Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

WATMOS Community Homes (202310312)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310312

WATMOS Community Homes

21 February 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 leaks between February and June 2023.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a leaseholder of the landlord since 2008. The property is a flat in a block and has parts of 2 properties directly above it.
  2. In December 2021, the resident reported a leak coming in to her property from above. This was repaired in 2022. The resident made a claim with the landlord’s insurer for the damage caused. In October 2022 the resident moved out of the property so it could dry out and the insurer could carry out remedial works. The resident said these were arranged to start in February 2023.
  3. On 13 February 2023, the resident reported another leak in to her property from above. The landlord raised works orders to 2 contractors to find the leak. On 22 February 2023, a possible cause was found in the bathroom of one of the properties above. This was repaired the following month. The landlord said a second leak was identified in the communal stack pipe, accessed via the other property above, by 24 February 2023.
  4. The resident made a complaint on 12 April 2023. She said the landlord had delayed in repairing the leaks and not responded to her requests for updates. The insurer had asked for a report confirming the cause of the leaks with evidence that these had been resolved. Around 2 weeks later, the landlord sent a surveyor’s report to the insurer, which said works to repair both leaks had been completed on 27 March 2023.
  5. On 16 May 2023, the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. This said the surveyor’s report sent the month before did not include evidence that the second leak had been repaired. This repair was still outstanding and had been arranged for 17 May 2023. The complaint was upheld because of this and poor communication. It apologised and offered £250 compensation.
  6. Three days later, on the advice of the landlord, the resident made a second complaint. She said the leaks from the neighbour’s bathroom had happened because the landlord had not done enough to prevent these, considering the neighbour was vulnerable. She wanted the landlord to waterproof the bathroom above to reduce the chance of further leaks.
  7. At the beginning of June 2023, the resident asked to escalate her first complaint to stage 2. She said the leak in February 2023 was linked to the leak in 2021, as this had not been repaired properly. The landlord had not explained the reasons for the delay in repairing the recent leak. The compensation offered did not reflect the severe disruption to her life. She asked the landlord to complete all repairs, provide evidence of this and merge her 2 complaints, as they related to the same issue.
  8. On 8 June 2023, the landlord declined to review the resident’s first complaint at stage 2. It said this was because the repairs had been completed on 17 May 2023. Evidence of the completed work had been sent to her and the insurer the day before. It had merged her 2 complaints and declined her request for the bathroom above to be waterproofed. The various leaks had been caused by different issues and while frustrating for her, there would always be uncontrollable issues within blocks. It agreed with the stage 1 response, which had addressed her concerns about delays and lack of communication.
  9. The same month, the resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the compensation offered was inadequate and did not reflect the impact on her. She wanted the landlord to improve its repairs policy and procedure so other residents did not suffer like she had.
  10. The resident has told us that the insurer completed remedial works to her property in July 2023, and she moved back to the property in October 2023.

