Tower Hamlets Council (202118126)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118126

Tower Hamlets Council

1 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of a leak into her property and the subsequent repairs. 
    2. Response to the resident’s request for compensation for items damaged and the resident’s request to be relocated. 
    3. Handling of the associated complaint. 

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The resident lives in a bedsit on the ground floor.
  2. On 28 July 2021 the resident stated that heavy rain on 25 July 2021 had caused a leak in her flat, causing damage to her property. It is unclear if the resident reported this to the landlord prior to the complaint.
  3. The resident complained on 28 July 2021 that the leak had caused damage to the ceilings in the passageway, bathroom and kitchen. She also informed the landlord that the leak had caused damp patches on the wall, the lighting ‘had gone’, and the smell of mildew was ‘sickening’. The resident also reported damage to her belongings, which she needed to replace. The resident said that this had also happened five years prior. The resident requested that she be rehoused as the issues were giving her anxiety, as she felt that the ceiling could ‘cave-in’. The resident expressed her frustration at the landlord’s repairs system, because, instead of providing a specific time for a contractor to attend, it would only book a block of time, meaning she would have to take time off work, causing her a financial loss.
  4. On 29 July 2021, the landlord attended the property and made the electrical fittings ‘safe’.
  5. The resident requested her complaint be escalated on two separate occasions. The first being on 13 August 2021 and the second attempt being on 15 September 2021.
  6. The landlord provided a stage two response on 12 October 2021. It apologised for the delays in completing repairs, but stated that the leak was difficult to identify which delayed the repair. The landlord also apologised for the distress and inconvenience the resident had experienced as a result of the leak. It stated that it had requested the property to be redecorated as per its ‘home decoration scheme’. The landlord provided the resident with the option to claim on its insurance, and requested the completed form be sent back to it as soon as possible.
  7. In the resident’s communication with this Service, the resident stated that the flood had damaged the property and caused her distress which resulted in her seeking medical attention. The resident stated that she had been misinformed about her right to be transferred to an alternative property and felt that she was ‘going around in circles’. The resident requested monetary compensation for the time taken off from work and the damage that had occurred in the property.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs will be completed within twenty working days. Repairs of this nature are described as repairs that cause inconvenience but are not of an urgent nature and do not pose an immediate risk to a resident’s health and safety. Example of the repairs considered in this category include:
    1. Minor leaks and blocked drains and pipes;
    2. Leaking roofs / minor roof repairs;
    3. Repairs to outside walls; and
    4. Repairs to plasterwork.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy also states that claims for personal injury or damage to possessions will only be considered where the landlord could have reasonably foreseen the need for repair and failed to act or where there is a clear legal liability. In other circumstances it is the responsibility of the resident to make a claim under their home contents insurance. For this and other reasons it encourages all residents to obtain home contents insurance.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it aims to respond to stage one complaints within twenty working days. However, it would endeavour to respond to as many complaints as possible within ten working days. At stage two of the complaints process, it will aim to respond within twenty working days. In more complex cases, the landlord may extend the timeline by a further ten working days.

Scope of investigation

  1. It is noted that the resident has stated that the leak has caused stress, anxiety and trouble sleeping, for which the resident sought medical attention. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns about her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation involving the property caused the resident. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. The Ombudsman is unable to give legal advice and therefore we cannot comment on this matter further. This is an accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. The resident also stated that a similar leak had occurred in 2016. The Ombudsman appreciates that a leak has occurred before, in similar circumstances; however, it is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to consider events dating back to 2016. As a general principle, the Ombudsman will consider events up to six months prior to a formal complaint being raised to the landlord; this is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which sets out the rules which govern the service. Landlords are not expected to keep detailed records indefinitely and the landlord would not be expected to have much information about the leak dating back to 2016. For this reason, the Ombudsman’s investigation does not consider any specific events prior to January 2021, which is six months before the resident complained to the landlord in July 2021.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak into her property and the subsequent repairs. 

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it should complete repairs within twenty working days. The resident reported on 28 July 2021 that her flat had been flooded. However, the landlord did not complete the repairs until 1 October 2021, two months after the repair was first reported. An appointment for the resident’s flat to be decorated was raised for 21 October 2021, this was not unreasonable given that the initial work had only been remedied three weeks prior. While the landlord exceeded the timescale in it repairs policy by one month, when completing the initial repairs, this was not wholly excessive as it is accepted that locating leaks can often take multiple attempts, but it is noted that communication issues further compounded the delay.
  2. It is good practice for a landlord to communicate with residents about the progress of repairs and when the work will be completed. On this occasion, the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident regarding her repairs. The landlord did not inform the resident when the repairs would be completed nor why there was a delay in completing them. While this Service appreciates that the landlord stated it was difficult to source the leak, there is no evidence to suggest that this was ever relayed to the resident. The lack of communication would be a contributing factor as to why the resident felt she was ‘misinformed’. Therefore, the landlord did not act in-line with good practice, as there was a breakdown in communication with the resident.
  3. In light of the above, the landlord should pay £50 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience caused in its handling of the repairs to the leak and the lack of communication around the delays. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which suggests that the Ombudsman may award compensation of between £50 to £250 for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant. We recognise that there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for items damaged and the resident’s request to be relocated. 

  1. The repairs policy states that claims for personal injury or damage to residents’ possessions will only be considered where it could have reasonably foreseen the need for repair and failed to act or where there is a clear legal liability. While the Ombudsman is unable to determine any legal liability and it is unclear if the landlord deemed the leak as reasonably foreseeable, however, the landlord provided the resident with the details for its liability insurer in its stage one response.
  2. In general, a landlord is not typically expected to compensate for items damaged in the event of a flood. Therefore, the landlord was reasonable in informing the resident that a claim on insurance would be the appropriate way to move forward.
  3. It is good practice that landlords advise residents to obtain home contents insurance for instances where damage occurs to the property. This is also explained in the tenancy handbook. While the Ombudsman cannot determine why the landlord offered its insurer’s details, this was reasonable and an appropriate avenue for the resident to seek a remedy for damage to her personal belongings, also given that she did not have home content insurance of her own.
  4. It is noted that the resident requested to be moved into a different property as she no longer felt comfortable in the property in view of what had happened. The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move, however, the Ombudsman would not order the landlord to move a resident as part of its investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than another resident for rehousing. It is recommended that the landlord should continue to support the resident with her request to transfer from her current property and discuss her options with her, if it has not done so already.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. 

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it should issue a stage two response within twenty working days. The resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage two on 13 August 2021; however, this was not formally acknowledged, nor was it escalated. This ultimately led to the resident having to request an escalation on a further occasion on 15 September 2021, ultimately leading to a month delay in the resident receiving her stage two complaint response on 12 October 2021. This was not in-line with its complaint policy which states that the landlord should provide a response within twenty working days. Additionally, had there been a need to extend the timeframe, the landlord should have informed the resident, but there is no evidence that it did, and the resident was forced to chase matters, and this amounted to a service failure.
  2. The landlord should pay £50 compensation to the resident in recognition of the inconvenience caused by delays and poor communication regarding her formal complaint. This compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance as aforementioned.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a leak into her property and the subsequent repairs. 
  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 request for compensation for items damaged and the resident’s request to be relocated.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way it handled the associated complaint. 

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation comprised of:
    1. £50 compensation for its failure in completing the repairs within its timescales.
    2. £50 compensation for its complaint handling failure.
  2. These actions should be completed within four weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. This Service recommends that the landlord discuss the resident’s options for moving to another property, if the landlord has not already done so.