One Housing Group Limited (202015974)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015974

One Housing Group

21 June 2021


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 how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a water leak in the bathroom of the property.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Scope of investigation

  1. In her correspondence with both the landlord and this Service, the resident has made reference to historical issues relating to repairs at the property for the previous eight years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  2. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, which states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to February 2020. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focussed on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in November 2020.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building. The landlord is does not own the freehold of the building but does own the head lease for several properties in the building. The landlord sublets these properties to tenants, including the resident. The landlord is responsible for the internal repairs and maintenance the resident’s property. The communal areas in the building are maintained by a managing agent employed directly by the freeholder of the building.
  2. Section 9.2 of the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy categorises its repair responses as ’Emergency’ (attend and make safe within 24 hours), ‘Urgent’ (attend within three working days, complete within 5 working days), and ‘Routine’ (attend within 5 working days, complete within 20 working days). Outside of response timescales, the policy does not provide any further definition of the different repair categories.
  3. Section 6.2 of the policy relates to the repair and upkeep of communal systems. This, in part, states that:

“Where [the landlord] has the responsibility of the maintenance or servicing of a communal system, it will always make sure it does so in line with published repairs and maintenance service standards. Where third parties such as managing agents have an interest, own or control the systems, [the landlord] will endeavour to communicate and work closely with them to ensure the service received by residents is satisfactory.”

  1. At the time of this complaint, the landlord operated a one-stage complaints policy. When first receiving a complaint, it would be acknowledged within three working days and the landlord would attempt to resolve the complaint informally. If that was not possible, it would then send a formal complaint response within 15 working days of the escalation of the complaint to the formal stage.
  2. It should be noted that on 4 January 2021 the landlord implemented a new two-stage complaints policy which is in compliance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Full details of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code are published on our service’s website.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord’s repair logs state that:
    1. On 4 February 2020 a repair order was raised following a report from the resident of a leak from the bathroom sink. The leak was deemed as contained and marked as completed on 12 February 2020 after the basin waste kit was replaced.
    2. On 20 July 2020 a leak from the first-floor communal corridor ceiling was reported. The repair was classed as an emergency and a plumber attended on the same day. The notes added by the plumber stated that they had difficulty gaining access to the property as the resident did not answer the intercom system, but that the source of the issue was determined to be the hot water pipe in the ceiling and the job was marked as completed on 20 July 2020.
    3. The resident informed the landlord on 22 September 2020 that she had no hot water. A work order was raised, and a plumber attended the property; however, the resident was not available, and the appointment was rescheduled to 24 September 2020. An inspection of the heating system was booked for 28 September 2020 where it was determined a new valve was required and this part was ordered. This was recorded as being installed on 22 October 2020.
    4. On 23 September 2020 a containable leak on the second floor of the building was reported. This was identified as an issue with a joint between the copper and plastic pipework in the heating system and was marked as completed on 21 October 2020.
    5. On 29 September 2020 a report was made of a leak on the third floor of the building. A plumber attended the same day to make safe and an inspection was arranged for 30 September. The landlord’s repair notes state that the issue was with the heating pipe and recommended booking an appointment for the landlord’s commercial heating team to attend the building. This was marked as completed on 7 October 2020.
    6. On 8 October 2020 a work order was raised to visit the resident’s property to investigate the ongoing issues of leaks in the building. The operative’s notes state that the toilet cistern had come off the wall which had caused water to flood the bathroom when the toilet was flushed. The notes further recommended allowing the bathroom to dry out for two weeks then undertake repairs to the bathroom walls, door, and to replace the bath panel. This was recorded as being completed on 30 October 2020.
    7. On 2 November 2020 the resident informed the landlord that she was without hot water again. The notes left by the operative recommended a full investigation of the building’s communal heating system and follow-on work was arranged for 21 November 2020.
  2. On 26 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a complaint. She described the elements of the complaint as:
    1. She had experienced issues with water leaks in the bathroom since 2018 and despite multiple visits by the landlord and its contactors, the matter had yet to be resolved.
    2. Due to the repeated water leaks, the property was in a very poor condition. This included warped doors, patches of mould/damp and bad smells.
    3. The length of time it was taking the landlord to resolve the matter was unacceptable.
  3. The landlord called the resident on 2 December 2020 to discuss the issues she had raised, and a formal complaint response was sent on 17 December 2020. It informed her that:
    1. She contacted the landlord on 8 October 2020 to report the poor condition of the property’s bathroom due to ongoing leaks. This was classed as a routine repair and an appointment raised for 30 October 2020. The landlord recognised that this should have been treated with more urgency and apologised to the resident.
    2. It received a report of an uncontainable leak from a property below the resident on 27 October 2020. An emergency work order was raised, and the source of the leak was determined to be from the soil stack. Follow-on work on 29 October 2020 suggested that the location of the soil stack leak was likely to be in the resident’s property. The landlord apologised to the resident as its scheduling team did not contact the resident at this time to arrange an appointment to inspect her property.
    3. She contacted the landlord on 11 November 2020 to report issues with the heating and hot water. A gas engineer attended on 13 November 2020 and identified a seized valve affecting the flow of water. This was repaired and the engineer recommended the bath mixer taps be replaced and further inspections for leaks take place in the property.
    4. Follow-on work was arranged for 25 November 2020, where the mixer taps were replaced, and no leaks were located in the bathroom. However, further work to inspect to inspect the hidden stack in a storage cupboard was required. This would require the removal of sections of a plasterboard wall to enable access.
    5. During the telephone conversation on 2 December 2020, the landlord and resident agreed to an appointment on 7 December 2020. Following the appointment, the contractor called the resident on 9 December 2020 to arrange follow-on work. However, a date was unable to be agreed as the resident stated her dissatisfaction that sections of plasterboard would be removed in order to carry out the repair.
  4. The landlord apologised to the resident for the inconvenience caused to her in pursing the matter and for the poor level of service she experienced. It then explained that it had recently changed its customer management system to improve its communication with its residents and how information is shared between its departments.
  5. The landlord concluded the response by awarding the resident £100 compensation, which it broke down as £50 for right to repair and £50 for the inconvenience caused. The landlord informed the resident that it would be in contact to arrange an appointment for the outstanding work. It explained that it would take two days to complete and that any disturbed plasterboard would be reinstated and decorated to match the existing decorations.
  6. An internal landlord email sent on 21 December 2020 stated that it had agreed with the resident for the work to go ahead on 4 and 5 January 2021.
  7. On 14 January 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord to express her dissatisfaction with its complaint response. She described the stressful situation she had experienced living in the property while the outstanding issues were resolved and that its offer of £100 compensation was inadequate.
  8. The landlord sent a follow-on complaint response to the resident on 29 January 2021. It stated that a surveyor visited the property on 26 January 2021 and recommended the following work:
    1. Insulate a void area in the boxing in the lounge to help prevent condensation.
    2. Adjust the bathroom door to prevent it rubbing on the floor
    3. Replace the bath panel and renew the sealant around the bath.
  9. The landlord informed the resident that it would review its compensation offer once this work had been completed. The landlord also apologised again for the length of time that the issue had taken to be resolved.

