Places for People Group Limited (202127848)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127848

Derwent Housing Association Limited

21 July 2022

 

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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in her property
    2. The landlord’s response to her reports of damage to her burglar alarm

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is an end of terrace house.
  2. According to the landlord’s records the resident reported a leak in her home on 4 November 2021. She said that water leaked from her bathroom to the downstairs toilet. She raised a second report of an uncontainable leak on 8 November 2021 repeating the same leak. The engineer attended on both days but reported that it found no signs of a leak and noted that the ceiling stain was dry. The resident raised a third report on 9 November 2021 stating that either the sink or bath was leaking to her downstairs ceiling. An internal email between the landlord’s staff that same day showed the repairs officer explained that the engineer had attended the resident’s property but did not fix anything or stop the leak as he was unable to identify where it was coming from.
  3. The landlord’s records showed a further leak was reported on 9 November and its engineer attended and fitted a new shower hose in the resident’s bathroom. The shower was noted as working well. The engineer returned to the resident’s property on 10 November 2021 and replaced the bath waste pipe.
  4. The resident reported on 12 November 2021 that her bath continued to leak when in use. The engineer attended and advised that a new bath was required. The engineer attended the resident’s home again on 18 November 2021 and (according to the repairs history) diagnosed that the fault was not the bath but rather the cold-water pipe to the thermostatic mixer shower behind the tiles. An internal email on 18 November showed that the resident advised that the engineer said he could only turn all the water off as isolating the shower required breaking into the tiles
  5. An internal email showed that the landlord spoke with the resident in November 2021. It noted that she was dissatisfied and questioned why it took five appointments to identify the source of the leak. The resident reported on 22 November 2021 that the issue was worse and was constantly leaking even when the bath was not in use. She said that water leaked through her alarm causing it to sound. The repairs officer attended on 22 November and disconnected the resident’s alarm. An internal email showed that the landlord phoned the resident in late November when she explained that the engineer said he could not isolate the shower without taking all the tiles off, but that he did offer to turn the water off altogether to the property at the time, which she declined. She stated that she wanted confirmation as to when the leak would be fixed as she believed it was causing damage to her property. The Iandlord offered the resident a decant, but this was declined by the resident as she did not want to move out the property. Its records showed that it resolved the leak on 24 December 2021 by removing the tiles, replacing the thermostatic shower, pipework and installed new tiles.
  6. The resident raised a formal complaint (this Service has not seen a copy of the actual complaint) and the landlord’s records suggest that it was raised on 24 November 2021. The resident raised concern about the number of visits before the cause of leak was identified, and noted that she had to take a lot of time off to meet contractors. The resident detailed the reasons for needing the alarm in her home and explained that she did not feel safe without it. She said the damage to the alarm was caused by the leak as engineers were unable to diagnose the fault. She explained that the leak had caused water damage to her room below exposing the ceiling where mould was growing, as well as her blinds, walls, skirting board and tiles. She said the issues affected her daughter’s health. The resident advised that an officer attended her property and reconnected the alarm on 2 December 2021.
  7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 8 December 2021 detailing the chronology of events. It noted that there were five visits to the resident’s property before the shower pipework was diagnosed as the cause of the leak. It explained that on the first two instances there was no leak showing but following the bath waste and shower hose repairs it appeared to resolve the issue at that time. It explained that as the leak continued it was believed a full bath replacement was the only option, however a latter diagnosis negated the need to replace the bath. The landlord explained it can be difficult to determine the source of a leak. It said there was no evidence to confirm a misdiagnosis due to lack of sufficient care or inspection and advised that the engineers had looked into the source as reported. The landlord advised that once the pipework was diagnosed its contractor noted that the leak was minimal. The landlord advised that the engineer did offer to break into the tiles at the time and isolate the shower but that it was declined by the resident. This is disputed by the resident, however the landlord explained it had now evidence to confirm either of the differing recollections of the visit. It noted that during the six days between the diagnosis and final repair, the leak could have been paused by turning the stopcock off when water was not in use but that it recognised this was an inconvenience. It advised that a recall had been raised in relation to the workmanship of the final repair and that its repairs team would determine which aspects required recall and which aspects were considered fit for purpose.
  8. The landlord stated that when the alarm system was reconnected in December 2021 its engineer confirmed it was working correctly, and as it failed again they returned but were unable to repair the alarm. The landlord explained that burglar alarms did not fall within its remit and the alarm was considered a gift as it was already in place. It said that because the contractor had not accepted failures in their actions, the fault to the burglar alarm was not the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord explained that if the resident wished to repair or replace the alarm due to damage she could enquire with her home contents insurance if it was covered.
  9. The landlord said that although it was unable to uphold her complaint due to lack of evidence of service failures, it recognised the inconvenience the issue had on her. It said that although misdiagnosis was not admitted it found that five visits before the diagnosis was more than ideal and offered £50 compensation. It said although the leak was minimal it recognised the inconvenience of the ongoing leak and offered £25 as an apology. It offered £10 for the additional visit required due to the recall to workmanship, and £10 in compensation in recognition of inconvenience of her burglar alarm being disconnected. It noted that it had offered a total of £95 compensation which was declined by the resident.
  10. The resident noted her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint response on 8 December 2021. She said that she was not accepting its compensation as her alarm was currently unfunctional and she believed it was due to the delay in the engineer’s diagnosis. She described the damage caused to the below room and disputed refusing the engineer to isolate the shower. She raised similar concerns as in her formal complaint in November 2021. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 19 January 2022. The landlord advised that although the maintenance of the alarm was her responsibility under the tenancy agreement, it agreed that the fault to alarm was caused by the leak that occurred. It advised that it would replace the resident’s alarm as a gesture of good will. The landlord explained that once the new alarm was installed she would be responsible for all repairs and maintenance. The resident passed her complaint to this Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response, she raised similar concerns as in her formal complaint in November 2021.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in her property

