Tower Hamlets Homes (202224458)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224458

Tower Hamlets Homes

27 July 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from a water tank.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a flat in a communal building.
3. From February 2022 to August 2022, several tenants in the building contacted the landlord to report a leak which had caused water to pool in the communal stairways and caused damage to the walls and door in the bin store. The landlord raised work orders for its contractors to investigate and resolve the issue.
4. On 16 September 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint about how the landlord had handled the repairs. She noted that despite attempted repairs, the leak remained active and had been reported many times by several tenants in the building. Despite this, the landlord had marked the repairs as ‘complete’. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord resolve the leak and repair the damage the leak had caused.
5. The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 3 October 2022, then a stage two complaint response on 9 November 2022. Its responses included the following:
   1. It explained that following the first reports it received in February 2022, its building contractor found an issue with the ball valve in one of the water tanks. A temporary repair was put in place and the ball valve was replaced on 5 March 2022.
   2. It noted that it had continued to receive reports of leaks from the tank and a further repair to the ball vale had been booked for 11 November 2022. It also confirmed that remedial work to clean and repair the damage caused by the leak would go ahead once the issue had been repaired.
   3. It apologised to the resident for the length of time it was taking to resolve the matter. It explained this had been exacerbated by the location of the water tanks, which were located in a narrow space which was difficult to access.
   4. It offered £50 in compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident for having to raise a complaint in order to be properly updated on the progress the repairs.
6. In referring the case to this service on 12 January 2023, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as the length of time it was taking the landlord to repair the leak, which remained unresolved, and the poor condition of the communal areas of the building while the repairs remained outstanding. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord resolve the leak, complete the work to repair the damage the leak had caused and increase its compensation offer in recognition of the stress and inconvenience the matter had caused.
7. The landlord’s repair logs state that the leak was resolved on 20 January 2023. It then completed work to jetwash the walls, repaint the bin store door, and repair a hole in the ceiling of one of the communal stairwells.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

8. The landlord’s leaseholder handbook confirms that it is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building and the communal areas.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises its repair types as ‘emergency’ (attend within 24 hours) and ‘routine’ (complete within 20 working days). The policy notes that some types of works will not be able to be completed within 20 working days due to their complexity, and that it will keep its tenants updated on their progress. As examples of work that would require more time, the landlord suggested repairs that required the manufacturer and delivery of specialist components or the erection of scaffolding is required before the work can go ahead.
10. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering financial redress to “recognise and address situations where service delivery has not been to the expected standard [and] consider the impact or injustice for the individual affected.” The policy states that the landlord will consider offering a payment of £25 to £250 to a complainant for “time and trouble reasonably and legitimately expended by the complainant in having to pursue the complaint with the [landlord] and with the Ombudsman.”

Scope of investigation

11. In contacting this service on 12 January 2023, the resident described the effect on her mental health caused by the leak. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

Repairs

12. On receiving the reports from the resident about a leak into the communal areas of the building, the landlord had a duty to respond to the matter in line with its obligations set out in the occupancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. The landlord’s internal correspondence and repair logs state that:
    1. It first received a report of the leak on 14 February 2022. The landlord’s building contractor attended on 18 and 24 February 2022 to inspect the building’s water tanks. It determined that one of the tanks was overflowing and recommended the landlord’s electrical contractor investigate further.
    2. The electrical contractor attended on 28 February 2022, determined that the issue was with the water tank’s ball valve and completed a temporary repair. A new ball valve was fitted on 5 March 2022.
    3. A resident of the building contacted the landlord on 4 May 2022 to report that there was still some dampness. The landlord informed them that the area was in the process of drying out. The contractor contacted the landlord on 9 August 2022, following a visit to the building and informed it that despite the recent hot weather, the building had still not dried out and there were still drips of water overflowing from the water tank. A new work order was raised, and inspections were undertaken on 20 September 2022, and 17 October 2022, which found no issues with the ball valves, but identified a potential issue of back surges into the tank from one of the properties. A joint inspection including both contractors and the landlord was arranged for 25 October 2022.
    4. Following the inspection, a further repair of the ball valve was arranged for 11 November 2022. Following the repair, the electrical contractor informed the landlord that back surges into the water tank remained an issue.
    5. An inspection by the building contractor was arranged for 18 November 2022. It recommended taking the tank offline to determine the source of the backflow and investigate whether the building’s internal plumbing system was compatible with the mains plumbing. The contractor identified eight properties that could be the source of the backflow and informed the landlord that it would have to contact the properties to arrange inspections. An appointment to jetwash the external walls went ahead on 19 November 2022, but further work to clean the walls and repaint the bin store booked for 20 December 2022 was put on hold until the work to the water tank was completed.
    6. The building contractor confirmed that the work to the water tank and plumbing system was completed on 20 January 2023. Work to wash the walls, repaint the bin store door and repair a hole in a stairwell ceiling caused by water damage was then raised. The cleaning and repainting was confirmed as completed on 21 February 2022. The ceiling repair required the erection of scaffolding before it could go ahead and was confirmed as completed on 10 March 2023.
13. The Ombudsman understands that it can take repeated visits and repair attempts to solve a leak, which can take time. This is not in and of itself service failure. In this case, there is no evidence of service failure in how the landlord handled the repairs to the water tank. While there was a significant period of time from when the matter was first reported until repairs were completed, which would have been understandably frustrating for the resident, its repair logs show that it raised work orders and booked appointments within its timescales for routine repairs. Moreover, it would not have been apparent to the operatives who inspected the water tank that there was a backflow issue from the plumbing system into the water tank until the ball valve had been repaired. As this issue required the boilers and pipework in several properties to be surveyed before repairs could start, it was reasonable that this work took longer than the published timescale for a routine repair due to its complexity. It was also reasonable for the landlord to put on hold the work to clean the walls and repaint the bin store door until it had been confirmed the leak has been resolved.
14. However, there was service failure by the landlord in its communication with the resident prior to the complaint being made. The evidence provided by the landlord does not show that it kept the resident properly updated on the status of the work, the cause of the leak, or the reasons why the cleaning and repainting work orders had been closed while the leak remained outstanding. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, offer compensation and explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
15. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It looked to put things right by offering £50 in compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident in having to raise a complaint. It learned from its mistakes by improving its communication with the resident and keeping her updated on the progress of the repairs. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that once a complaint had been opened, it regularly called and wrote to the resident to provide updates on the progress of the work.
16. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s concerns that the landlord had at times noted works had been completed, while the leak was ongoing. The Ombudsman understands that individual work orders may be noted as completed, while an ongoing problem continues. This could have been explained to the resident; however, this poor communication has been addressed in its formal responses.
17. The landlord’s compensation offer was calculated in line with its compensation policy detailed above. It was also broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This recommends a payment from £50 in cases of service failure. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, and delays in getting matters resolved.
18. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident. It should be noted that the compensation offered was only for the poor communication and not for the repairs. While the length of time it took for the repairs to be completed was significant; in light of the multiple issues identified and the complexity involved in completing the repairs, the time it took the landlord to finish the work was reasonable.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of a leak from a water tank.

Recommendations

20. As the finding of reasonable redress was made based on the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation, it is recommended that this is now paid to the resident if the landlord has yet to do so.