 17 November 2021, the resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint of 26 June 2021.
On 2 December 2021, the landlord confirmed it had received correspondence from this service and had logged the resident’s complaint, which would be responded to, by 15 December 2021.
On 7 December 2021, the landlord responded to the stage one complaint, in summary it said:
1. Following the leak on 26 June 2021, the resident emailed to say she wanted to complain, but not about a repair. As it was not a repair, it said it referred the complaint to the housing team. The resident services officer has since advised she had never received it. It apologised for the complaint not being logged in June 2021, but had confirmed with the housing team, that there had been no recurrence of the neighbour above leaving their taps running.
2. On 17 November 2021, a further leak was reported to the contractor from the neighbour above, the leak was repaired on 24 November 2021.
3. It noted that a contractor was attending the following day for other repairs, so he had now asked the contractor to include an assessment for the damage caused by this leak and any previous leaks.
4. It offered a goodwill gesture for lack of response and discomfort experienced of £50.00.
In an email from the resident on 5 January 2022, the resident stated that “since the landlord had been unable to repair the leaks for 13 years, she requested escalation of her complaint to stage two.”
The landlord’s repairs lead responded on 6 January 2022, advising that if the resident wanted to escalate her complaint about the leak issue in June 2021, she needed to contact the housing team as it was a housing issue and not repairs.
On 10 January 2022, the landlord’s housing officer, wrote to apologise that she had failed to contact the neighbour about them leaving the taps running.
On 4 February 2022, with a claim for compensation the resident requested escalation of her complaint again. The landlord sent an acknowledgement of the request for a stage two on 9 February 2022.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 28 March 2022, in summary it said:
1. The resident’s complaint of June 2021 raised an issue about 13 years of leaks from her neighbour’s property above. Following an out of hours emergency job raised for a leak from the flat above, the resident had requested it take action to resolve this with the neighbour.
2. Records show that the Resident Services Officer contacted the neighbour directly, but it did not respond or follow up with the resident. It agreed its communication with the resident after her concerns were raised, was below standard, and it sincerely apologised for this.
3. It upheld the complaint that it should have responded to the stage one complaint when the resident first asked it to. It acknowledged that it had work to do around its communications, and committed to address this as part of its lessons learnt.
4. It agreed that the number of leaks between the flats was concerning, but the review suggested there were concerns around how the neighbours were using their water facilities. The landlord had been pro-active in trying to rectify reported leaks and made improvements where required, including installing shower rails and curtains in neighbouring properties. It committed to ensure the resident services officer wrote to all residents on the importance of correctly using their water facilities and arrange home inspections over the course of the next month. This was to be followed by a case review to investigate if any further action was required.
5. In a phone call it made to the resident on Friday 4 February 2022 it increased the offer of compensation to £250.00, which is the maximum gesture of goodwill in line with its compensation policy.
6. Its compensation policy, states in section 3.3 that it does not offer compensation where “The fault was caused by a third party or was outside of the landlord’s control, eg, a water leak from a neighbour. It would also not compensate for any damage to decoration caused in these circumstances”.
7. It was arranging for the repairs team to book in work that included decoration to any damage the resident had from the previous leaks. It offered £500 as a gesture of goodwill in addition to the previous £250 offered. The breakdown of compensation is £250 goodwill for the stress of the overall situation, the previous offer of £250 and an additional £250 as a discretionary management payment to demonstrate its commitment to resolving this. The total compensation offered was £750.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of faults with the kitchen sink and space for the cooker