Assessment and findings

Handling of leaks

  1. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the communal stack pipe in line with its leaseholder handbook. This says it is responsible for repairs to the structure and communal areas of the block. This includes the stack pipe. The landlord is also responsible for repairs to the bathroom of the property above.
  2. When the resident first reported the leak in February 2023, the landlord raised an emergency works order the same day to find the leak. Considering the nature of the repair, it was sensible of the landlord to raise this as an emergency. Its repairs policy at the time said it would attend emergencies within 24 hours. While the works order was completed the same day, we have seen no evidence that the contractor attended or took any action within the committed timescale.
  3. The resident chased an update on the leak on 16 February 2023 and 4 days later, the landlord raised another works order to a second contractor to find the leak. This resulted in a visit to one of the neighbouring properties above, on 22 February 2023. During this visit, it identified a possible source of the leak in the bathroom. This was 9 days after the resident had first reported the leak and was significantly over the 24 hour committed response time for emergency repairs. This amounts to maladministration.
  4. The landlord completed the works to the bathroom in the property above on 27 March 2023. This was 33 days after it had identified these works were needed. From the evidence provided, it is not clear how the landlord categorised this repair. However, considering that water was leaking in to the resident’s property, it should have treated this as urgent. Its repairs policy at the time said urgent repairs would be completed within 7 days. As this repair was completed in 33 days, this was outside of this timescale.
  5. We recognise that the completion of this repair was dependent on the neighbour giving access. The landlord has said due to the neighbour’s vulnerabilities, this presented challenges in getting access to complete the repair. While delays for this reason are understandable, landlords should keep residents updated during periods of delay. There is no evidence the landlord did that in this case, despite the resident chasing updates on at least 2 occasions during this period. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling that the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to waterproof the neighbour’s bathroom, but it declined. It said that any water spillage or leak would continue to find its way in to her property via the threshold of the bathroom door. While frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s decision was reasonable. Even though it did not agree to waterproof the bathroom, the landlord did confirm that it was in touch with the neighbour and would address any vulnerability issues, including their use of water in the bathroom. This showed it was taking steps to try and address the underlying cause of this issue.
  7. The resident said she was told after the leak in 2021 that the landlord had referred the neighbour to its welfare team, but she did not know the outcome of this. It is reasonable that the landlord would not be able to share any updates with the resident about this, for data protection reasons. Therefore, a lack of updates in respect of this issue, is not a failure by the landlord.
  8. The landlord’s surveyor’s report, dated 21 April 2023 said the leak in the communal stack pipewas repaired on 27 March 2023. This was incorrect. The landlord only identified this error because its insurer and the resident pointed out there was a lack of evidence in the report, showing this repair had been completed. This error and the landlord’s failure to independently identify this are serious concerns, and resulted in the communal stack pipe repair being delayed.
  9. The landlord said this leak was identified by 24 February 2023 and repaired on 17 May 2023. This this meant it took over 9 weeks to complete. This was an unreasonable delay, particularly considering water was leaking in to the resident’s property. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling that the landlord did not know what it was doing.
  10. Overall, the leaks went on for over 3 months. During this time, the resident was not living at the property because she was waiting on remedial works to be completed for a previous leak. The delays in resolving the leaks in 2023meant the remedial works were also delayed. By the time the leaks were repaired and the works rescheduled and completed, the resident had been living away from her property for a year. This was extremely disruptive for her.
  11. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses said that repairs had been carried out in a timely manner. This was incorrect. While delays to repairs for the first leak may have been somewhat outside of the landlord’s control, due to access issues; delays to the repair of the second leak were not. The landlord’s failure to properly assess its handling of the repairs and accept responsibility for its failures was disappointing for the resident. This caused her to lose faith in the landlord’s complaints process.
  12. The resident said the leaks in 2023 were linked to the previous leak in 2021. She said a surveyor told her that the previous repair had not been completed properly. We do not doubt the resident’s comments but have seen no evidence to confirm this. Considering the leak in 2021 was repaired at least 6 months before the leak started in February 2023, it was reasonable that the landlord did not agree these 2 leaks were linked.
  13. The landlord told the resident the leaks had occurred for various reasons and that in blocks, these types of uncontrollable issues can occur. From the evidence provided, this is a reasonable explanation. While frustrating that multiple leaks have occurred in the resident’s property, this in itself is not a failure by the landlord.
  14. The landlord has acknowledged that its communication with the resident regarding the leaks was poor. This is an accurate assessment. The evidence shows that the resident repeatedly asked for updates during the 3 month period the leaks were happening, but quite often did not get a response. This left her feeling ignored.
  15. In total, the resident contacted the landlord at least 13 times after she first reported the leak, until the second leak was repaired on 17 May 2023. This was in addition to the landlord’s insurer also chasing for updates. This shows she spent considerable time and trouble in trying to get this resolved, when the landlord should have proactively kept her updated on its progress. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration.
  16. After the stack pipe was repaired on 17 May 2023, the landlord did not tell the resident this, or provide evidence of the repair to the insurer until 3 weeks later. The landlord said this was sent on 7 June 2023, which was only after the resident asked to escalate her first complaint.
