Tower Hamlets Community Housing (202206352)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206352

Tower Hamlets Community Housing

26 March 2025

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 leaks in the property and the subsequent damage caused.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 3 bedroom house. The resident’s son is acting as the representative in this complaint. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to both the resident and her son as the ‘resident.’
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 June 2023. He said a contractor attended earlier that day to fix the kitchen pipes. He said during the visit, the contractor went upstairs to the boiler and water tank room. The resident said he did not know what the contractor did but after they left, his whole house flooded. He said water was gushing out of the water tank room and dripped through his kitchen ceiling. He said his carpets and belongings were wet. The resident confirmed he had turned the water off but water was still dripping from the room.
The resident said he spoke to a member of the landlord staff who told him a contractor would attend between 1 and 6pm that day, but no one had. He said the landlord needed to fix the water leak, repair the crack on his ceiling, deal with the rat infestation, and repair or replace his carpets.
On 13 July 2023 the resident made a formal complaint. He said this was due to the landlord not responding to his emails regarding compensation for damaging his carpet.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 July 2023. It said the following:
1. The resident reported an uncontainable leak on 12 June 2023. It recorded it as an emergency repair and on attendance the contractor confirmed the leak was from the washing machine hose. It said the hose had been fitted the wrong way round and the contractor helped by turning it the correct way round.
2. The contractor had also reported that pipework under the sink was leaking in multiple places. They advised that the pipework was very restricted and the resident had agreed to contain it with a towel. It said it had raised follow on works.
3. It said on 19 June 2023 the resident reported an uncontainable leak from the boiler and its contractor attended as an emergency. It said the contractor only found leaking out of the overflow pipe and no leak from the boiler. It said the contractor isolated the water until a plumber could attend. The landlord confirmed the resident called again that day and a contractor attended again. It said they fixed the faulty seals and left everything in working order.
4. Its area surveyor attended on 6 July 2023 to inspect the damage caused by the leak. They reported staining to the part of the ceilings on the ground floor hallway and kitchen. It said they raised a job for filling the cracks and partial decoration to the affected areas. The landlord confirmed the works were completed on 25 July 2023.
5. The landlord concluded that it had acted promptly on the jobs raised and went above and beyond in the resident’s case. It said its contractor used an “aqua vac” vacuum cleaner on the carpets to suck up excess water and they left the carpets slightly damp to dry out naturally. It said it could not identify its contractors as the cause of damage to the carpets.
6. The landlord confirmed floor coverings were not part of its building insurance and were the resident’s responsibility. It said it encouraged all residents to have contents insurance to cover claims for personal belongings such as carpets. It said it would not be offering compensation to replace the flooring.
The resident escalated his complaint on 10 August 2023. He stated that he had replaced the washing machine hose. He said the contractor who attended to fix his kitchen pipes went upstairs to his boiler and played around with the switches. The resident said after the contractor left, the house flooded straight away, and he called the landlord. He said the workers did not vacuum all the carpet and they said there was no point as it was damaged. The resident said the workers had to wear a face mask because the smell was that bad.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 14 September 2023. The response stated the following:
1. It confirmed that its contractor said that they refitted the washing machine hose but it understood the resident disagreed. It said it was unable to determine who refitted the hose and apologised if its information was incorrect.
2. It said on the same day the contractor identified issues with leaks from the pipework under the sink and it raised a follow on job. The landlord said the follow on works took place on 19 June 2023 and were completed, with no further issues.
3. It said the resident reported an uncontainable leak later that day. It reiterated the action it said it had taken in the stage 1 response.
4. It had reviewed the resident’s photos and video evidence which showed the leaks were coming from the water tank.
5. It said the vacuum cleaner was to remove any excess and residual water but it would never leave the carpets dry. The landlord explained that the remaining drying would need to occur naturally. It said the operative carrying out the drying wore a mask as part of their personal protective equipment.
6. It said it was unable to establish any evidence that its contractor’s actions contributed to the leaks in the resident’s home. The landlord said it was satisfied that in the unforeseen event, its contractors had responded appropriately. It said it was not its responsibility to indemnify the resident for not having contents insurance.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He felt the landlord had not taken any responsibility or action to fix the damage caused. The resolution he is seeking is for the landlord to replace or pay for the replacement of his damaged carpets.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has stated that he is seeking reimbursement for his damaged carpet. The Ombudsman cannot make the same findings that a court would, and we do not operate in the same way a court does. Therefore, we do not make binding decisions on matters such as negligence and liability. And we do not make orders of compensation in the way that a court may order a payment of damages. Equally, we do not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
We will, however, consider if there were any failings in the landlord’s handling of the issue.