The resident contacted the landlord on 22 November 2021, to report that she had a leak under her kitchen sink which was causing damage to the cabinet. The job order was raised on 26 November and an appointment was booked for 8 December 2021. She had also reported that the space for the cooker was not large enough for her new cooker.
The contractor could not attend the appointment, so it rescheduled it for the following day, 9 December 2021, the resident had requested an appointment before 10am. The operative was late arriving to the resident’s home, due to traffic congestion and could not gain access.
When the resident complained, the landlord advised that it is common for operative’s jobs to overrun or for them to be stuck in traffic. As a result of these uncontrollable delays, it offers timeslots rather than set times. This is to reduce the number of no accesses and to offer the best possible service to residents and colleagues. The landlord arranged a further appointment for 18 December 2021 before 10am. The landlord said the operative arrived at 9.40am but was unable to gain access as the resident refused to let them in. The resident disputes this, in an email of 5 January 2022, she said she was expecting the contractor between 8-8.30 am, she left the property at 10am and nobody had attended.
In an email from the resident on 5 January 2022, the resident stated that she wanted the repairs done as soon as possible, either after 5pm or on a Saturday, she wanted the repair to complete in that one appointment and “would not accept someone attending with excuses and leaving without repairs”.
In an email of 6 January 2021, the landlord agreed to request a Saturday appointment for the resident. It also agreed to pay a sum of £60.00 for three missed appointments.
The landlord offered another appointment for the resident for a Saturday, 22 January 2022. This is not a usual day for the landlord to carry out repairs, but it said it was trying to accommodate the resident. The resident accepted the appointment on condition that everything was completed in one visit. The landlord responded on 6 January 2022, it advised that there were four jobs to be completed, so they could not guarantee completion and would probably have to attend a second time, but they would request attendance as early as possible. The jobs included.
1. Fixing the leak to kitchen sink and check for other leaks around the property.
2. Cabinets in kitchen are rotten, quote for new.
3. Measure cooker space and quote to widen for cooker to fit.
4. Assess ceiling and walls for any damage from the leak above eg plastering and painting.
The same day, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the arrangement, she said she was not prepared to waste her time on four appointments or wait two more months for repairs and tolerate not using the kitchen. She confirmed that would be requesting an escalation to stage two for her complaint about the delay with the leak in the ceiling.
The landlord responded 10 January 2022 to confirm multi-traders would be attending who could complete all jobs, and if the resident wanted to escalate her complaint about the leak for the neighbour’s taps then that needs to be directed to the Housing Management Team.
On 18 January 2022, the landlord advised that a two-hour slot had been booked for the Saturday 8am to 10am as the resident had said she had to go out at 10am.
During this visit, on 22 January 2022, the operative attended, the landlord said he was able to document the specification of works that were needed for the cooker space, but he was unable to fix the leak as on inspection he did not have the parts and the suppliers were not open on a Saturday; this was one of the reasons why the landlord did not offer routine appointments on weekends.
The resident emailed the landlord to complain that no work was completed at the appointment on 22 January 2022. The cooker was in the middle of the kitchen and was dangerous, the resident had not been able to use the sink or her washing machine for three months, and just testing the sink at the appointment caused a leak into downstairs.
On 25 January 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident about the cooker indicating that the resident was responsible for buying the appropriate sized cooker. The resident advised that she bought a standard sized cooker 60cm wide, and the landlord’s space was 59cm wide, the landlord was at fault. The landlord said they had agreed to widen it and the contractor would be in touch.
On 26 January 2022, another appointment to fix the leak under the sink was arranged for the following day, the landlord noted that the resident would only allow access after 4.45pm, which it agreed to, even though its day-to-day repairs service closed at 5pm. The landlord received a message from the contractor to say that the resident had contacted them, and she would not allow the plumber access until she was offered higher compensation than £110.00. The resident disputes this claim.
On 2 February 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that she was not prepared to agree a date for contractors to attend because “we need to agree about the compensation first”. The landlord responded with a revised offer of £230.00, which included £80.00 for missed appointments x 4, £100.00 for not being able to use the washing machine for 9-10 weeks. (£50.00 goodwill gesture for another complaint about water leaking from the flat above).
On 4 February 2022, the resident responded to this offer of compensation from the landlord, with a counter request for compensation of £17,375.00. This included 75 days in a hotel at £55.00 per night. For three months of living in uninhabitable conditions £3,000.00 and £10,000.00 for bullying, mocking, and causing severe harm to her mental health. She requested escalation of her complaint to stage two.
The resident took her complaint to local Member of Parliament (MP) who wrote on 22 February 2022, who also raised her concerns with the landlord on her behalf.
In an email on 18 March the landlord asked the resident if it could book in the 1.5 days required to complete all the works for the week beginning 28 March 2022, and if this was not convenient could the resident propose suitable alternative dates for the work to be booked in.
The landlord issued its stage two response on the 28 March 2022, in summary it said:
1. Following the resident’s escalation request of 4 February 2022, the complaint was acknowledged on 9 March 2022, within its response acknowledgement timescale.
2. The landlord asks for a “clarification of issues form” to be completed as part of the process. The resident refused to complete the form as she felt she had provided the information in a previous email, which the landlord said it accepted.
3. It noted it had, had to agree with the resident, who the Senior Manager or Director of the complaint investigation would be. The resident requested a face-to-face meeting, which it arranged for 17 March 2022, but the attending Senior Officer, was ill with Covid, so the resident did not wish to proceed.
4. It said it agreed to pay the resident for missed appointments, although it did not accept that they were missed appointments. It also agreed to pay £80 for the leak from the sink and being unable to use the washing machine it offered £10 per week for the 10 weeks up until 27 January, £110 which was accepted by the resident.
5. It did not uphold the complaint relating to the delays in the length of time taken to try to resolve the leak from the kitchen waste pipe. Had it been given access from 9 December 2021; this repair would have now been resolved.
6. Its compensation policy, states in section 3.3 that it does not offer compensation where, it is unable to carry out a repair to target time because reasonable access was not given to the property or where it was caused by a third party.
7. It agreed the number of leaks between the flats was concerning and recommended that the resident services officer, arranged home inspections over the course of the next month, followed by a case review to investigate if any further action is required.
8. To help put things right, it was arranging for the repairs team to contact the resident to book in the outstanding works and agreed to increase the offer of compensation by £500.00 bringing the total to £750.00.

