One Housing Group Limited (202207268)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207268

One Housing Group Limited

20 June 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of a leak in her property and the subsequent repairs.
2. Complaint.

Background

The resident is the secure tenant of a two bedroomed maisonette located on the sixth floor of a 25-storey block of flats. In 2022 the resident reported that water was entering her property from a leak somewhere in the building. There is a dispute as to when the report was made. Three dates have been put forward, 17 and 27 May 2022 by the resident, and 9 June 2022 by the landlord.
The source of the leak was not immediately obvious to the landlord’s operatives. They carried out investigations which involved gaining access to a number of other properties in the building to check for leaks/plumbing issues. This was complicated by the possible presence of asbestos. The source of the leak was identified following different coloured dyes being introduced to plumbing apparatus, and then checking the colour of the water penetrating the property.
The resident reports that the leak has caused significant damage to her property and to various personal possessions. The carpets were affected, and mould developed on the walls. A pram and various pairs of shoes were damaged, and the resident reports the wooden structure of her settee was undermined. Various remedial works were required, including a mould wash, redecoration, and the replacement of carpeting.
On 13 June 2022 the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the situation. It responded that it had not received the resident’s initial report and explained the investigations it had undertaken to pinpoint where the leak was coming from. It accepted, however, that the complaint should be upheld due to the time taken to resolve the issue. It offered compensation of £250. This was subsequently increased to £750 with the landlord also agreeing to pay for new carpeting.
The resident remains dissatisfied with this response. She considers the compensation offered does not reflect the impact this event had on her and her family. Further, shortly after the repairs were completed the leak returned. However, the landlord determined this was a different, separate leak and commenced investigations once again.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident’s comments about a further leak in the property have been noted. In her view it was a continuation of the previous one and demonstrated that the landlord had not repaired the original problem. As stated above, the landlord maintains it was a different one.
This Service does not have the remit to inspect properties or the expertise to determine the cause of this new leak. Further, the landlord’s handling of it was not included in the complaint being considered here – it took place afterwards. The landlord is entitled to address any issues with its handling of repairs through its internal complaints procedure before the involvement of this Service can be requested. The circumstances of this new leak will not, therefore, be examined further in this report.

The resident’s reports of a leak in her property and the subsequent repairs.

