Sheffield City Council (202119409)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119409

Sheffield City Council

4 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:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into his property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat in a block of similar properties, which the resident has now vacated permanently.
  2. On 29 August 2021 the resident says he noticed water coming through the lightbulb in his bedroom (This is also the date the landlord later used in its stage one complaint response as the date the leak occurred). He contacted the neighbour for the property above who was not present at the time but returned on 30 August 2021 to check whether any taps had been left on and confirmed they had not. The resident reported the leak to the landlord on 31 August 2021 and it sent out an electrician to make safe the light and a plumber to find the source of the leak, that day. However, the plumber was unable to find the source of the leak.
  3. On 1 September 2021 the resident informed the landlord he would need to move out of the property due to the ongoing leak and went to stay at a friend’s house. The landlord arranged for the resident to be moved to a decant property which the resident signed for on 6 September 2021. The resident asserts that he was informed by one of the landlord’s contractors that there was a second leak into his property from the flat above that was caused by an uncapped pipe that was not resolved until 13 September 2021.
  4. The resident did not have contents insurance, and as he believed that the landlord was responsible for the leak, he informed one of the landlord’s officers of the details of the leak and the items he wanted to claim for. The officer emailed a claim to the landlord’s insurance team on 24 September 2021. On 18 October 2021 the landlord’s insurance team declined the resident’s claim for compensation as it said, it did not consider the council to have been negligent as the leak was “wholly unforeseeable.” It said the leak was caused by a burst pipe within a concrete floor and that operatives had “reacted quickly to repair it,”. It also said there had been no history of water leaks at the property and no further issues since the jobs were completed. The dates in the letter said that the incident occurred on 29 August 2021. However, it also said that it was first reported to the landlord on 27 August 2021.
  5. On 26 October 2021 the resident sent a letter of appeal to the landlord’s insurance team requesting it review its decision, as the letter had said the leak was first reported on 27 August 2021. The resident said the date was incorrect as that date was two days before the leak started on 29 August 2021. He also disputed that the leak had not been repaired quickly, advised that he had been told there was a second leak and that he felt that the mould that had formed in the property, and over his belongings, should be classed as a “further issue”. His MP also wrote to the landlord about the decision not to award any compensation and the mould that had built up in the property following the leak and provided pictures of the mould.
  6. On 23 November 2021 the resident contacted this Service as he had received no response to his review request and he felt the landlord should compensate him for his damaged belongings. In addition, he was still residing in the decant property and he also requested that the landlord rehouse him rather than move back to the property. On 7 December 2021 this Service requested that the landlord raise a formal complaint. The landlord responded to say it aimed to provide a response by 22 December 2021.On 9 December 2021 the landlord’s insurance team reviewed the resident’s claim and said its decision had not changed.
  7.  After further requests from this Service the landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 25 February 2022. It acknowledged that the complaint was about how it had handled the leak but said the issue had previously been investigated by its insurance team and that any liability on the council’s part was denied. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to award compensation. It said its housing team would be in touch about the resident’s rehousing request.
  8. It is not clear when the resident escalated his complaint. However, in June 2022, both the resident and this Service, requested that the landlord issue its stage two response. In its stage two complaint response on 23 August 2022 the landlord said that the resident believed that its stage one response had been inaccurate and believed that there had been another pipe that had not been repaired. It said it is clear from previous investigations (from the insurance team and the repairs team who had investigated at stage one) that the leak was not caused by any negligence on the part of the Council and was unforeseeable. It said it was satisfied that the information contained in previous correspondence was accurate and refused his request for compensation. It said there was no outstanding work on any pipework at his property.
  9. The resident contacted this Service as he was unhappy with how the landlord had handled his complaint and believed that the information it provided to its insurance team was inaccurate, that the landlord was negligent and that it should pay compensation for his damaged belongings. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the resident has moved into the decant property permanently. It also said it would like to offer the resident £100 compensation for its delay in issuing its stage one complaint response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into his property.