Post the complaint process.

On 1 April 2022, the landlord responded to the MP. In its response the landlord said it was confident it had responded to all the resident’s complaints within its complaint procedure. They needed access for a further 1.5 days to complete the outstanding work, but the resident was failing to give access.
The landlord’s stage two investigator tried to arrange a meeting with the resident, but a date could not be agreed.
The housing officer noted that she had arranged a meeting for 9 May 2022, but it is not clear if the meeting went ahead.
The landlord arranged an internal meeting on 28 June 2022, to try and work out a way forward, an action plan was developed, to make contact again with the resident to secure dates for repairs, if the resident did not, they would resort to the relevant clauses of the tenancy agreement. An officer was allocated to book contractors.
Mediation was offered to try and move things on to a resolution between the resident and the landlord.
The landlord called the resident on 8 August 2022, and followed up with an email to ensure it had understood the conversation. In the email it noted the resident had chosen not to allow contractors access to complete the works to her kitchen whilst awaiting contact from the Housing Ombudsman, because she was concerned if the landlord completed the works, her rights would be affected. It noted that it had tried to reassure her that this was not the case, but had agreed not to contact her any further regarding trying to book in the works, but she could change her mind at any time. The email also noted the resident was willing to enter into facilitated mediation with the landlord, but she preferred this to be facilitated by the Housing Ombudsman and not one of the independent mediation organisations that it worked with, again she could change her mind at any time.

Assessment and findings

Leaks into the resident’s property from the flat above.