  17. The resident told the landlord the insurer had put the remedial works for the previous leak on hold until it received evidence that the recent leaks had been repaired. Therefore, the landlord should have prioritised sending this update to the resident and the insurer so the works could progress as quickly as possible. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration and meant the resident incurred further time and trouble in chasing this up.
  18. The landlord acknowledged failures in its handling of the leaks. It apologised and offered £250 compensation. Considering the full circumstances of this matter and in consultation with our remedies guidance, this amount is insufficient. Therefore, the landlord has not offered reasonable redress to the resident and a finding of maladministration is appropriate. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation for its handling of leaks between February and June 2023, inclusive of the £250 already offered, if not done so already. This is in line with our remedies guidance.
  19. We are aware there has been a further leak in to the resident’s property between December 2023 and September 2024. The resident has raised another complaint about the landlord’s handling of this and a stage 2 response was sent in October 2024. This has been referred to us and is being managed under case reference 202445798. We have not investigated the landlord’s handling of this subsequent leak or its responses to the complaint as part of this investigation. However, we can see that it has identified a number of learning points and made commitments to the resident on how it will improve its services going forward. This is positive.
  20. In recent contact with us, the resident said that she has seen no changes in the landlord’s repairs policy or procedure and believes this is needed to ensure the failures that have occurred do not happen again. Particularly in relation to follow up and ownership of individual repair issues.
  21. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to send a written update to the resident on its progress of implementing learning identified from her complaints. This should include any updates or changes to its repairs policy and procedure, as well as staff training and daily practices. Any future actions proposed, should include an estimated timescale for these to be completed.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s first complaint on 17 April 2023. This was 3 working days after she raised the complaint. This was in line with the 5 working day committed response time for acknowledgements, set out in its complaints policy at the time.
  2. On 27 April 2023, the resident asked for additional concerns to be added to her complaint. The landlord agreed to this, which was sensible, rather than asking her to raise a separate complaint, as these concerns were about the same issue.
  3. The landlord told the resident on 28 April 2023 that it had extended the deadline to respond to her complaint by a further 10 working days, to 16 May 2023. This was reasonable considering it needed more time to investigate her additional concerns.
  4. When the resident said she wanted to add further concerns to the complaint on 12 May 2023, the landlord asked for her agreement to extend the deadline again. This was in line with its complaints policy, which said it could extend the response time for stage 1 complaints, but this would not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason. If it needed to extend for longer than 10 working days, it must agree this with the resident.
  5. The resident did not agree or disagree to the requested extension, and so the landlord sent the stage 1 response on 16 May 2023. This was appropriate to ensure it met the committed deadline as the resident had not expressly agreed to a further extension.
  6. In total, the landlord sent the stage 1 response in 22 working days. This was slightly over the extended 20 working day committed response time, set out in its complaints policy at the time. This was a minor delay and the evidence shows that the landlord was responsive to the resident during this period, therefore, the slight delay was not a failure.
  7. When the resident raised further concerns on 19 May 2023, the landlord told her these needed to be raised as a new complaint. While these concerns related to the landlord’s handling of the leaks, they were new concerns about the landlord not waterproofing the bathroom above.
  8. As the stage 1 response had already been sent and the resident had not yet asked to escalate the first complaint to stage 2, it was reasonable that the landlord suggested she raise a new complaint at that time. When the resident escalated the first complaint a few weeks later, the landlord merged the 2 complaints and responded to these as one. This was sensible.
  9. The landlord rejected the resident’s request for her first complaint to be reviewed at stage 2. Its complaints policy at the time said it could decline to escalate complaints and gave some examples of when it might do this. However, none of the examples set out in the policy are relevant to the resident’s complaint.
  10. The landlord said it rejected the review request because the repairs had been completed and further actions taken. It is our view that these reasons are not acceptable for declining the resident’s request. She had expressed ongoing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the matter and so it should have agreed to complete the review on that basis.
  11. An order has been made for the landlord to deliver training to all complaint handling staff on dealing with stage 2 escalation requests, including rejections, in line with its current complaints policy. This order will be complied with if the landlord can show training on this subject has been delivered in the last 12 months.
  12. Despite telling the resident that her request for a stage 2 review was rejected, the response sent on 8 June 2023 appears to include the outcome of a review of the complaint. This was confusing for the resident and amounts to service failure. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks between February and June 2023.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £550 compensation, made up of £500 for its handling of leaks between February and June 2023 (inclusive of the £250 already offered, if not done so already) and £50 for its complaint handling. Evidence of compliance to be sent to us within 4 weeks.
  2. Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Sent a written update to the resident on its progress of implementing learning identified from her complaints. This should include any updates or changes to its repairs policy and procedure, as well as staff training and daily practices. Any future actions proposed, should include an estimated timescale for these to be completed.
    2. Delivered training to all complaint handling staff on dealing with stage 2 escalation requests, including rejections, in line with its current complaints policy. This order will be complied with if the landlord can show training on this subject has been delivered in the last 12 months.