Tamworth Borough Council (202115860)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115860

Tamworth Borough Council

27 June 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

The Complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s WC and consequent interruption to his water supply.

Background

The resident is the secure tenant of a one bedroomed semi-detached bungalow where he resides with his spouse. Both have vulnerabilities (age and health issues). The resident states that on Friday, 6 August 2021 the landlord’s contractor (plumber) attended his property to fix a leak to the WC and in doing so managed to rupture the supply pipe to the property causing a much bigger problem. An argument then ensued between the plumber and the water board as to whose responsibility it was to fix it.
The landlord’s position is that there was a pre-existing leak at the external stop tap which it discovered during its attendance, and the position was resolved appropriately. It denies any service failings and has offered no remedy.
Landlord and resident remain in disagreement over the following issues:
1. Whether the landlord’s contractor caused this bigger problem during their visit to repair the WC.
2. Whether there was a disagreement with the water authority as to whose responsibility it was to repair it and whether this caused a delay in resolving the situation.
3. How long it took for the water supply to be reinstated. The landlord states it was re-established the next day, albeit on a reduced capacity and that full capacity followed two days later. The resident states it took four days.
4. Whether the landlord left the resident with bottled water or whether this was the water authority’s action.
5. Whether the landlord delayed in refilling the hole it excavated in the back garden to repair the leak.
6. The resident wants the landlord to apologise for the situation it caused and to offer compensation.