When the resident reported water pouring though her light fitting on 26 June 2021, from the property above, the landlord sent out an emergency contractor to attend to the leak, in accordance with its emergency repairs response timescale, which was appropriate. When the operatives arrived, it is noted they were unable to gain access to the neighbour’s property above, they were also refused access by the resident to check the electrics. They were advised by the resident the police had attended, ascertained the leak was from the neighbours’ taps being left on, the police instructed they be turned off. In these circumstances the landlord could not be expected to do any more.
The resident emailed the landlord on Monday, 28 June 2021, with a video of the water leaking into her property, and to complain about ongoing leaks from the flat above. In response, the landlord tried to contact the resident by email, to assess her current situation and asked its contractor, to contact the resident and see what assistance it could provide, which was reasonable.
When the contractor contacted the resident, it noted that the resident had advised it, that there was no repair issue, the leak was caused by the neighbour leaving their taps running. Based on this information the landlord continued to treat this issue, as a leak caused by a third party. In these circumstances, the landlord’s repairs policy (set out in the repairs handbook) states, “if there is a water leak, residents are responsible for any damage caused to their decorations, fittings and belongings”. As such, the resident was advised to claim for any damage through her own contents insurance, which was appropriate advice for these circumstances and in accordance with its policy.
The resident has advised this service that she disputes advising the landlord that the cause was the neighbour leaving their taps on, but there is no evidence that the resident shared this view with the landlord or challenged this assessment at the time.
When the resident experienced a further leak on 17 November 2021, the landlord’s contractor attended on 24 November 2021, and reported that it could find no trace of a leak or flooding from the property above. The resident said she had also called out the fire brigade at some point, when she had the leak, but they could find no fault with the property above, and suggested there was a fault with the building. This service has not seen any evidence that the resident shared this information from the fire-brigade with the landlord, but that is not to say she did not. However the contractor should have raised that a leak could not be traced, and a further investigation by the landlord should have been carried out.
The landlord did however in its stage one response on 7 December 2021, agree to assess the damage caused by the most recent leak or any previous leaks and have the remedial work done. Contractors were attending the following day for other works, and it would ask them to include this assessment.
The landlords repairs policy states that it insures the building, but residents’ personal belongings are their own responsibility, eg, if there is a water leak, residents are responsible for any damage to their belongings, so it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to make a claim on her own household contents insurance.
The contractor was unable to attend the appointment on 8 December 2021, and it was re-arranged for the following day. This was understandably inconvenient for the resident as she had re-arranged all appointments to provide access that day; nevertheless, unexpected things do happen which the landlord could not foresee. It reasonably re-scheduled for the following day, but the resident could not be as flexible at short notice, and had to leave her property by 10am. The landlord normally books morning or afternoon time slots for repairs, but it fairly agreed to meet the needs of the resident on this occasion and booked an 8am-10am appointment. The contractor was unavoidably late due to traffic congestion, and did not get to the resident’s home in time. This was again a very unfortunate event, and the resident could not change the time that she had to leave.
The landlord made a further appointment for 18 December 2021, the resident requested an 8-8.30 am appointment, stating she would have to leave by 10am, which the landlord agreed to. The previous appointment was arranged at short notice, and the resident had already been inconvenienced and as such the landlord was rightly making an exception to accommodate the resident, however this appointment failed and illustrated that travelling to the resident’s property at that time of day cannot be guaranteed. Whilst this service understands that the landlord was still trying to accommodate the resident, it needed to manage the resident’s expectations about what would happen if the contractor could not meet that early timeslot. This appointment was arranged in advance and should have adhered to usual policy timeframes. The contractor failed to meet the appointment time, causing inconvenience and frustration to both parties.
The resident was not happy following the fourth appointment on 22 January 2022, as all the work was not completed in the two hours the resident was available for access. There is evidence, the landlord had previously explained to the resident that the work to address the leak damage was only being assessed and estimated for, which was reasonable as this was due process for this type of repair and there was limited time available.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage two, the landlord’s review of the complaint determined that, it was arranging for the repairs team to book in work that included decoration to any damage the resident had from the previous leaks. The evidence shows that the landlord had tried to arrange several appointments with the resident, but she failed to agree access, which impacted on the landlord’s ability to complete the works. The landlords’ repairs policy determines that it is the resident’s responsibility to allow the landlord access for necessary inspections and repairs. It is not unreasonable for the landlord to expect access to be given, within business operating hours and for the amount of time it takes to complete the necessary work. Failing to provide reasonable access has delayed repair completion and resolution to the complaint.
The stage two complaint response agreed with the resident that the frequency with which water was travelling between her flat and those above and below her was of concern and suggested the landlord make some home visits, followed by a case review to see if further action was required, which was a reasonable plan of action. Post complaint information has identified that attempts were made to arrange appointments to visit the resident by the investigating officer, but the resident was not available.

Handling of the resident’s reports of faults with the kitchen sink and space for the cooker.

