One Vision Housing Limited (202214321)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214321

One Vision Housing Limited

15 March 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak, and the subsequent damage to her property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident reported a containable leak on 1 February 2022, and an appointment was booked for 22 February 2022 to repair this. The appointment was rescheduled upon the resident’s request to 8 March 2022, but the contractor was unable to gain access to the property. The resident raised further concerns that there was a leak through her living room ceiling on 25 July 2022, and a contractor attended as an emergency appointment the same day. The contractor identified that the leak was caused by the heating pipes, and a follow-on appointment was scheduled for 27 July 2022, but the contractor could not gain access to the property. The contractor attended on 28 July 2022 and the pipe was replaced on 2 August 2022. Further work orders were raised to complete repairs to the ceiling and door frame.
4. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 3 August 2022as she said the landlord’s contractor had advised there was no leak, but she had hired an independent contractor who confirmed there was a leak. She said that the leak had damaged the wallpaper and the flooring in the hallway and she wanted the landlord to rectify the damage.
5. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint, it stated that delays were caused to the repairs as following a no access appointment on 8 March 2022. The resident did not contact the landlord to reschedule the appointment until 25 July 2022. It acknowledged that the was a two-day delay in identifying the required works on 25 July 2022 and referring the repairs to the gas team to complete the work on 27 July 2022. It stated that as it had attended and tried to resolve the leak within its repair service standards. It advised that the damage to the flooring and wallpaper was not the landlord’s responsibility as residents are responsible for maintaining flooring and décor in their properties. It arranged works to repair the door frame and floorboards. It offered £20 compensation as a gesture of goodwill, due to the delays in scheduling the follow-on appointment on 25 July 2022. It said it had provided additional staff training to ensure the correct processes are followed when additional repairs are required.
6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she remained dissatisfied as the wallpaper was hanging off and there was black mould in the property. She said the condition of the property was impacting her mental health. She also stated the landlord had lied about fixing the broken pipe, as no repairs were undertaken.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has raised concerns that the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the leak led to mould in the property. The scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint which has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. This is because the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions through its complaints process prior to the involvement of this Service. As the resident did not raise concerns with mould in her formal complaint to the landlord, if she still considers the issue to be outstanding, she should address it directly with the landlord and progress as a new formal complaint if required. The resident may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.
8. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which “were not brought to the attention of the member [landlord] as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”. There were previous leaks in the resident’s property reported on 18 August 2021, a year before the formal complaint was raised. In this case, as there is no evidence to suggest the leaks are related, the landlord’s handling of the leak in 2021 will not be included in the investigation as it was not raised as part of a formal complaint to the landlord within six months of the matter occurring.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak, and the subsequent damage to her property

9. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the property and installations for water and gas in good repair. As a result, when the resident reported a leak and it was identified that it was caused by the heating pipes, the landlord was responsible for completing any required repairs. The landlord’s repair policy states that emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs are “to be commenced and completed within 10 days of the date of the first appointment”. Containable leaks are considered non-emergency repairs and uncontainable leaks are emergency repairs.
10. The resident initially reported a containable leak from the boiler on 1 February 2022. The landlord took reasonable steps to arrange an appointment within the relevant timeframe, however, as the contractor was unable to gain access to the property, the work was cancelled. The landlord’s repair policy states that if the contractor fails to gain access to the property, “a calling card will be left and the job will be cancelled” and the onus is on the resident to reschedule the appointment. Therefore, although it may have been helpful for the landlord to have contacted the resident following the no access appointment, it was in line with its policy that the repair was cancelled until further correspondence was received from the resident. The landlord is therefore not responsible for the delays during this period.
11. There is no evidence of further correspondence from the resident regarding the repair until she reported an uncontainable leak on 25 July 2022. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging for a contractor to attend in line with its emergency response timeframe. The cause of the leak was identified as the heating pipes, and the repair was referred to a gas engineer. However, as identified by the landlord in its complaint response, there was a two-day delay in referring the repair, which meant there was a delay in completing the work. It is recognised that the appointment took place on a Friday, so the landlord did not have the opportunity to identify the mistake at an earlier date, particularly as it did not receive any further out of hours repair reports from the resident.
12. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, 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 assesses 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. In this case, the landlord took steps to put things right as it apologised for the delay and offered £20 compensation. It also demonstrated that it had learned from the outcome of the complaint as it stated further training would be provided to staff to ensure the correct processes are followed when follow-on repairs are required.
13. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has raised concerns that the landlord had lied about fixing the leaking pipe, as she said no work was undertaken. The resident also raised in her complaint that the contractor had incorrectly advised there was not a leak, when a leak was later identified by her independent contractor. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account, however as a fair and impartial service, we can only base our decisions on the documentary evidence available. Lying is a serious allegation and we would need to see strong evidence to confirm that this had taken place. In this case, the landlord has provided sufficient contemporaneous evidence to confirm that the required repairs have been completed, including the replacement of the pipe on 2 August 2022. However, it would have been helpful for the landlord to request the report from the independent contractor employed by the resident to address her concerns in full. If the resident has any additional concerns regarding the standard of the work, it is recommended that she raises them with the landlord for it to address.
14. The resident has raised concerns regarding damage caused to the property due to the leak. The landlord has completed the repairs that fell within its responsibilities including the door frame, floorboards, plastering and cracks in the ceiling. However, the resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had not completed repairs to the damage caused by the leak to the wallpaper and the laminate flooring she had installed. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, the resident is responsible for repairs to decorations and her own floor coverings. As there was no significant service failure by the landlord in its handling of the repairs that would have caused substantial damage, it was in line with its policy that it advised the repairs to the décor and flooring were the resident’s responsibility.
15. The landlord’s repair policy also states that it is not responsible for insuring the contents of properties, including decorations, and residents must have their own contents insurance. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord referred the resident to her home contents insurance to claim for the damage. It is recognised that the resident advised the landlord she did not have home contents insurance; however, in line with its compensation policy, the landlord is not obliged to pay compensation for damage that is “supposed to be covered by customer’s own Contents Insurance Policy”. Following the completion of the complaint, the landlord has advised this Service that it has agreed to rehang the wallpaper provided by the resident as a gesture of goodwill. It has therefore exceeded its strict repair obligations in an effort to resolve the complaint. This was a reasonable response by the landlord and it is not required to do anything further regarding this issue.
16. Overall, the landlord has largely handled the repairs in line with its repair policy, other than the two-day delay, which it has acknowledged and provided appropriate redress for. Its decision not to complete the repairs to the resident’s flooring was also in line with its repairs policy and the tenancy agreement.

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak, and the subsequent damage to her property satisfactorily.

Recommendations

18. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident £20 compensation as offered in its complaint response.