Assessment and findings

There was no apparent external water leak at this property prior to the landlord’s contractor attending to repair the WC. The resident has concluded that the leak that followed was caused by that operative.
The Ombudsman has pressed the landlord to provide a clear explanation of events to consider whether this was the case.
The landlord’s position is that its contractor attended to repair the WC on Friday 6 August 2021 and noted low water pressure. He therefore decided to investigate and opened the rear garden stop tap junction box. He discovered that “the main water supply pipe underground to the rear elevation had burst and therefore the escaping water from this pipe elevated upwards through the stop cock chamber and from under the rear elevation property brickwork. This could not be “turned off” via the stop tap which was found to be faulty in any event. The operative therefore marked the WC repair as complete at 5pm and reported the situation to his operations manager.
A further job was then raised and the contractors’ out of hours operative attended the property but was unable to isolate the water supply due to the faulty stop tap. The operations manager then arranged for an attendance from the water authority so that the water could be isolated from the front elevation stop cock. The landlord states the water authority attended “within the hour” and achieved this.
At 7.30 pm the operations manager attended the property himself and states he explained to the resident that underground bursts were not usually dealt with out of hours, but he would do so because he was mindful of the vulnerabilities of the resident and his spouse. The landlord states the resident was left with bottled water overnight and a check was made that there was hot water within the relevant tank. The matter was then left for the following day.
The landlord then states that on Saturday 7 August 2021 its contractor attended again, dug down to the leak and repaired it. However, he noted that only “trickling water” was coming through the internal taps. The operations manager spoke to the resident by telephone and explained a plumber would “attend first thing Monday morning to look at the fittings beneath the sink and the internal stopcock”. However, at 9.37 pm that evening, the landlord’s records show an online complaint lodged by the resident complaining that there was no cold water, and that an emergency attendance was required.
The landlord asserts that its Operations Manager then telephoned the resident the next day, Sunday 8 August 2021 to check that the property had cold and hot water and was reassured by the resident that this was the case.
Finally, the landlord states its contractor attended the property on Monday, 9 August 2021 to resolve the limited supply, which was done, and full capacity was reinstated.
The landlord’s explanation of events is rational and logical and supported by its internal records. No other evidence has been produced to support a reasonable conclusion that the pipe leak was caused by the landlord’s operative, and the Ombudsman cannot offer an expert opinion as to whether this was the case.
Further, it is noted that in the resident’s report to this Service about his complaint he refers to “dampness…seeped beneath the slab of the house”. The landlord’s records also refer to dampness at the rear elevation brickwork. In the Ombudsman’s view this is suggestive of a problem occurring over a longer period than would be apparent had the operative created the leak and had the water then been turned off within two hours thereafter. The fact the leak had not been apparent before these events supports the view that it presented as a gradual build up rather than that it had only just occurred. It is not disputed that the landlord’s operative did not cause this additional problem.
The landlord’s internal records confirm that the water authority was required to attend to assist with turning the water to the property off to enable a repair to take place. There is no evidence from which to confirm that there was a dispute about this or about whose responsibility the repair was – but it is noted that the landlord’s contractor made the site safe and reattended the next morning – which supports a conclusion that ultimately, it accepted responsibility anyway. It may be that there was some discussion about how to proceed and who was going to undertake what task, but the Ombudsman’s view is that this does not necessarily reflect any service failing on the landlord’s behalf. It is entitled to consider to what extent outside parties might have a part to play in effecting repairs to its properties.
It is not possible to determine from the evidence who provided the bottled water to the property that Friday night. The resident refers to it to demonstrate his view that the landlord was uncaring of the situation both he and his spouse were in. The landlord provides a different picture, that it treated matters as urgent, and that it checked up on the resident’s welfare.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy sets out its approach to its repair obligations. It contains the following provisions: –
1. “Emergency Repairs” These will be attended to and made safe within three hours. The repair will then be completed as soon as possible thereafter or during the emergency call if possible”.
2. Emergency works include repairs to resolve a situation where immediate action will prevent serious damage occurring to the property. Types of situations could include burst pipes.
3. Appointed Repairs will include partial loss of power or services. These will be completed within five working days or temporary works undertaken until an effective repair can be completed under a planned programme.
When the pipe leak was reported to the landlord’s contractor by its own operative, it arranged for its out of hours operative to attend and it is noted this was done within the three-hour period as an emergency call out.
The landlord states the supply was then reinstated the next day, albeit at low pressure – that is within 24 hours. The resident states it was not restored until Monday and lodged a complaint. However, the landlord’s evidence is that it contacted the resident the next day and was assured there was some supply to the property.
In the Ombudsman’s view it is reasonable to conclude that the water was reinstated but to low capacity because from the Resident’s point of view a “trickle” of water meant he/his spouse could not fully use the water as normal. For example, the resident refers to the fact they could not bathe or shower because the hot water could not be sufficient mixed with cold to temper the heat, and that he could not do laundry. To the resident, therefore, the situation had not been resolved as suggested and the supply was not restored.
The landlord was required to reinstate supply within 24 hours. Technically, it achieved this – in that there was water, and the resident could wash and prepare hot and cold drinks/food. However, further repairs were required, and the landlord’s Repairs Policy refers to this as “Appointed Repairs” for partial loss of services, to be carried out in five working days. This was also achieved in that both parties agree the full restoration of supply by the end of Monday 9 August 2021 at the latest. The landlord therefore complied with its service standards.
When repairing the leak, the landlord was required to dig a hole in the back garden. It did not fill it back in immediately but left it for several days. The resident was unhappy with this, as he considered the rubble represented an obstruction. The landlord has explained that it is normal practice to leave the excavation for a short period just in case the repair had not been effective, and access was again required to the relevant area. The Ombudsman considers this to be a reasonable and sensible action to take.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s actions were reasonable in this case, in that it acted in accordance with its policies, which was appropriate. All properties require maintenance from time to time, irrespective of whether they are tenanted, or owner occupied. The occurrence of leaks and repairs which cause inconvenience and upset do not automatically lead to a conclusion that the landlord’s service has failed in some way. The resident reasonably reports that the situation was upsetting to himself and his spouse, especially given their vulnerabilities, but the landlord did deal with the situation and within the time frame required.
Finally, for the sake of completeness, the resident has referred to dampness at the property which he considers may have been caused by the pipe leak. This was not included in his complaint to the landlord and cannot be considered in this investigation. The matter must first be reported to the landlord who must be given a reasonable opportunity to deal with it. The Ombudsman cannot consider whether the landlord has ‘got it wrong’ before it has been given the opportunity to “get it right”.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s WC and consequent interruption to his water supply.