Free standing cookers come in a range of width sizes starting at 50cm for slimline up to 110cm for the widest range cookers. They range in size to meet the different floor standards allocated for cooker space in different buildings. The landlord was correct in saying in its email of 25 January 2022, that it was not responsible for the resident’s cooker; when anyone buys a new cooker, it is their responsibility to measure the space and buy a cooker to fit that width.
Not everyone, however, is aware of that fact. The resident’s tenancy agreement refers to a furniture package included, so she may not have supplied the original cooker herself and it was not unreasonable to assume that a standard size fits all. Whilst it might have been appropriate to inform the resident the cooker was not its responsibility; the timing of the email and the use of language was not helpful.
In this service’s view the landlord had already accepted responsibility for adjusting the cooker space by raising an inspection in November 2021. If its stance was that this was the resident’s responsibility, she should have been told at the point of reporting it. Raising the issue after 3 – 4 attempts to address the issue was inappropriate, especially when it was still agreeing to do the work.
Phrases in the email like “you must have had a previous cooker in that space before this cooker right?” and “what you should have done is buy a cooker that fits”, was not an appropriate use of language or tone for the landlord to explain itself and understandably the resident took offense. Whilst this was not helpful communication, the work was still being undertaken by the landlord, it was not of detriment to the resident in getting the complaint resolved.
When the resident reported she had bought a cooker that did not fit the space, the landlord raised an order to have someone go out to get the space measured, to consider alteration, which was very reasonable. This was included in an order raised for other repairs the resident had raised, which included repairing a leak to the kitchen sink, assessing the damage and work required to repair/replace the water damaged kitchen unit, and the added inspection to assess the damage from the leaks from the flat above.
Three previous appointments were not successful, and the work was not done. This was the result of one appointment having to be cancelled by the contractor, and no access for two early weekday appointments made, that the contractor could not get to in time. This services view on those failed appointments has been set out in earlier paragraphs 50 and 51 of this report.
The landlord agreed to pay the resident compensation for the three failed missed appointments which was fair, as circumstances were out of the landlord’s control. It also arranged a repair for a Saturday morning, which was very reasonable as this was not a day its contractors usually work.
The resident was not happy following the fourth appointment on 22 January 2022, as all the work was not completed in the two hours the resident was available for access. Evidence shows the landlord had previously explained to the resident that some of the work was only being assessed and estimated for, which was reasonable as this was due process for non-standard repairs and the resident was only available for a short time.
Following this appointment the resident escalated her complaint to stage two, the review of the complaint determined that the landlord had intended for the leak under the kitchen sink to be repaired at the appointment on Saturday 22 January. The plumber however, did not know what part would be needed until he attended, he did not have the part necessary, and the plumbing suppliers were not open on Saturdays. Whilst this is very frustrating for the resident, it was outside of the landlord’s control.
The landlord tried to move the repairs forward, but the resident said she was unable to provide access Monday to Friday unless appointments were after 5pm or on a Saturday, and then only if increased compensation was discussed. This was not appropriate as stated earlier in paragraph 53, the resident is required to give access for repairs and inspections, and it is not unreasonable for the landlord to expect access to be given within business operating hours and for the amount of time it takes to complete the necessary work.

