Tower Hamlets Homes (202109524)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109524

Tower Hamlets Homes

20 December 2021

 

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 the resident’s reports and complaint of a leaking radiator and isolation valves in the kitchen.

Background and summary of events

2.     The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, living in a block of flats.

3.     The resident emailed the landlord on 16 May 2021 reporting a leak from the “kitchen heater wall”. He also said that the heater valves in the property were old and causing issues and requested they were replaced to ensure future repairs could be carried out properly. The landlord’s repair records state a contractor attended the same day to make the radiator valves safe.

4.     A further contractor attended on 17 May 2021.

5.     The resident raised a stage one complaint on 17 May 2021. He stated he had called the landlord twice that day about the leak. During the first call he was told a contractor would be in contact, when he called again later he was informed “nothing had been raised”. He thought the leak should be high priority because it was causing substantial damage to the property; as water was seeping upwards through the concrete floor, meaning every 15 minutes he needed to clean it up. He said it was causing him stress and anxiety.

6.     A work order was raised on 18 May 2021 to repair the leaking radiator.

7.     The landlord emailed the resident on 19 May 2021. It explained that a contractor had attended on 17 May 2021 and follow on works had been raised on 18 May 2021 to remedy a leaking radiator pipe, which was found to be the cause of the leak; the contractor would be in contact to arrange an appointment. It considered this a reasonable timeframe and said it needed confirmation if he still wanted to raise a complaint. The resident responded the same day stating he did want to raise a complaint as four days had elapsed since his initial report and the leak was ongoing. He sent photos of the damage that had been caused to his kitchen wall by the leak. The landlord acknowledged the escalation the same day.

8.     The repairs records state that a contractor attended on 24 May 2021 to replace a leaking valve. The resident emailed the landlord the same day and said when the water was turned back on, there was another leak, meaning a follow-up appointment was required; he requested confirmation of the appointment date.

9.     The landlord emailed the resident on 25 May 2021 and apologised that the issues were ongoing; it had asked the contractor to contact him as soon as possible and escalated the outstanding issues.

10. Both complaint responses state a contractor attended on 28 May 2021 and made the radiator safe, however this is not apparent from the repair records.

11. The landlord sent its complaint response on 2 June 2021. It explained that:

  1. The leak was first reported on 16 May 2021 to the out of hours service (OOH). An engineer attended and found that further works were required.
  2. The resident reported the leak again to OOH on 17 May 2021 and the landlord sent a plumber in error. The plumber noted there was a slow leak in the radiator but did not note a leak rising through the floor.
  3. Following a work order being raised on 18 May 2021, a contractor attended on 28 May 2021 to make the leaking radiator safe.
  4. It apologised for problems the resident had had calling the landlord about the repair (on 17 May), and explained that technical problems had meant the officer he spoke with had not been able to find his repair details.
  5. It explained how the complaint could be escalated if the resident remained dissatisfied.

12. The resident responded on 2 June 2021 as he was dissatisfied with the response. He was not satisfied with how long it took to repair the faulty isolation valve, stating the leak was uncontrollable. He had also not been given an appointment date for the further works. He requested that the radiator leak be fixed, three of the old isolation valves to be replaced, confirmation of appointment dates, a senior repairs officer assigned to his repairs so he can directly liaise with them and compensation for the stress, anxiety and inconvenience caused.

13. An internal note on 15 June 2021 stated that the resident had withdrawn his escalated complaint and it had been reassigned to a service request to follow up on the issues raised.

14. The contractor emailed the resident on 16 June 2021 asking him to let them know when he had recovered from COVID-19, so it could arrange an appointment to assess the further leaks.

15. An internal email stated a lockable valve was fitted on the kitchen radiator pipe on 28 June 2021. The contractor allowed the resident to check all the valves and he was satisfied no leaks were present.

16. The landlord emailed the resident on 29 June 2021 to ask for a date he would be available so it could assess the damage.

17. The resident emailed the landlord on 30 June 2021 to request that it put the heating back on for two days so he could ensure there were no further leaks. The landlord responded the same day to advise that would not be possible (the communal heating is turned off during the summer in line with the landlord’s policy).

18. A work order was raised on 30 June 2021 to make good the plaster in the kitchen and hallway and repaint the areas and a telephone inspection took place on 1 July 2021, which concluded a plasterer would need to visit the property to assess the damage.

19. On 12 July 2021 the resident asked for confirmation of an appointment date for the plasterer to assess the damage; the landlord informed him it was booked for the 30 July 2021. The following day, the resident emailed the landlord to request an earlier appointment date. The landlord responded on 14 July 2021 to advise the contractor was unable to bring the appointment forward due to lockdown restrictions and supply issues.

20. The resident called this Service on 22 July 2021 as he had not received his stage two response; we then contacted the landlord requesting it to do so.

21. The landlord emailed the resident on 23 July 2021 asking him to confirm that he wanted his complaint to be escalated to stage two. The resident responded the same day and stated he was expecting a stage two response and did not recall withdrawing his complaint.

22. The landlord’s repair records show a contractor inspected the property on 30 July 2021 and determined plastering was not required as the repairs could be done by a decorator. According to the repair records, the work was completed on 18 August 2021 (this date is contradicted in the stage two response which states 13 August 2021).

23. On 24 August 2021 this Service sent a second request to the landlord to send the stage two complaint response, within five working days.

