Tower Hamlets Homes (202207760)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207760

Tower Hamlets Homes

19 May 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 response to the resident’s concerns about his water supply being turned off without notice.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder, and the landlord is the freeholder of the property.
3. On 27 June 2022, as part of planned works, the landlord’s contractors turned the water supply off to a neighbouring building to the resident’s property. The contractors were unaware that the neighbouring building and the resident’s building had connected water tanks. Therefore, inadvertently, the resident’s water supply was also turned off, without any notification to the resident that this would occur. The supply was reinstated the same day.
4. The resident complained on 27 June 2022 that he had not been notified that the water would be turned off. He explained that this had caused stress and inconvenience, as he and his family were unable to use the properties facilities.
5. The landlord responded on 11 July 2022. It offered its sincere apologies to the resident and acknowledged the inconvenience experienced. It explained that its contractors were new and had not realised the tanks were connected. Also, the contractors should have been informed prior to the works commencing.
6. The resident escalated his complaint on the same day. He stated that the landlord had not offered a sufficient resolution, as it had not offered him compensation. He explained that as his water supply was cut off unexpectedly, his taps’ settings had malfunctioned and needed to be replaced. He also explained that he had incurred extra costs in travelling to use family’s facilities during the period that the water supply was not available. In total he requested for £350 compensation.
7. The landlord sent its final response on 4 August 2022. It explained that its compensation policy dictated that payments for loss of service is only considered after the facility is unavailable for more than 24 hours. The water was restored the same day and so it did not feel able to offer any compensation. It once again apologised to the resident for not notifying him of the loss of the water supply for that day.
8. In his complaint to this Service, the resident has stated that he remains dissatisfied that the landlord acknowledged its mistake but did not offer compensation. He explained that he incurred extra costs due to his taps breaking during the outage, and because he had to drive elsewhere to access necessary facilities.

Assessment

9. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure, common parts and supply of services to the property. According to the resident’s lease, the landlord has the right to access the building to repair or maintain the water storage facilities. This is subject to causing the resident as little disturbance as possible and making good any damage caused. The landlord must also provide the resident with three days’ notice in writing.
10. Under the landlord’s repair policy, the resident is responsible for all repairs to the internal building components. According to the resident’s lease this includes keeping all ‘sanitary water apparatus’ and fixtures in good and substantial repair. This excludes any damage caused by the landlord, which entitles the resident to claim under the landlord’s insurance policy.
11. Additionally, the landlord’s redress and compensation policy states, that claims for damage to the resident’s possessions will only be considered where there is a clear legal liability on behalf of the landlord. It dictates that such allegations of negligence should generally be referred to the landlord’s liability insurers. In other circumstances it is the responsibility of the resident to make a claim under their home contents insurance.
12. According to the resident’s lease, the landlord should have given him notice of the water shut down in writing, three days prior to the works commencing. Although the landlord attempted to give notice to all those affected, it failed to inform everyone impacted by the works, including the resident. This was due to an oversight on its part. Consequently, the evidence indicates that the resident was without water for around two – six hours on 27 June 2022, which was not appropriate.
13. In his escalation, the resident stated that his tap settings malfunctioned due to the water stoppage, costing him £150 to repair. He has not explained how the water stoppage correlated to the tap’s breakage. As a leaseholder, the resident is responsible for the taps, unless the landlord has in some way damaged them due to negligence. The lease states that the landlord should ‘make good’ any damages it causes while undertaking repairs (such as those to the water tanks). The landlord has explained that the resident did not report the taps disrepair until his escalation complaint in July 2022, where he stated the cost of their repair. It has also stated that the resident has not supplied supporting evidence for it to consider, such as work orders or receipts of repairs.
14. The resident should have reported the repair, to give the landlord a chance to assess the damage. According to the above redress and compensation policy, proven damage caused by the landlord’s negligence should be claimed for under the landlord’s liability insurance. However, such claims will only be considered where there is clear evidence of the landlord’s liability. This has not been provided in this case. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to not submit the claim to its insurers, or for refraining to offer compensation for this aspect.
15. The landlord has not disputed that it should have let the resident know that it was going to shut the water off. It explained that it is its normal practice to inform residents and failed to do so in this case due to an administrative error. According to this Service’s complaint handling code, a landlord should use its complaints procedure to identify its mistakes, explain why they occurred and to put any issues right. Compensation is not the only way to remedy a failing, as acknowledging a mistake and apologising can often offer suitable redress.
16. In its complaint response the landlord acted appropriately by identifying its obligations, explaining where it went wrong, and apologising for the inconvenience caused to the resident. It considered the impact on the resident against its policies and concluded that although this issue had caused stress to the resident, it could not offer compensation at this time. This was due to the length of time the water had been shut off, which was for a relatively short period. This was appropriate, as its repairs policy states that compensation will only be considered if the resident was without water for a full day. Therefore, the landlord acted in line with its own policies.
17. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have provided more explanation as to why it could not consider the resident’s claim for his taps at this time. In future, the landlord should ensure that it explains clearly that there must be evidence of clear legal liability for a claim to be considered by its liability insurer. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s explanation, acknowledgement and apology, adequately put things right in the circumstances, and offered suitable redress to the resident.

Determination (decision)

18. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.