Tower Hamlets Homes (202312537)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312537

Tower Hamlets Homes

13 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and remedial works.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and has occupied the property, a 1 bedroom first floor flat, with his partner since 2018.
  2. The flat directly above the resident is owned by the landlord and is tenanted. On 9 March 2023 the tenant (hereafter referred to as the neighbour) reported having a blocked sink, and the following day someone attended to repair it. On 14 March 2023 the neighbour reported having an “uncontrollable leak” from under the kitchen sink. The landlord’s notes state that, having attended, the neighbour was to report a dripping tap and call the drainage team about the sink.
  3. The resident reported on 28 March 2023 that water was coming through his bathroom ceiling and the landlord’s records state someone attended that day and found the kitchen mixer tap was leaking in the neighbour’s property and the sink was blocked which was causing the leak. It replaced a defective ceramic disc on the kitchen mixer tap on 4 April 2023.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 19 April 2023 that there had been leaks in the property in the past and he wanted it to repair the bathroom electrics at its own expense. He had been advised to make a claim through the landlord’s insurer, but had been told he would have to pay the initial £50 excess, which he was unhappy about. The resident also said he was dissatisfied with the level of communication from the landlord.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day and said it would contact him in the next 2 days to say who would be dealing with it and to see if the issue could be resolved quickly. However, he had the right to have the complaint investigated formally under stage 1 of its complaints procedure.
  6. The landlord called and discussed the resident’s concerns on 25 April 2023. It noted that he thought the leak was coming from the neighbour’s property, but it was of the view it was being caused by another property, and it had issued its leak process to it, on that basis. It explained that, in terms of claiming for remedial works, he would need to make a claim to its insurer. It said he may need to pay the excess, but this may be refunded at its discretion. The resident then submitted photographs and comments on 27 April 2023 to show why he felt the landlord was mistaken over the source of the leak; something it went on to acknowledge on 3 May 2023.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 May 2023 and acknowledged a lack of contact and having given the resident incorrect information. It apologised for the poor service and offered £50 compensation to recognise the resident’s time and trouble as well as distress and inconvenience caused by dealing with the issue.
  8. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 10 May 2023. He reiterated that there had been a number of leaks over the years and he had been given incorrect information. He was also unhappy to have not been allocated a specific person to deal with, despite asking for that and to have to give permission to have his complaint escalated to stage 1. This was acknowledged by the landlord the same day.
  9. On 22 May 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and explained who would be investigating the complaint at stage 2. It advised that there may be a delay in it responding due to staff shortages. It apologised for this, but as a result, it said response times were about 30 working days. The resident acknowledged the update but explained he was not happy about it. The landlord then clarified that the 30 day target to respond was from the date he registered the stage 2 complaint on 10 May 2023.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 June 2023 and reinforced its stage 1 response/offer of £50 compensation, which has not been accepted by the resident.

Assessment and findings

         Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referred to experiencing leaks from the neighbour’s property on several occasions over the past 9 years. He has also explained that, since making this complaint, he experienced another leak in 2024 (not caused by the neighbour). In the interests of the Ombudsman investigating issues which are still ‘live’, it is our practice to limit the scope of our investigations to a reasonable period prior to the formal complaint being made (reflected at paragraph 42.c of the Scheme).
  2. Therefore, this investigation is focused only on the leak reported in March 2023, and complained about in April 2023, which stemmed from the neighbour’s property. Earlier reports of issues have provided context to the current complaint, but do not form part of this investigation. In the event the resident wishes to refer the landlord’s handling of the more recent leak to the Ombudsman, he can do so once the landlord has been given the opportunity to address the complaint at stage 1 and 2 of its complaints procedure.

         Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and remedial works

  1. The evidence shows that the landlord was aware that a couple of weeks prior to the resident reporting the leak, the neighbour had had an uncontrollable leak and made 2 separate reports related to their plumbing. Despite knowing this, when the resident explained that the leak was coming from the neighbour’s property, it incorrectly advised that the leak was likely caused by another property.
  2. When the resident submitted further information to support his claim that the leak was coming from the neighbour’s property, the landlord did apologise and accepted it had made a mistake, which was appropriate. However, it did cause some short-term unnecessary confusion that could have been avoided, had the landlord investigated more thoroughly.
  3. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs policy says a routine repair, which includes a minor leak, should be completed within 20 working days. In this case, the landlord adhered to that timescale when attending and resolving the leak from the neighbour’s property. Therefore, it complied with its obligations. The same policy says that leaseholders are responsible for all repairs to internal building components and all services inside the property including pipework.
  4. The resident is a leaseholder and owns his property. Therefore, he would be responsible for any decoration or repairs needed in the property including light fixtures. This is also confirmed in a document produced by the landlord entitled “Your rights and responsibilities – Information for Leaseholders”. It explains that the landlord has insurance and the resident was entitled to make a claim against it for any accidental damage. Therefore, as the resident wanted the landlord to cover the cost of the repair of his bathroom light, the landlord’s advice to submit a claim was reasonable.
  5. The resident was told he would have to pay a £50 excess to the insurer if he made a claim to have his bathroom light repaired. However, the landlord offered to reimburse that by way of compensation in the same amount as a remedy for having given him incorrect information and there being a lack of contact. This ensured the resident was not out of pocket and was an appropriate response from the landlord.
  6. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s frustration due to the leak and his reluctance to get it fixed in case there was another issue. However, the landlord did take steps to identify the problem and carry out a repair within a reasonable period of time. While the landlord did cause some confusion in the way it referred to other properties potentially being the cause of the leak, it has accepted a deficiency with its communication, this was very short-lived, and the matter resolved quickly.
  7. The landlord’s complaints policy states that different people will deal with the complaint at each stage. Therefore, no one person would have responsibility for addressing the resident’s concerns throughout. It follows that, for the landlord to suggest the resident use a generic email address for correspondence, was not unreasonable. That way, it is likely the email would be actively monitored at all times, rather than directing an email to an individual who may not be at work to pick up messages.
  8. Overall, the landlord repaired the leak promptly and provided reasonable advice to the resident about making a claim. It did cause some brief confusion by referring to other properties, but this was a minor issue causing moderate frustration. The landlord’s offer of £50 compensation sufficiently remedies this failure in service and is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance. It also means the resident is not out of pocket financially should he choose to make a claim against the landlord’s insurer. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has made an offer which is reasonable and proportionate to resolve the complaint.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. Having received a complaint on 19 April 2023, the landlord acknowledged it the same day and said the resident would be contacted within 2 working days to say who would be dealing with his complaint. It went on to say, “They will see if there is something we can do to put things right quickly without the need for an investigation or a formal written response. Then they will write to you to confirm the agreed resolution and will track your case to make sure we keep our promises. If we cannot reach you by telephone, we will email you. If you decide that you still want your complaint investigated formally, we will carry out an investigation … under Stage 1 of our complaints procedure”.
  2. The landlord contacted the resident 4 working days later, so it did not adhere to the timescale it had set out. Even though the resident was called only 2 days later than he should have been, this delay did frustrate him. It is clear the resident was also unhappy at being asked whether he wanted to escalate his complaint. However, the landlord had explained on 19 April that he would need to decide whether he wanted the complaint considered at stage 1, if it was not resolved informally. This is set out in the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure says that it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. In more complex cases it may extend the timescales by a further 10 working days with agreement from the complainant. A stage 2 complaint would generally be responded to within 20 working days, but in more complex cases, a further 10 working days may be required.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 11 working days after the resident made the complaint. It therefore only missed its target by one day. The complaint was escalated on 10 May 2023 and the stage 2 response was sent 28 working days later. However, the landlord had advised the resident on 22 May 2023 that, due to staff shortages, it may take up to 30 working days to respond. Therefore, it made sure the resident’s expectations were properly managed.
  5. A 2 day delay in the initial call to the resident, and the stage 1 response being issued 1 day over the landlord’s target, is unfortunate but not significant enough to deem its service to have been a failure. The complaint responses addressed the resident’s concerns and rightly acknowledged where there had been a shortfall in its service. Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and remedial works.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £50 compensation already offered in May 2023 (if it has not already), as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress finding is made on that basis.