  1. The resident has explained to this Service that he believes that landlord is liable for the leak and that the information it provided to its insurance claim was inaccurate. This Service Is not able to determine liability. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak was reasonable, including the records it kept and the information it provided to the insurance team.
  2. As there is some dispute between the landlord and the resident about the dates relating to the leak, and the resident believes that the landlord gave inaccurate information to its insurance team, this Service would normally refer to the landlord’s repairs records. This would allow us to determine the dates of the repairs and assess whether they were completed within a reasonable timeframe. However, the information in the repair records that the landlord has provided, is of some concern. The repair records for the resident’s property contain the following information:
  • 23 August 2021- three jobs registered for water coming through the light and for water leaking into the bedroom. Two of the jobs have completion dates for 23 August.
  • 27 August 2021 –three jobs registered for water leaking through the bedroom and living room ceilings and living room light fitting. All three jobs have a completion date of 27 August 2021
  • 8 September 2021- One job a repair to the leak from the flat above. Completion date 9 September 2021
  • 9 September 2021- One job “Decant, disrepair- cap off gas and make safe”. Completion date13 September 2021.
  1. The repairs records for the flat upstairs contain the following information:
    1. 27 August 2021- Two jobs, one for a plumber for a leak into the flat below, one to gain entry due to leak- completion date for both are 27 August 2021.
    2. 31 August 2021- Plumber-burst in concrete floor-hot and cold needs cutting out and capping off under bath where it tees under floor-completion date 31 August 2021
    3. 1 September 2021-Three jobs, bath panel boxing, plumber check pipework hot and cold are right way round, urgent gas repair on boiler- completion date for latter two jobs 1 September 2021.
    4. 7 September 2021-Investigate and trace leak-arrange for [next day]- completion date 8 September 2021
  2. As illustrated above, the repairs records refer to a leak coming through the light and leaking into the resident’s property as early as 23 August 2021. However, both the resident and the landlord in the information it provided to us, have agreed that the leak was first identified on 29 August 2021 and have made no reference to there being any other leak before that date, in fact the letter from the landlord’s insurance team says there was no history of previous leaks at the property. Therefore, any repair records that refer to a leak before the 29 August 2021, date cannot be relied upon as accurate. In view of that it is not possible for this Service to assess whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a leak within a reasonable timeframe or whether the actions it took in resolving the leak were appropriate. It is also not possible for this Service to establish whether there was a second leak from another pipe.
  3.  The landlord is expected to keep robust records of repairs works so that, if required, it can satisfy itself and the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that it took all reasonable steps to respond to and complete the repairs. As the records kept in this case are not reliable or accurate there was maladministration by the landlord. In view of that this Service will be ordering the landlord to review its repair record keeping procedure.
  4. As the resident’s belonging were damaged in the leak, and he did not havecontents insurance and felt that the landlord was responsible for the damage, the landlord acted reasonably by advising him to make a liability claim to its insurance team. Any evidence that landlord provides to its insurance team should be accurate and reliable. However internal emails show that when the insurance team requested repair records from 28 August 2021 onwardsit was provided with the same repair records, (although the records from the 23 August 2021 were not included). It is noted that it did also provide a statement from its repairs supervisor about their opinion of the leak and whether the landlord was liable for it. However, as part of the information (the repair records) that the landlord provided to its insurance team in order for them to make a decision on the resident’s liability claim, was inaccurate and unreliable this was further maladministration by the landlord.
  5. This Service will be ordering the landlord to contact its insurance team regarding the inaccurate information it provided, in order to ascertain whether a new claim can be made or whether the insurance team’s final decision can be reviewed. The landlord should also provide its insurance team with a copy of the Ombudsman’s report and any additional details that the resident wants to provide. It is important to note that even if the landlord is able to provide new information to the insurance team, the final decision may still be the same.
  6. When the resident asked for a review of the insurance team’s decision, he pointed out that the letter stated the leak was first reported on 27 August 2021, which was two days before he had even noticed the leak and that this was therefore not accurate. When this Service requested that the landlord raise a complaint on 7 December 2021, the Ombudsman also provided the landlord with the resident’s chronology, of events, which included dates. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have investigated the discrepancy in the dates. However, there is no evidence of it doing so either within or outside its internal complaints process (The failure to address this in its internal complaints process is detailed in the complaint handling section of this report).
  7. The leak had left the property and the resident’s belongings damp, the resident had been decanted from the property, and the landlord was aware that the resident would be making a liability claim to its insurance team. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have advised the resident of who was responsible for drying out the property whilst he awaiting a decision on whether or not the landlord was liable for the damage caused by the leak. However, the landlord failed to do so, and, as the property was not dried out, this resulted in extensive mould throughout the property.
  8. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to have conducted a damp and mould survey of the property once the resident made it aware of the mould and it is not clear whether it did so. This Service cannot determine liability for the leak, and therefore cannot determine who should have dried out the property. However, the landlord should have discussed this with the resident. As the landlord failed to clearly communicate with the resident, which party would be responsible for drying out the property, there was further maladministration by the landlord. It is noted that the landlord has now agreed that the resident does not have to return to the property and he is living permanently in the decant property.
  9. To conclude, as the landlord failed to keep accurate repair records, and then provided those inaccurate repair records to its insurance team, and also failed to communicate with the resident how the property should be dried out, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into his property. These failings resulted in considerable distress, inconvenience and frustration for the resident. In view of this, the Ombudsman will be ordering the landlord to award compensation of £575 to the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right. This Service will be ordering that the landlord review this case to see what lessons can be learned from it.

