Trafford Housing Trust Limited (202113590)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113590

Trafford Housing Trust Limited

3 January 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:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above. 
    2. Response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of the insurance excess charge and for it to rectify the damage to her property.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a one-bedroom flat within a purpose-built block. The landlord, a housing association, is the freeholder of the block. Although records show the resident does not reside at the property, she will still be referred to in this report as “the resident”. The tenant of the property directly above the resident’s will be referred to as “the neighbour” where relevant.
  2. The resident reported a leak entering her property from the property above in June 2021. The landlord attended the same day and contained the leak. The resident reported a further leak in mid-June 2021. The landlord re-attended but records show it found no active leak, rather that the resident’s ceiling had retained water. The landlord replaced a new ball valve in the neighbour’s water tank and concluded that the issue was rectified at the end of June 2021.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 25 June 2021 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of the leak from the above property. She described decorative damage caused by the leak to her kitchen ceiling, walls, hall and bedroom. The resident said the landlord had not offered a dehumidifier to aid in drying out her ceilings or walls. She believed the landlord should rectify the damage and return her property to its original state. The resident explained that she was losing revenue because she was unable to rent out or sell the property through no fault of her own. She refused to pay the £350 excess charge associated with any claim on the block insurance as she had not been responsible for the leak. She also stated the landlord had not tried to contact her after repeated phone calls since the beginning of June 2021.
  4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord apologised for the distress caused by any damage resulting from the leak. It explained it had investigated the leak and found it was caused by a fault with the neighbour’s hot water tank, which they could not have been aware of. It stated it was satisfied that neither it nor the neighbour had been negligent in handling the issue. The landlord informed the resident that, as a leaseholder, she was responsible for logging a claim directly with its block insurer for any further repairs or damaged possessions. It further advised that the insurance was in place so that the leaseholders could claim if there was damage to their property.
  5. The landlord also noted the resident was responsible for paying the excess of £350, which applied when claiming against its block insurance. It stated that, as with all insurance policies, there was an excess to pay. It explained the block insurance and premium was lower than if the resident was to insure the property herself, which had offset the slightly higher excess she would pay. The landlord advised it was unable to consider reimbursement for the excess charge, and it had acted in line with standard insurance policy across the market. It referred to a government funded advice service for leaseholders, which detailed the resident would only be able to claim back for an excess charge if the landlord or neighbour had been negligent.
  6. The resident brought her complaint to this Service as she was remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and unhappy it had not attended to view the damage caused. She disputed that she should have to pay the £350 excess fee for any insurance claim because the leak was not from her property.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The resident’s lease agreement states that repairs affecting the safety or basic security of the property, or potentially affecting the health of the household, including uncontrollable water, should be attended to by the landlord as an emergency within eight hours.
  2. The landlord’s block insurance policy states that the leaseholders’ buildings are insured against loss of damage by the perils such as water from any tank, apparatus or pipe. It states that an £350 excess is to be paid in respect of each and every loss increasing to £1,000 for subsidence.
  3. The block insurance policy further lists exclusions in the policy such as excess, which notes that the first amount (£350) of any claim for which the resident is responsible is not insured.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above.

  1. After the resident reported a leak into her property, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the matter. Records show it attended promptly, sending a contractor within eight hours as an emergency repair. The contractor stopped the leak, and the landlord subsequently established the leak was not caused by any structural issues in the block, but by a fault in the neighbour’s hot water tank. It therefore concluded this had been an unforeseeable event and not the result of any negligence by the neighbour or itself. As a result, it determined it was not its responsibility to rectify damage to the resident’s property or personal belongings and that, as a leaseholder, she retained responsibility for any subsequent repairs that were necessary. From the information seen by this Service, the landlord was entitled to take this position as per the terms of the resident’s lease and it appropriately signposted her to make a claim under its block insurance policy.
  2. When the resident made a further report, the landlord appropriately re-attended and established the leak was not persistent, but the resident’s ceiling had retained water following the initial leak. The landlord subsequently arranged for a repair to the neighbour’s water tank on 29 June 2021, 19 days after the resident initially reported a leak. Having initially attended on an emergency basis to stop the leak, the landlord acted appropriately by carrying out the follow-up repair within a reasonable period of time, and in line with its responsive repairs policy. The landlord also acted appropriately by explaining the cause of the leak to the resident in its complaint responses. However, it also acknowledged that it had fallen “short of its usual standards” regarding the length of time it had taken to respond to the resident’s query regarding who was responsible for rectifying the damage caused to her property. It was appropriate that the landlord addressed this failing and offered and apology, while also assuring the resident it would address the issue with relevant staff to ensure similar situations did not occur.
  3. While the resident has stated she was dissatisfied that the landlord had not provided a dehumidifier or attended to view the damage caused, as the leak was not caused by an action or inaction of the landlord, its responsibility was to carry out repairs that would stop the leak and rectify the issue causing the leak, which records show it did. It was not responsible for carrying out any further repairs or inspections and the resident, as the leaseholder, would be responsible for rectifying the damage caused to the property and or personal belongings. It is evident that the situation has been upsetting for the resident and this Service appreciates she has been caused inconvenience and distress by a leak which was not her fault. However, from the evidence available, there was no service failure by the landlord in how it responded to her reports of a leak.

The resident’s request for reimbursement or for the landlord to rectify the damage to her property

  1. In her complaint, the resident asked that the landlord repair the decorative damage throughout her home and return her property back to its original state. However, as noted above, the landlord declined to do so having established that the leak was not the result of any negligence by the neighbour or itself. When declining to carry out further repairs or redecoration to the resident’s policy or covering the £350 excess charge of any claim she made on its block insurance, it clearly and consistently set out its position and acted in line with its policies. Its block insurance policy specifically notes that the building is insured against any loss or damage including “escape of water from any tank, apparatus or tank”. The evidence available show the landlord maintained an appropriate insurance policy against which the resident, as a leaseholder, was able to make to a claim and, while it considered her request, it acted appropriately when directing her to do so.
  2. The landlord also acted in line with its published leaseholder guidance which states the landlord provides insurance for leasehold properties in the case of accidental loss, damage or destruction. Generally, loss or damage to a property would be dealt with via an insurance claim as landlords are entitled to use insurance to cover liability claims and the landlord was not under any obligation to consider such a claim outside the insurance process.
  3. The landlord also advised that, should the resident log a claim against its block insurance, she would be responsible for paying the excess charge of £350. Its block insurance policy for leaseholders states that the first £350 applies to each and every loss in respect of all insured perils, including escape of water from any tank, apparatus or pipes. While it is not disputed the leak was not the resident’s fault, the landlord acted reasonably when it explained that, as with all insurance policies, there was an excess to pay. In its complaint responses it reasonably provided further explanation that the insurance and premium was much lower than if the resident was to insure herself, which offset the slightly higher excess she would pay. From knowledge of other policies across the sector, the £350 excess charge is not excessively high. As the landlord acted in line with its block insurance policy, it was ultimately entitled to deny the resident’s request to reimburse, or pay for, the excess charge associated with any insurance claim.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding its:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above. 
    2. Response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of the insurance excess charge and for it to rectify the damage to her property.