There is no dispute that the landlord is responsible for repairing the leaks affecting this property. The landlord reports the design of the building in which the property is situated makes it especially difficult to identify where leaks are coming from. It explains that this has been an ongoing issue to the extent that it has recently replaced the roof and is replacing the stack pipes in the building to try to reduce such problems in the future.
The resident states she reported water permeating into her property in May 2022. There is a dispute as to when this was. In an email to the landlord of 21 June 2022 the resident stated she had reported it on 17 May 2022. In its stage one complaint response, however, the landlord denied any report for that date, stating its first record of the event was dated 9 June 2022. In the resident’s subsequent complaint escalation request, she stated the leak was noticed (and reported) on 27 May 2022. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord denied having any report for that date either, maintaining the 9 June timeline.
Having considered the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude the report was made on 27 May 2022 for the following reasons:
1. The landlord’s conclusion was the leak related to a repair made in another property on 24 May – which was after the 17 May and just before 27 May 2022.
2. The landlord has provided evidence that a leak was investigated at the building on an out of hours basis on 27 May 2022, although it has stated this related to a communal area on the ninth floor. Its operative was, however, in attendance at the building.
3. In an internal email dated 24 June 2022 the landlord’s staff member commented: –
  1. “In response to your email, we were first alerted to this leak on Friday 27 May 2022. [The resident] reported the issue to our Out of Hours Emergency Repairs service who attended on the same day but were unable to effect a repair. They advised her to place a bucket under the entry point. [It] started investigations on Monday 30 May …”
4. In its letter to this Service dated 28 November 2022 (“the landlord’s letter”) the landlord confirmed that it had been delayed in trying to gain access to the property from where the leak was ultimately found to have originated. It stated that attempts to send text messages on 5 and 6 June 2022 to the occupant had failed. This demonstrates that the landlord was already carrying out investigations before 9 June 2022.
It is agreed that the resident did contact the landlord on 9 June 2022 in any event, chasing the situation up. No repairs or works to her property had taken place in the intervening period.
The landlord’s policy on its approach to repairs is set out on its website. It states that the landlord will “attend and make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours” and “any follow up work will be raised as a new job and dealt with in line with our routine repair process”. Examples of what might constitute an emergency repair are then given and this includes “a serious water leak inside your home”. It also includes “total loss of electricity, gas or water”. With regard to routine repairs, the website then states, “we will attend and complete the repair within 28 workings days”.
The leak in this case was significant and might reasonably be classified as an emergency. The landlord has not produced an out of hours information/job sheet for an attendance at the resident’s property on 27 May 2022 following the report confirmed above. However, it is reasonable to conclude this did take place for the following reasons:
1. The landlord’s internal email (as set out above) confirms it took place.
2. The comment about using a bucket would be an unnecessary detail to add if it had not taken place.
3. In the resident’s chase up report of 9 June 2022 she referred to somebody coming out on that day.
The landlord’s actions were therefore appropriate at that point. It classified the leak as an out of hours emergency and attended the same day. Moving forward the landlord might reasonably have been expected to commence investigations and repairs as soon as possible. Even though it had 28 working days to do so (according to its policy), there was an urgency to this situation which suggests a shorter timeframe was required.
According to the landlord’s internal email, investigations commenced on 30 May 2022. From the landlord’s letter, this consisted of two attempts to contact a neighbour from whose property the leak might be coming from. This was by text message on 5 and 6 June. Once the resident had chased the position on 9 June 2022, the landlord’s attempts accelerated. It then attended the building on that day, and on 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16 June 2022. It identified an asbestos test was required on 10 June and it conducted dye tests on 14 June 2022. The landlord identified where the leak was coming from on 16 June 2022 – its operative had carried out a repair to the kitchen sink pipe (of the upstairs neighbour’s property) on 24 May 2022 and had caused a leak in doing so.
It is acknowledged that the landlord faced challenges in investigating this leak. It was hampered by access problems and the design of the building. However, the impetus shown after the resident’s prompt of 9 June might reasonably have taken place before it. The landlord’s dye tests were not carried out until 14 June 2022 – 19 days after the resident first reported the issue. The problem was finally diagnosed on 16 June 2022, three weeks after that initial report. Given the situation, the landlord might reasonably have shown more urgency and this represented a failing in the service it offered.
Despite it being identified that an asbestos survey was required on 10 June 2022 the landlord did not carry this out until 30 June 2022. It did not complete the repair to the neighbouring property until 4 July 2022, almost six weeks after the first report although, once again, there were some access issues. Whilst the landlord did advise the neighbour not to pour any liquids down the kitchen sink in the meantime, wastewater was being disposed of in this way for at least three weeks before the problem with this apparatus was spotted. The landlord states the neighbour heeded its advice but the resident disputed this. On 21 June 2022 she reported the leak was continuing. What is clear is that for at least those three weeks, if not more, the resident had dirty water permeating her home and she reports this was a significant health and safety issue.
In terms of the damage caused by the leak, the resident started to experience a significant spread of mould emerging on her walls, her carpets were wet, and her decoration was affected. She reported the property smelt dreadful and her young children were breathing this in. As stated above, the resident chased the landlord on 9 June 2022 about the situation. Further, on 11 June 2022 she called in the fire brigade to check whether the electrics were safe. At this point, water was coming through the ceiling in the living room, outside by the toilet, and in the airing cupboard. The resident was using buckets to collect it. The brigade turned the supply off for the main lights in the property as a result stating they needed to be checked before they were turned back on.
The resident states she reported this to the landlord the same day, requesting an emergency attendance and “kept ringing hourly to check when someone would arrive, but no one did”. In its complaint responses the landlord denied that this call was received (and therefore that it was told that an electrical check was required). However, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident did contact the landlord that day and that she did provide this information for the following reasons: –
1. In the landlord’s letter, it stated that the resident “contacted us out of hours on the weekend of 11 June 2022 reporting a leak and we attended on Monday 13 June 2022”.
2. The landlord’s out of hours internal record for that attendance states it was created on 11 June with an attendance on 13 June 2022 for a “leaking ceiling”.
