Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (202218237)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218237

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council

19 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 we have considered this. 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation after it plumbed his toilet into a hot-water inlet.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of a house owned by the landlord.
3. In November 2022, the resident contacted this Service to explain his toilet had been flushing with hot water since September 2022. He had since noticed an increase in his energy bills. He said the landlord had not responded to his complaint or request for repair. We asked it to respond directly to him.
4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 5 December 2022. Following a surveyor’s attendance, it said its contractor would contact the resident to arrange a repair appointment and discuss compensation.
5. In July 2023, we asked the landlord to issue its final complaint response following further contact from the resident. It responded at stage 2 on 7 August 2023. It said its insurance team was waiting for information from the resident to consider his claim for compensation. It summarised the information required and asked him to provide this.
6. The landlord’s final complaint response dissatisfied the resident. He referred his complaint to this Service. To resolve the complaint, he wants the landlord to compensate him £5000.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. The resident was concerned about the impact the matter had on his mental health. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, the courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because parties appoint independent medical experts to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise, the court can examine oral testimony. Therefore, his concerns about the health impact of the issue are better dealt with via the court.
8. We recognise that following the landlord’s final complaint response, the resident expressed concerns over problems with heating and hot water in the property. These matters did not form part of his initial complaint. Therefore, we cannot investigate its handling of these issues within this case. The landlord needs to have an opportunity to investigate and respond under its internal complaint procedure, as per paragraph 42.a of the Scheme. It is open for the resident to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint.

Repair and compensation

9. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
10. Once on notice of a repair, the landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
11. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance leaflet states it has repair timescales of between 24 hours and 60 working days, depending on the urgency and nature of the repair.
12. The records provided to this Service indicate the resident initially told the landlord that his toilet was flushing with hot water on 20 October 2022. We recognise he disputes this, citing he reported the issue in September 2022. Contractors replumbed the toilet on 6 February 2023. This was outside of the repair timescale set in its policy.
13. The landlord has provided an email from its contractor dated 2 February 2023, the day after a site visit took place. It describes the contractor contacting the resident and suggesting “…that to resolve the issues, we will fully tile the back wall and the tap end above the bath and that this would be instead of payment of any compensation for the hot water usage.” While the landlord has not provided documentary evidence to show the resident agreed to this, the Ombudsman recognises contractors did the additional tiling the same day as the toilet was replumbed.
14. The landlord’s call records show the resident contacted it on 21 February 2023 regarding a utility bill he had received for £900. He felt the landlord was liable for this. It replied on 4 April 2023 asking him to make a claim to its insurance department. It provided a list of information he needed to provide and set out the next steps. We find the landlord provided this information in a clear and straightforward way. However, there was an unreasonable delay in responding to the resident.
15. In May 2023, the resident told the landlord he was seeking £5000 compensation, including redress for the impact on his mental health. He said his energy bill was now £1700 and the utility provider had passed it to a debt collection agency, impacting his credit file.
16. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it does not consider insurance claims to be a complaint, and if it decides not to deal with a complaint under this policy, it will explain why in writing. The landlord’s compensation policy states it does not consider liability claims under it.
17. We have reviewed records of communication between the landlord and resident from February 2023 to July 2023, including emails and call notes. These records show the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stance on the matter. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain to the resident whether it was considering his concerns under its internal complaint procedure. Furthermore, we recognise it had already responded at stage 1 and referenced compensation within its response. The ambiguity here meant it was not clear to the resident how he could escalate his concerns. As a result, he spent time contacting this Service for support. This was a shortcoming on part of the landlord.
18. While the landlord asked its insurance department to handle the resident’s request for compensation, the insurance department needed more information to decide whether it would refer the matter to its liability insurer. It asked the resident to evidence his financial loss by providing energy bills for the period where it had connected the toilet to the hot-water inlet, and the same period for the previous year. This would enable it to consider the additional energy used over his normal usage. The landlord also asked for the resident to provide this information at stage 2. The Ombudsman finds this approach to be fair and reasonable.
19. While it is a fundamental part of the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether a landlord has acted appropriately, this will often necessitate consideration of how the resident’s actions may have contributed to the situation. Rather than demonstrating bias in favour of the landlord, this is an example of the Ombudsman’s independent and impartial role in practice, as this Service considers the actions of both parties and the impact on the substantive issue.
20. The Ombudsman is not questioning the reasons why the resident did not engage with the landlord in terms of providing the information it requested. However, the landlord would not typically be responsible for the delays or impact caused in this instance. From the evidence available, we are satisfied it made reasonable attempts to investigate his allegation of financial loss.
21. Nonetheless, we identified a delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s initial report of the toilet flushing with hot water. Also, it ought to have been clearer with its complaints process. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of £50-£100 where there were minor failures by the landlord which may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident. In this case, we find that compensation of £50 would be appropriate in view of the shortcomings identified.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation after it plumbed his toilet into a hot-water inlet.

Order

23. Within 28 days, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its handling of the issues.