The landlord’s obligations.

The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider compensation if damage to a resident’s home or belongings was caused by its direct actions or inactions. It states that in those cases, it will consider compensation without the need for the resident to make a claim at further inconvenience or cost to themselves.
It says it will not consider compensation if the damage was not its fault. It said residents should ensure they have home contents insurance to cover damage to their belongings, in that instance.

The landlord’s handling of the leaks in the property and the subsequent damage caused.

The Ombudsman has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaks and subsequent damage caused. The reasons for this are outlined below.
It is not disputed that there were a number of reported leaks in the resident’s property within a short period of time. From the information provided, the landlord responded to the leak from the washing machine hose and the leaks under the kitchen sink. And they did not cause any lasting damage. The leak in question appears to be the one which occurred from the water tank on 19 June 2023, causing damage to the carpets and ceilings. The resident believes the landlord’s contractor caused the leak.
The landlord’s initial response to the report of an uncontained leak from the boiler / water tank room was reasonable. Its repairs policy does not specify a timeframe for emergency repairs, but it was appropriate for it to attend the same day. A further visit was required once it had been identified the leak was from the water tank and not the boiler. A plumber then attended and resolved the issue. The resident was disappointed that the contractor did not attend between the hours initially stated. However, it was reasonable that despite requiring a follow up appointment, the leak was still attended to and fixed on the same day.
It was appropriate for a surveyor to inspect the property following the resident’s reports of damage. The surveyor reported staining to the parts of the ceilings in the hallway and kitchen, as well as a small section to the wall. Jobs were then raised for filling cracks and partial decoration to the affected areas. The works were completed on 25 July 2023, 13 working days after the surveyor’s visit, which was reasonable.
In its complaint responses, the landlord confirmed that its contractor used a vacuum cleaner to remove any excess and residual water in the carpet. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when this took place. The resident’s email stated that it was 22 June 2023. He said the contractor who attended said the carpets needed to be replaced.
The Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s account, but we must rely on the information provided. There is no evidence provided from the landlord or its contractors which stated that the carpets were in need of replacement. The landlord said it was satisfied that the vacuum cleaner had been used to recover the excess water. It said the remaining drying would need to take place naturally. Regardless of the cause of the leak, we would not expect a landlord to replace an item if a repair is deemed sufficient.
The resident maintained that the carpets required replacement and that it was the landlord’s responsibility to do so. The landlord disputed that and said its contractors did not cause the damage to his flooring. It outlined that floor coverings were the resident’s responsibility. It said it encouraged residents to have contents insurance to cover claims for personal belongings.
As stated, the Ombudsman cannot determine liability. As the landlord disputed it was at fault and floor coverings were not its responsibility, it was reasonable for it to refer to contents insurance. This was in line with its policy. If the resident had submitted a claim via his insurance this would have addressed the issue of liability and damage to the carpet. If the resident did not have contents insurance, it would not be the landlord’s responsibility to compensate the resident in the absence of it.
Overall, the Ombudsman does not doubt that the situation was distressing for the resident. However, the action taken by the landlord following the reported leaks and reports of damage was reasonable. It responded promptly to the reports and took the appropriate action to remedy the issues in a timely manner. Its responses were thorough and aimed to explain its position on the matters raised. As the landlord could not identify any fault for the damage caused, it was reasonable for it to refer to an insurance claim as the next step.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaks and the subsequent damage caused.