3. Having the fire brigade attend one’s home is a dramatic event and it is unlikely the resident would have contacted the landlord but failed to mention it (or what the outcome of it was in terms of the electrics being turned off).
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 June and 27 June 2022 to remind it that the electrical check was outstanding. According to the landlord’s letter this was carried out on 22 July 2022, six weeks after it was reported. There has been no dispute that this was the landlord’s responsibility. Whilst this was not a total loss of electricity, necessitating an emergency response, the landlord might reasonably have been expected to attend to this issue much sooner than it did. This represented a failing in the service it offered to the resident.
In the meantime, on 15 June 2022 the resident provided the landlord with photographs showing the emergent black mould on the walls. She reiterated to the landlord that the condition of the property was unacceptable. On 21 June 2022 the resident contacted the local authority and asked for their support (who, in turn, contacted the landlord). On 22 June 2022 the landlord attended the property and inspected it, agreeing to supply a dehumidifier; carry out a mould wash; redecorate and have the carpets professionally cleaned. In their view the leak(s) had been curtailed by now and the property was dry – a fact disputed by the resident. Given all the circumstances of this case, the landlord might reasonably have been expected to carry out its inspection sooner than this.
With regard to the timing of the remedial works, it is logical to conclude that the property needed to dry out before the repairs were carried out. In turn the leak itself needed to have been repaired (and this was not done until July 2022). The dehumidifier was supplied on the 22 June 2022 and the mould wash was carried out on 28 June 2022. Redecoration then took place in mid-July 2022. The carpets were due to be professionally cleaned on 7 July but the lounge one was not done until 28 July 2022 – during which time the family still had to use it if they wanted to access that room. Unfortunately, this clean did not resolve the damage to the carpets and they had to be replaced in November 2022.
As set out above the landlord’s policy for follow-on repairs commits it to carrying them out within 28 working days which takes the timetable in this case to early July 2022. It can be seen that it largely achieved this – except in the case of the lounge carpet – but more urgency was warranted, particularly in the early days of this situation.
Further the resident, with her two young children were living in a mouldy, damp property with carpets penetrated with dirty water and no main lights during this period. It is reasonable to conclude this would have gone on for longer had the resident not chased, complained, and enlisted the help of outside agencies. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord might reasonably have considered whether an urgent decant for the family was required given that this appeared to be a health and safety issue. The landlord failed to consider this option.
In conclusion, the landlord’s handling of the investigations into this leak and of the remedial works required fell below the standard the resident was reasonably entitled to expect. In its complaint responses the landlord accepted that it had taken too long to resolve the situation. This did not, however, fully reflect the failings identified in this report as some of the resident’s contacts were denied.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies.
In its stage one response, the landlord offered compensation of £250 (£50 under right to repair and £200 for the impact on the resident). In its stage two response this was increased to £350 plus £50 for a missed carpet cleaning appointment and £100 for stress and inconvenience. This amounted to £500. After the resident pressed the issue of her damaged belongings, the landlord increased its offer “from £350 to £750” but failed to set out what its stance was on the other two amounts – whether they were included in the £750 or were still in addition. Finally, the landlord offered £750 in compensation in addition to the carpets being replaced at a cost of £1,680 excluding VAT. The landlord might reasonably have been expected to make its position clearer.
This Service’s remedies guidance sets out advice on calculating financial redress. It sets out that an award of between £250 and £700 is appropriate where there has been considerable service failure including misdirection. In the Ombudsman’s view this complaint merits an award at the top end of this bracket, that is £700. The resident’s initial report was not properly followed up and she lost full enjoyment of her home due to its condition. She reasonably reports that this caused significant frustration, worry and inconvenience.
Further the resident was put to time and trouble in having to chase the landlord to drive forward its investigations. Given the landlord accepted the leak was caused by its operative, the resident might reasonably be compensated for her time and trouble in pursuing the repairs. An order in the sum of £250 has been made below in this regard. This includes the £50 offered by the landlord for a missed carpet cleaning appointment.
During the complaints process, the resident advised the landlord that various of her belongings had been damaged and she wanted to claim compensation for them. The landlord responded that its insurance did not cover its residents’ personal belongings and it encouraged residents to arrange their own home contents cover.
The resident continued to raise the issue with the landlord and on 26 September 2022 it responded that it could not be held liable for issues arising from wear and tear to the building. It explained that such events were outside of its control, and this was why residents were advised to maintain their own insurance.
All homes require maintenance and repair from time to time and this is so irrespective of whether the occupier is an owner or a tenant. The fact a repair is required does not necessarily mean the landlord has failed in its responsibilities. However, in this case the landlord accepted, in its stage one response, that its contractor had visited the neighbour’s flat to unblock the kitchen sink. It stated that they “appear to have inadvertently punctured the hidden section of the waste pipe”. In this situation, the landlord might reasonably have recognised the difference between wear and tear, and repairs that it has caused through its own workmanship and for which it might be held liable. The resident was entitled to receive the landlord’s insurance details so that she could make a claim. This Service cannot speculate as to what the outcome might have been or determine whether it is or is not too late now to make a claim. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s stance on this issue would have caused the resident more upset and worry and an order for compensation of £200 has been made below.
Despite the landlord’s position on insurance, it did consider the resident’s loss with regard to her belongings. She quantifies her loss at £1,000 but it is not possible to verify the accuracy of this figure. After inspecting the belongings which are still in the resident’s possession, the landlord increased its compensation offer by £400. It is reasonable to conclude that was its assessment of the value of those items. That figure has not been verified either. The Ombudsman’s view is that given the landlord was, ultimately, willing to offer compensation for damaged belongings, the sum of £600 represents a fair solution to both sides and an order has been made in this sum.
It can be seen that in the Ombudsman’s view the level of compensation which might reasonably have been offered to the resident by way of a fair outcome to this complaint fell short. This was due to the fact the landlord did not identify the full extent of its shortcomings to take them into account. For the sake of certainty, account has been taken of the fact that the landlord did pay for replacement carpets to be fitted and it carried out redecoration which would normally be the resident’s responsibility.