Complaint Handling

When the resident contacted the landlord on 28 June 2021, to complain about a re–occuring problem with leaks that she had been experiencing over the past 13 years from the flat above; the landlord responded to the immediate repair issue. This was not unreasonable in itself; however it failed to log a formal complaint or investigate and provide a response to the wider issues the resident was complaining about. This was not appropriate and did not align with its complaint handling policy.
The resident sent two further emails of complaint regarding this issue in July and November 2021. The landlord did not acknowledge this correspondence or reply, which was not appropriate. The resident had to approach this service for assistance to get her complaint logged and responded to, which was also not reasonable and does not adhere to the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The landlord acknowledged this was a service failing in its stage one response, it apologised to the resident and offered a £50.00 gesture of goodwill for the delay and discomfort she had experienced which was reasonable.
Both of the landlord’s complaint responses at stage one and stage two, contained incorrect information. The first was about a leak on 17 November 2021, it stated that the leak was repaired on 24 November 2021, in fact the contractor reported that no leak was found when it attended on this date. In the second, it stated that the resident services officer (RSO) had approached the neighbour directly about the taps being left on, but it had not reported back to the resident on this issue, which it accepted was a failing and apologised. However the stage one complaint investigation in December 2021, had identified that the RSO had not acted on the referral of the incident from the repairs team, she emailed the resident on 10 January 2022 to apologise for the oversight, and explained she felt it was too late to contact them that far after the event. This inaccuracy undermined the quality of the landlord’s investigation and has added to the resident’s distrust of the landlord.
This misinformation also potentially changed the course of the landlord’s actions. Finding no evidence of a leak from the flat above, when water had penetrated the flat below, should have raised concerns. This had also been raised by the resident as the same findings from the fire-brigade, and warranted further investigation, instead the landlord acted on the findings a leak was found and fixed, which was incorrect.
When the resident requested escalation of her complaint, on 5 January 2022, the landlord advised that if she wanted to escalate her complaint about the leak from the resident’s taps being left on, she should contact the housing management team, as it was not a repairs issue. This was not appropriate, the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that the landlord must have a person or team to co-ordinate complaints. The resident should have been referred to the landlord’s complaint person or team to co-ordinate her escalation request.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint for a second time on 4 February 2022, this correspondence was acknowledged and logged as a stage two complaint. This was appropriate for the subject of the leaks from upstairs, as this had been through the landlord’s formal complaints process at stage one and the response had been issued. As per paragraph 5.7 of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, the kitchen works, leak to sink, new base unit and widening the space for the cooker, were additional complaints that had not formed part of the stage one response, so should have been taken as a new complaint and been investigated at stage one.
Part of the landlord’s stage two complaints process involves completing “a clarification of issues form”, the resident refused to complete this, the point of the form was so that everyone was clear what the relevant complaint issues are, so they are the focus of the complaint review. The landlord acted reasonably in understanding the resident’s reluctance and taking information from the previous correspondence.
There was further delay in the process when the resident questioned the seniority of the review officer lead; it is reasonable for the landlord to determine the appropriate staff and the levels of seniority, that are appointed to the roles to investigate complaints at each stage, a landlord is not usually expected to have to negotiate this.
The landlord’s stage two response did not uphold the resident’s complaint in relation to the delay in the repair to the sink wastepipe, because “had they been given access” the job would have been completed some- time ago. This is not an unreasonable assessment; however, the complaint handling code stresses the importance of “managing residents’ expectations from the outset and being clear where a desired outcome is unreasonable or unrealistic”. In its endeavour to put things right, accommodating the residents’ requests to complete repairs out of normal time frames and within restricted timeslots was creating unreasonable expectations.
The stage two response did reasonably uphold that there were service failings in its delay in dealing with the stage one complaint, its communication fell below expectation and that the number of leaks between the three flats was concerning. In addition to the £250.00 it previously offered, it offered further compensation £250.00 for the stress of the overall situation and a £250.00 discretionary management payment to demonstrate its commitment to resolving the issues. It explained under its compensation policy, compensation could not be paid for damage that was caused by a third party or for not carrying out a repair to target time when reasonable access was not given. This brought the total compensation to £750.00 with a commitment to investigate and carry out all necessary repairs this was reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of leaks into the resident’s property from the flat above.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of faults with the kitchen sink and space for cooker.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the housing Ombudsman Service there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

Regarding the leaks from the property above, the landlord responded in accordance with its policies and procedures, it has accepted that there were some delays in its response and its communication with the resident was not as it should be, for this it has apologised, offered financial compensation including an amount for stress and has committed to service improvement from the lessons learnt in its investigation of this complaint. Whist the landlord does not consider historical complaints, the landlord has considered the context of the most recent leaks and factored in the frequency over time and as part of its resolution, has committed to repairing any damage to the residents property caused by leaks and to further investigate if there might be an underlying problem between the flats.
Regarding addressing the faults in the kitchen, the landlord has agreed to all the repairs, including making room for the residents cooker for which it has no responsibility. It followed due process in requesting to have the non-standard repairs inspected and priced, before ordering. It has arranged for it contractors to attend several appointments that were based around the residents availability. Events have occurred which resulted in three unsuccessful appointments, which was unfortunate, but outside of the landlords control, but it still compensated the resident for the inconvenience. The landlord has since tried to progress the repairs, but has been prevented from doing so by restricted access from the resident.
This investigation considered complaint handling, because the Ombudsman found a significant number of failings in the landlord’s handling of the residents complaint, that did not align with its own complaint handling policy or the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The landlord had not acknowledged many of the complaint handling failings in its response and did not offer any redress for those failures.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pays the resident within four weeks £400.00 (in addition to the £750.00 the landlord has already offered) for the failures identified by the Ombudsman in its handling of the residents complaint.

Recommendation

The landlord upholds its commitment to further investigate the frequency of leaks between the residents flat and those flats below and above hers, to see if there are any improvements that can be made to reduce the risk and frequency of leaks between the flats.
The landlord continues to try and engage with the resident to arrange completion of the outstanding repairs.