Stroud District Council (202212935)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212935

Stroud District Council

9 February 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 remedial works in the resident’s property following a leak from the bath.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a semi-detached house. The landlord advised it had no listed vulnerabilities for the resident or her family. However, the resident has advised her son has asthma which is affected by damp conditions.
3. The resident initially reported that water was coming through the ceiling from the bathroom above on 12 July 2022. An operative attended the same day and isolated the leak, which originated from a tap connector on the bath. The following day the landlord confirmed via email that operatives would attend on 15 August 2022. This was to replace both tap connectors on the bath with hard pipe connectors and inspect the damage to the ceiling in the living room and bedroom below.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 15 July 2022 as she was dissatisfied with the timeframe she had been given for an inspection as she would then need to wait further for the damage to be repaired. She later added that the damp conditions within the bedroom concerned was affecting her son’s asthma. In response, the landlord arranged an inspection of the property on 21 July 2022 to assess the damage. The evidence suggests the tap connector was replaced with a flexi-pipe on this date so the bath could be used. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint at this stage as the work to check the electrics, replace both tap connectors, re-fit and reseal the bath panel, and repair the ceiling was due to be completed by 15 August 2022. It provided the resident with a decoration voucher of £147 for any decoration works required.
5. The work to replace the resident’s bath tap connectors was completed on 15 August 2022. The resident escalated her complaint the same day as she was dissatisfied with the work to the ceiling of her sons bedroom that day. She advised that the operative filled in a small crack, but had not addressed the larger crack or bowing ceiling in the room. In its stage two response to the resident, the landlord acknowledged that the contractor had not completed the repair satisfactorily which meant that the resident had waited longer than expected for the repairs to be completed following the leak. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and confirmed that a further appointment had been arranged for 12 September 2022 to complete the necessary repairs.
6. Following this, the resident expressed dissatisfaction as the operative who attended on 12 September 2022 had established the works required were larger than anticipated and part of the ceiling needed to be replaced and plastered due to water damage. She advised that her son had spent two months in a room with no carpeting, wallpaper and a bowing ceiling which she believed to be dangerous.
7. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 15 September 2022 as she remained dissatisfied with the delay in completing remedial works following the leak, and failures since the landlord’s final complaint response. She advised that she had not been provided with a date for the works as the operative who had attended on 12 September 2022 was on annual leave. She wanted the repairs to be completed as she had not been able to paint or carpet her sons bedroom due to the delays. The evidence shows that the landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused by the additional delay. The work to replace part of the ceiling and plaster the room was completed on 26 October 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of remedial works in the resident’s property following a leak from the bath.

8. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for maintaining installations for the supply of water, including pipes, as well as repairs needed to the structure of the property, including ceilings and walls. The resident would be responsible for obtaining contents insurance for personal belongings and completing internal decorations. The landlord’s repairs policy and website set out repair categories and timescales. Emergency repairs, including those that could cause extensive damage to the property, should be attended to within 24 hours and made safe. Routine repairs should be completed within 28 working days. In some cases, the landlord may need to inspect the defect to establish the nature of the repair work required, which should be completed within five working days.
9. It is not disputed that the resident initially reported a leak in the property on 12 July 2022. The remedial works to resolve the damage caused to the ceiling and walls in her sons bedroom were not completed until 26 October 2022. This was approximately 75 working days later and outside the landlord’s timescales of 28 days for routine repairs.
10. The landlord initially acted appropriately by arranging an out of hours operative to attend the property on 12 July 2022, the day the leak was reported. This was in line with its obligations.
11. The landlord arranged for the tap connectors to the resident’s bath to be replaced and the damage to the ceilings below to be inspected on 15 August 2022. The work for the tap connectors would have been within the landlord’s routine repair timescale of 28 working days. Inspecting the damage caused by the leak on this date would not have been in line with the landlords stated policy that when an inspection is required it will usually be within five working days. This resulted in an unreasonable delay for the resident to wait for remedial works to be arranged following the inspection. Ultimately, the landlord acted appropriately by inspecting the property on 21 July 2022. However, it is noted that the resident needed to raise a complaint and request this which was likely to have caused some additional time and trouble.
12. During the inspection on 21 July 2022, the landlord completed work to replace the faulty tap connector to ensure the bath was useable in the interim before both tap connectors were replaced on 15 August 2022. It is noted that the resident had use of a separate shower so was not in immediate need. The landlord also confirmed that the work to repair the damaged ceiling would be completed on 15 August 2022, which would have been within its routine repair timescales had it been successful.
13. The resident escalated her complaint on 15 August 2022 as she was dissatisfied with the repair works carried out to her son’s ceiling. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging that the contractor who attended on 15 August 2022 had not carried out the work satisfactorily and that the resident now needed to wait longer than she should have for the repairs to be completed. It acted reasonably by apologising to the resident for the inconvenience caused at this stage. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered compensation to the resident in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delays within its response at this stage.
14. For completeness, the Ombudsman has considered the actions taken by the landlord post-complaint until the repairs to the resident’s ceiling and plastering were completed on 26 October 2022.
15. It is noted that a further appointment to complete the works was arranged for 12 September 2022. Whilst this was within 28 working days of the previous appointment, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have prioritised the work to prevent any further delays and inconvenience to the resident. It is noted that the operative did not resolve the issue on this date as further works were identified. It remains unclear from the evidence provided as to whether the ceiling had deteriorated over time or whether the issue was initially misdiagnosed. The landlord was ultimately entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff and contractors at the time who determined that the ceiling could be repaired initially. Whilst the additional delay was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident, there is no evidence to suggest that the need to remove part of the ceiling and plaster was identified at an earlier date and it is therefore reasonable that the landlord did not know that this was required.
16. The ceiling replacement and plastering took place on 26 October 2022. This was outside of the landlord’s 28 working day timescale following the appointment on 12 September 2022, and 75 working days since the resident’s initial report of a leak. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the delays in this case were avoidable. The landlord should have viewed the repair holistically in order to prevent further delays to the resident following the failed appointment on 15 August 2022. Whilst the landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused by the initial failing,  it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that financial compensation is warranted in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the delays in this case.
17. The delay in completing work to remedy the damage to the bedroom impacted the resident as she had advised that her contents insurance provider would not finalise her claim until the repair issues were resolved.
18. As such, the landlord is to pay the resident £150 compensation. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which states that amounts in this range are considered proportionate in instances of service failure or maladministration which had an impact on the resident

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of remedial works in the resident’s property following a leak from the bath.

Orders

20. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation in respect of its handling of remedial works in the resident’s property following a leak from the bath.
21. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has paid the resident the compensation within four weeks of the date of this determination.