One Housing Group Limited (202347031)

Background

1. The resident lives in a block of flats. The landlord attended a flood from the wet risers which affected multiple properties in the block. The landlord offered to clean the resident’s carpet, but she wanted them replacing. The landlord said it would not replace the carpets but offered the resident the cost of cleaning towards the replacement instead. The resident complained that the landlord had replaced the flooring in other properties, and she wanted her carpets to be replaced as well.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A flood leak in the property.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable offer of redress in the landlord’s handling of a flood in the property.
4. There was reasonable offer of redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

A flood in the property

What we have not looked at

5. The resident told us that she and her family became ill after the flood in the property and that her daughter had a persistent cough. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for her to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience.

What we have looked at

6. The resident’s tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep any of its installations in good working order, this includes water pipes. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours and make safe within 12 hours. It says it will complete follow on work within the appropriate priority time. It sets a 5-calendar day timeframe to complete urgent repairs.
7. There were significant leaks from the wet risers on 27 and 28 November 2023. The resident was only affected by the second leak. The landlord thought damage to the risers may have been deliberate. It confirmed the wet risers had been repaired in a letter to the resident dated 29 November 2023. This was in line with the timeframe to complete urgent repairs.
8. The resident felt the landlord did not do enough to check on the resident and her family after the flood. She found the situation very distressing and said she only saw an electrician and had her carpets wet vacuumed on the day of the leak. The landlord acknowledged this in its complaint responses. The landlord’s records show that they were not aware of any vulnerabilities in the household. It would be reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to ensure that any vulnerabilities in the household are recorded for future repairs.
9. The landlord was concerned that the wet risers had been vandalised, and this was the cause of the leaks. The landlord put new security measures in place to prevent similar events happening again. It arranged additional temporary CCTV to cover potential blind spots around the site. The landlord liaised with the police and instructed wardens to stand by the entrance of the building and near the main stairways. This was appropriate and a proactive approach to try and prevent further vandalism to the wet risers.
10. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 January 2024. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by the leak. It said it had instructed a cleaning company to clean and deodorise the carpets on both floors. The resident refused access because they said they were going to replace the carpets. The landlord said its building insurance does not cover the resident’s personal belongings and residents are encouraged to arrange home contents insurance. It told the resident about a “helping hands” fund which supported residents on low incomes to apply for grants of up to £500 to help with bills or replacing household appliances. It offered £900 towards the cost of replacing the carpets.
11. The landlord’s response was fair because it was not responsible for the resident’s belongings. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord must insure the structure of the premises against fire and other risks, but the policy does not cover damage to the resident’s belongings. It advises the resident to take out their own insurance to cover any damages. The landlord’s offer to clean the carpets or provide money towards replacing them was reasonable because it was not responsible for the resident’s contents. The offer of £900 was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
12. Informing the resident about the grant for resident’s on low income was reasonable as it showed the landlord recognised the financial impact the flood had on her.
13. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 March 2024. The landlord apologised to the resident for the time spent dealing with the aftermath of the flood. It explained several flats were affected by the flood and some more severely than others which is why flooring was removed from other properties in the block. It said the cleaning contractor confirmed the resident’s carpets would withstand cleaning and drying.
14. The landlord’s stage 2 response was reasonable. The landlord instructed a cleaning contractor to assess the carpets and see whether it would withstand cleaning. Its response was proportionate and fair under the circumstances. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its contractors as to the condition of the carpet, and the goodwill gesture was reasonable. It would not be reasonable for the landlord to replace the carpets in all the properties in the block if it was not necessary to do so.
15. 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.
16. The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress that satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of a flood in the property. We have made recommendations which the landlord may wish to consider.

The associated complaint

17. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint policy. It says it will log and acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days. And it will issue a decision in writing within 10 working days from receipt of the complaint. It will issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days from the escalation request. The landlord’s complaint policy is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) issued in 2022.
18. The resident raised her complaint on 7 January 2024, and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 January 2024. This means that 14 working days elapsed between complaint and response, this was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay in providing a stage 1 response.
19. On 9 February 2024 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. The landlord responded within 20 working days on 5 March 2024. This was inline with the Code and its complaint policy.
20. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
21. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Although it delayed its stage 1 response, the compensation offered was in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance. We consider this appropriate and proportionate to acknowledge the service failure. We recommend that the landlord pay the resident £50 compensation offered in its stage 1 response if it has not already done so.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.