 

Complaint handling.

  1. At the point where this Service contacted the landlord on 7 December 2021 the resident had requested a review of the insurance team’s decision but had not yet raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the leak. Therefore, the landlord should have raised a complaint, as requested by this Service. The landlord responded to say it would provide a stage one complaint response by 22 December 2021. However, although the landlord’s insurance team issued a letter containing the outcome of its review on 9 December 2021, the landlord failed to issue its stage one complaint response until 25 February 2022, following further contact from this Service. This was unreasonable as it was far outside the 10 working day timeframe stated in both the landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
  2. It is not clear when the resident escalated his complaint as neither the landlord nor the resident have provided a copy of the escalation request. The resident hassuggestedto this Service, both March 2022 and May 2022 as possible dates that he escalated his complaint. The landlord has provided records that show thatby June 2022 the resident had contacted the landlord’s insurance team to request that the landlord provide a final complaint resolution letter and that it requested that the housing team call him back. In view of that, it would have been appropriate for the housing team to have contacted the resident and provided a stage two complaint response. However, it failed to do so, and despite this Service contacting the landlord again on 23 June 2022 to request it issue the stage two complaint response, it did not issue it until 23 August 2022. Even without knowing the exact escalation date, it is clear that the response timeframe was unreasonable as it was far outside the 20 working day stage two response timeframe stated in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
  3. As this Service had provided the landlord with the resident’s chronology of events and the resident had pointed out inaccuracies with dates related to the leak, and the information used for the insurance claim, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have conducted a thorough investigation into the accuracy of its repair records. However, it failed to do so, or to address this point in either of its complaint responses.
  4. To conclude, the landlord failed to raise a complaint when the Ombudsman requested it do so on 7 December 2021, failed to issue its stage one response within a reasonable timeframe, failed to escalate or provide a stage two complaint response within a reasonable timeframe, and then failed to investigate the accuracy of its repairs records as part of the complaint. Therefore, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling. In the information the landlord has provided to this Service, it has acknowledged that the “complaint raised via the Ombudsman should have been responded to earlier rather than presuming the letter from the Insurance Team gave resolution” and has also offered to award £100 compensation for that failing.
  5. However, this Service does not consider £100 to be sufficient remedy, as it does not take into account the other complaint handling failings, or the impact on the resident in the form of stress, inconvenience and frustration. Therefore, this Service will be ordering the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation for its maladministration in respect of its complaint handling. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Determination

  1. 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 reports of a leak into his property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this letter the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £550 for its maladministration.in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into his property.
    3. Pay the resident £300 for its maladministration in respect of its complaint handling.
    4. Contact its insurance team regarding the inaccurate information it provided, in order to ascertain whether a new claim can be made or whether the insurance team’s final decision can be reviewed. The landlord should also provide its insurance team with a copy of the Ombudsman’s report along with any additional information the resident would like to provide.
    5. Review its repairs record keeping process to see what improvements can be made to ensure the accuracy of its repair records.
  2. The landlord is ordered to review this case to see what lessons can be learned from it. The landlord should share the findings of this review with the resident and the Ombudsman. The review should be carried out within eight weeks of the date of this decision