  1. The landlord’s repair guidance advises that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property including fixtures and fittings it has provided. The landlord’s repair policy sets out a timescale of 24 hours for emergency repairs and 28 days for all other repairs. The landlord’s repairs procedure lists leaks causing damage to ceilings, or uncontrollable damage, as an emergency repair. The resident initially reported a leak to the landlord on 4 and 8 November 2021 however, it found no signs of a leak on either day. There were also further reports of a leak on 9 and 12 November 2021. The landlord attended each repair within its timeframe of 24 hours. On 18 November the landlord diagnosed the cause of the leak and on 24 December 2021 it resolved the issue.
  2. Once diagnosed, the final repair was within the landlord’s 28-day repair timeframe. Landlords cannot always complete a final repair during a short notice emergency repair. Therefore it was appropriate that the landlord tried to mitigate the intervening time by offering: to isolate the shower (though this is disputed); advice on using the stop cock to minimise any leak; and a temporary decant.
  3. The resident raised concern about the number of visits before the cause of leak was identified. The landlord acknowledged there were five attendances before it identified the cause, and explained it could be difficult to determine the source of a leak. The landlord’s repair policy advises that where a repair cannot be completed during the first visit it will agree on a follow up appointment. The primary reason for further attendances appears to be the engineer’s inability to identify the cause of the leak. A landlord’s inability to completely resolve a repair issue on its first visit is not a service failure. Many repair issues can be difficult to identify the cause of, sometimes require multiple visits, or require specialist services or supplies. In such cases a landlord would reasonably be expected to show evidence of actively working towards a resolution, managing a tenant’s expectations, and providing meaningful updates. The landlord has done so in this case. Although service failure was not found it was helpful for the landlord to still recognise the inconvenience the situation had on the resident and offer compensation.
  4. There is a dispute concerning the contractors offer to isolate the shower, whereas the contractors advised that its offer to isolate was declined by the resident. The landlord advised that in an instance of two differing recollection of events, and no evidence, it was unable to uphold that aspect of the complaint. Where there are conflicting accounts of what happened without sufficient evidence to support either account, it is not possible for the Ombudsman as an independent and impartial organisation to establish what happened. Therefore, we cannot say that the landlord’s contractors were at fault for not isolating the water to the shower. It is agreed that alongside this offer the landlord made other offers about the overall water supply and a temporary decant to help while the final repair was completed.
  5. The resident raised concern around the workmanship of its final repairs. It was appropriate for the landlord to raise a recall for its contractor to attend and inspect the work and to consider which aspects were unfit for purpose. It offered £10 for the additional visit required due to the recall to workmanship.
  6. The Ombudsman will not usually make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress. In this case the landlord has not admitted service failure, however it has recognised the inconvenience the issue caused. Its acknowledgement of the inconvenience and compensation provided were appropriate and reasonable. The landlord attended each report within its set timescale for emergency repairs and resolved the issue in appropriate timeframe.

The landlord’s response to her reports of damage to her burglar alarm

  1. The resident said that she believed the damage to the alarm was caused by the delay in the engineer’s diagnosis of the leak. The landlord correctly explained that burglar alarms did not fall within its repairing obligations, and advised the resident to claim under her home contents insurance if it was covered. This is, in general, the correct advice for any damaged belongings where there has been a leak, and particularly so where there is no agreed period of delay or service failure.
  2. The landlord offered £10 compensation in recognition of inconvenience of her burglar alarm being disconnected. Furthermore it then agreed to replace the alarm as a gesture of good will. This was a helpful response as part of trying to resolve the dispute, as the landlord had not agreed that there had been a failure in its repairs service but recognised that it could take action beyond its repairing obligations to offer appropriate help to its resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in her property
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to her burglar alarm.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £95 offered in its stage one complaint response if it has not done so already.
  2. The landlord should ensure the new burglar alarm has been installed. If it has not yet been installed, it should provide a clear schedule of work to the resident.