The resident’s complaint.

The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process and the landlord met the deadlines in its communications with the resident in line with its policy. However, in the landlord’s stage one response it denied having been contacted about the leak prior to 9 June 2022. In her escalation request, the resident challenged this and also noted the landlord had not commented on her contact on 11 June 2022, which concerned the involvement of the fire brigade.
In its stage two response the landlord denied that a report of the leak had been made prior to 9 June 2022, stating there was no record of the earlier call. Further it asserted that no repair was raised, or text message sent to the resident following the call which it said was its normal process. The resident’s contact about the fire brigade was also denied. The review was therefore carried out on the basis the first report was made on 9 June 2022 and responded to the same day and the contact on 11 June 2022 did not take place.
However, the quote at paragraph 11c above came from an internal email sent by the same person who carried out the stage two review. They acknowledged in it, just one month previously, that the report had been made on 27 May 2022 after all. It is reasonable to conclude they were aware of the information in that previous email when they prepared this response. This investigation has also reached a conclusion that the contact did take place on 11 June 2022 (and reference is made to it in the landlord’s letter). Therefore, at best, the resident was given incorrect information, at worst there was misdirection.
This does not represent a fair and reasonable approach to dispute resolution. The landlord has a duty to respond to complaints in an open and transparent way. This represented a failing in the service offered to the resident. An order will be made for further compensation of £250 to reflect the resident’s distress and frustration when the landlord denied key contacts that it should reasonably have acknowledged had taken place.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of a leak in her property and the subsequent repairs.
2. Complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident total compensation of £2,000 made up of £700 for the impact of the landlord’s mishandling of the repair; £250 for time and trouble; £200 for missing insurance details; £600 for damaged belongings; and £250 for its complaint handling.
It should confirm with this Service that it has complied with the Order within four weeks of receiving this determination.