24. The landlord sent its second complaint response on 6 September 2021. It apologised for any miscommunication regarding the complaint withdrawal, but said it had not impacted the timescales for completing the works. It reiterated the appointment details and said it kept regular contact with the resident. The communal heating would be back on 15 September 2021, in line with its procedures; if any leaks did occur following this he should contact the landlord. It apologised for the delays in the repairs, which were caused by a backlog following the easing of lockdown restrictions and the resident quarantining; it reiterated its previous offer of £50 goodwill for his patience. It explained how he could escalate his complaint to this service if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

25. The tenancy agreement states:

  1. The landlord is responsible for repairs to heating and hot water installations.
  2. It will only decorate the resident’s home if it is necessary after a repair.

26. The landlord’s repair guide states:

  1. The landlord is responsible for plumbing inside the home.
  2. Emergency repairs should be made safe within two hours and additional works should be completed within 24 working hours.
  3. Routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days.
  4. “A water leak that cannot be contained” is classed as an emergency repair.
  5. Minor leaks, repairs to plasterwork and minor plumbing works are classed as a routine repair.
  6. “Only emergency repairs will normally be undertaken out of hours. The work will be limited to making the problem safe and returning to complete during normal working hours.”
  7. A complaint can be raised if the resident is not satisfied with the repair service.

27. The landlords’ complaint handling policy states:

  1. In a stage one complaint the complainant should be phoned with 48 working hours.
  2. A stage two complaint should be acknowledged within 48 working hours.
  3. All complaints should receive a response within 20 working days.

28. The landlord’s compensation policy states compensation should reflect “the level of inconvenience, frustration and distress will vary along with the severity and duration”.

Handling of repairs

29. In accordance with the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repair guide, the landlord is obliged to repair heating installations and leaks. As a result, it was necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of the leaking radiator and to take appropriate action to resolve any identified issues. As nothing in the information provided by the resident indicated the leak was uncontainable or in any other way an emergency, it would not be classified as an uncontrollable leak. Under the landlord’s repair policy, it would therefore be a routine repair, and as such should be resolved within 20 working days.

30. The landlord’s initial response was appropriate as a contractor attended the same day. Although there was a communication issue on 17 May 2021 (when the resident had called and been told that no work orders had been raised), the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the issue and overall it did not have an impact on the repair timeframe, as follow-up works were raised the following day. The leak was made safe on 24 May 2021, six working days after it was reported. The resident then reported a further leak when the water was switched back on, which was remedied on the 28 May 2021. The landlord therefore adhered to its timeframes with this element of the repair. A lockable valve was fitted on the kitchen radiator pipe on 28 June 2021 and the repair to the plaster was completed in 18 August 2021. While the follow-on works were not completed within the repair’s timeframe, the landlord has explained the reason for the delays and all works were completed within three months. Given that the follow-on work was mainly decorative in nature, the time taken was not unreasonable.

31. When repair timeframes are exceeded for relevant reasons the landlord’s primary focus should be on taking clear and appropriate steps to resolve the issue in a reasonable timeframe, arranging temporary fixes in the interim (if possible), keeping the resident appropriately up to date, and managing their expectations. The landlord explained to the resident on several occasions that the delay in the completion of the repairs was due to a backlog in appointments and supply issues caused by the national lockdown and the resident isolating with COVID-19. It would therefore be unreasonable to expect the landlord to adhere to its usual timeframes. It took appropriate steps to resolve the leak as soon as possible, preventing any further damage, and kept the resident updated regarding follow up works. It also explained why it declined the resident’s request for the heating to be turned back on and followed its procedure which this element of the complaint.

32. In response to his complaint about the issue, the landlord offered the resident £50 goodwill in recognition of his patience while the works were organised. Under this Service’s remedy guidance compensation of £50 – £250 should be awarded when there has been a “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact”. Despite the fact that the delay in repairs understandably caused stress and inconvenience to the resident, the landlord acted appropriately by making consistent progress to complete the works; the compensation is therefore a proportionate amount to the inconvenience caused and the length of the delays.

33. The resident sent a stage one complaint on 17 May 2021, given that the complaint was raised one day after the leak was reported, it was reasonable for the landlord to confirm he wanted to raise a complaint before it was acknowledged on 19 May 2021. It then issued the response on 2 June 2021, which was within ten working days, which adheres to the landlord’s complaint handling policy. The resident then requested for the complaint to be escalated the same day, which the landlord acknowledged on 3 June 2021. An internal email on 15 June explained that the resident had withdrawn his complaint; in the stage two response the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failing to confirm this is writing, but said it had not impacted the repairs timeframe. The landlord and contractor then kept the resident regularly updated in regards to the ongoing repairs. Following contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 22 July 2021 asking it to issue a stage two response; the resident emailed it the next say stating he did not recall withdrawing his complaint. The landlord issued a stage two response on 6 September 2021, 31 working days after the escalation. 

34. Overall, the stage one response followed the landlord’s complaint’s procedure and whilst the stage two did exceed the landlord’s complaint handling timeframe, it did not have a detrimental impact on the outcome of the complaint or impact upon the landlord’s efforts to “put things right”, which is one of this Service’s dispute resolution principles.

Determination (decision)

35. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

36. The landlord fixed the substantive issue of the leak within its repair timeframes and all other repairs were completed in a reasonable timeframe, considering the restraints it had, which were communicated to the resident.

37. The stage one response adhered to complaint handling procedure. Although the stage two response failed to, it did not have a detrimental impact upon the repair’s outcome.