Assessment and findings

  1. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an acknowledgment of its errors, an apology, explaining the changes it had made in its customer service systems and a compensation payment of £100) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord recognised two instances where it did not follow its repairs policy correctly. It accepted that the resident’s report of a water leak in the bathroom should on 8 October 2020 have been classified as an emergency or urgent repair, not a routine repair. It also accepted that after a plumber had determined that the source of the leak in the soil stack was likely from the resident’s property, that it should have contacted her more promptly to arrange an inspection.
  3. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by changing its customer management software to improve its communication both internally and with residents.
  4. The compensation award was broadly in line with its the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance and was based on the landlord’s compensation guidance, which suggests a payment of up to £50 when repairs are not completed within their target date and, when appropriate, that a goodwill gesture should be considered that recognises the time, trouble and distress the matter had caused a resident.
  5. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. The landlord demonstrated that it learnt from outcomes by changing its procedures to improve its communication with residents in the future.
  6. While the frustration of the resident is wholly understandable, in some circumstances it can be difficult to locate the source of a leak into a property. This issue was exacerbated by failures and leaks from the communal heating system. When there are leaks from pipework in communal areas of the building, this would be the responsibility of the managing agent to resolve. On 17 December 2020 the managing agent wrote to the landlord to inform it that it submitted a proposal to remove all plastic pipework from the heating system and replace it with copper pipework, as the joints between the plastic and copper pipes had been identified has the main cause of leaks in the system.
  7. As explained above, the managing agent was acting on behalf of the freeholder which is a separate organisation from the landlord. Therefore, the landlord was not responsible for the managing agent’s actions or for any delays in relation to repairs in communal areas of the building. The landlord acted reasonably by following up with the managing agent to check the progress of repairs to the heating system and it was not required to do anything further with regards to this issue.
  8. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
  9. The compensation offered by the landlord was for the period up to when the formal complaint response was sent on 17 December 2020. In its follow-up response sent on 29 January 2020, the landlord informed the resident that once all work recommended by its surveyor has been completed, it would review its compensation offer. An Internal landlord email sent on 19 April 2021 confirmed that all work had been completed by 16 April 2021.
  10. It would now be appropriate for the landlord, if it had not done so already, to write to the resident and inform her of its decision to award further compensation for the period after the complaint response was sent up to when all work was completed.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it responded to the resident’s reports of a water leak in the bathroom of the property, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord recognised the delays and inconvenience caused to the resident by it not following its repairs and maintenance policy for two repair appointments.
  2. The landlord apologised and awarded compensation proportionate to the service failures it identified.
  3. The landlord explained to the resident the changes it had made to its customer management software to improve its customer service and internal correspondence.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that, if it has not done so already, the landlord write to the resident to inform her of its decision to offer further compensation in respect of the repairs undertaken after the formal complaint response was sent on 17 December 2020.