Yorkshire Housing Limited (202324404)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324404

Yorkshire Housing Limited

13 June 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak under the bath. 

Background

2. The resident occupies a 2-bedroom property under a shared ownership lease that began 15 October 2021. He lived with his partner and small child who at the time of the complaint was a year and a half. 
3. The property was covered by a Buildmark warranty provided by the National House Building Council (NHBC). The cover started 16 September 2021. The Buildmark warranty lasted for 2 years from the completion date, being the date the landlord bought the building in which the resident’s flat was situated. The Buildmark warranty expired on 15 September 2023. The NHBC guarantee for structural defects lasts 12 years from completion and the end date was given as 15 September 2033.
4. On 22 September 2023, the resident reported he had suffered a leak under the bath. He followed this up with an email on 25 September 2023, making a complaint that he had suffered a leak under the bath. He said it had been leaking “every day” for the previous 2 years. It had “rotted the wall ... adjoining (the) bedroom and ... left mould on the bathroom floor/wall under the bath, ... also ruining the flooring”. He attached a plumber’s report which stated that they had removed a “swollen” bath panel. “The bath waste pipework was not connected or secured allowing a leak and cause damage ... since the property was occupied”. In June 2025, the resident told us that the “o-ring” had not been screwed on properly.
5. On 16 October 2023 the landlord responded at stage 1 to the resident’s complaint as follows:
   1. The leak could have started any time in the last year and given the damage, more likely in the past 6 months.
   2. The “new home build warranty” ran out in October 2022.
   3. The landlord was therefore not responsible for pay for the work already completed or any further works needed to put the damage right.
   4. It referred the resident to their home insurance provider.
6. On the same day, the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to Stage 2 of its complaint process.
7. On 15 November 2023, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
   1. It noted the resident’s report that the leak had caused the bedroom carpet to be damp and mould to grow growing under the bath.
   2. It said:
      1. It was “confident” that the waste pipe had been properly connected when it was installed. Leak testing was carried out in new build homes as part of general quality control so had this not been the case, it would have been picked up prior to him moving in. If the pipe under the bath was insecure or had not been connected, then the damage would have been noticeable much sooner.
      2. It was reasonable to assume that the leak started much later than that and after the end of the defects period.
      3. It was 2 years since the resident had moved in and a year after the defect period ended. It was “entirely reasonable to assume” that the leak occurred after the end of that initial warranty period.
   3. It referred the resident to the resident’s “buildings insurance” and the NHBC.
8. On 22 June 2024 the resident told us that he was caused severe distress by the thought his toddler had lived with a mouldy bathroom for his entire life.
9. The resident told us in June 2025 that the landlord replaced the bath in February 2025 as it had discovered that the pipes running to the shower had not been properly installed. The resident said there was mould under the bath. He was not aware of it until the bath was replaced. He said NHBC declined to assist him with his claim about the September 2023 leak because the issue was not reported within the first 2 years of the warranty.
10. In June 2025, the landlord informed us that, following reports by a number of residents, it had decided to undertake repairs to bathrooms in some of the flats in the resident’s building. It did so as there was an issue with the overhead bath shower. It considered that the issues with the waste pipe and the shower were separate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

11. The Ombudsman is unable to determine definitively whether the leak under the bath was a defect or something that occurred during the course of the time the resident was living in the property. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider the response of the landlord to the resident’s report of a leak and was appropriate and reasonable in all the circumstances. We will consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with law, its obligations, good practice and its policies.

The landlord’s response to the bath leak

12. Under the lease, the landlord had an obligation to keep the common facilities in good repair. Those common facilities were external from the resident’s property. It was for the resident to keep his property in repair except for insured risks. The insured risks included loss or damage by fire and other risks as the landlord may reasonably determine. Any defect by the builder was covered under the Buildmark warranty.
13. Even where a landlord does not itself give a warranty, it is good practice, and is not disputed, for the landlord to liaise with the builder/developer on the resident’s behalf. We consider that the landlord took reasonable steps in response to the resident’s report. On 4 October 2023, the landlord referred the matter to the developer/builder who said that “the two-year warranty expired on 11 October 2022, the leak could have happened anytime in the last year but the damage would suggest 6 months”. Internally, the landlord considered that as the leak was reported outside the defect period, it was not possible to prove the leak had started in the defect period.
14. It was reasonable that the landlord, as part of its complaints investigation, pressed further. In response, the developer on 24 October 2024 said that, as the pipework has been replaced, it could not see how the builder/developer would be able to establish that it was a long-term leak. It could not see that a “long–term drip drip would eventually amount to a swollen bath panel, leakage under stud wall and wet carpet in another room as that was consistent with a more severe leak. The photos the customer has supplied did not support this as there was quite a lot of the floor under the bath that was not rotten”. This showed that the landlord carefully considered the matter and liaised with third parties.
15. The landlord was entitled to accept that a) the warranty had expired and b) it would be difficult to prove when the leak started and therefore a defect rather than a new repair issue. We cannot determine if that was the case, but the landlord was entitled to rely on the advice it was given, on considering the nature of the damage. We appreciate the resident’s plumber thought the damage under the bath had been long-standing. However, there was no evidence that the loose connection was a defect, latent or otherwise, and the evidence indicated that it was likely it was not, or at least difficult to prove. We are satisfied that the landlord gave due consideration to the issue. In any event, the Buildmark warranty had expired on 15 September 2023. From what the resident told us, the NHBC had taken a similar view.
16. There was a contradiction in the documents as the landlord referred to a 2-year warranty expiring on 11 October 2022, the complaint responses referred to the new home build warranty running out in October 2022, yet the Buildmark warranty stated that it expired on 15 September 2023. The landlord has told us that there were warranties the builder gave it and the landlord gave the resident. The confusion of dates provided to the resident was unreasonable. Nevertheless, the reality was that a Buildmark warranty was in place until 15 September 2023. A non-structural defect must be reported before a warranty expires. The only exception is if the defect is hidden (or “latent”). The warranty had expired on 15 September 2023 before the incident of 22 September 2023 occurred, albeit only by a few days and there was insufficient evidence this was a defect, hidden or otherwise.
17. In its Stage 2 response, the landlord relied on an assumption that the property was checked and any leaks would have been evident. This was merely an assumption and that proved not to be the case, given there was an installation fault. Not all defects are apparent at the outset. While we appreciate that was with hindsight, relying on an assumption was unreasonable. The Stage 2 response also referred to the resident’s building insurance. We find that statement confusing and not helpful. Under the lease, it was for the landlord to insure the building. The options for the resident were likely to be to claim against his contents insurance or, if appropriate, the landlord’s buildings insurance.
18. There was no evidence that there was a connection between the issue which led to the landlord replacing the bath and the waste pipe leak. One was a waste pipe not being property secured and the other was a pipe to the shower.
19. We acknowledge the impact on the resident the incident of the leak and discovering mould under the bath would have had. However, we find the landlord took reasonable steps in contacting the builder/developer, considering the damage and whether it could support or progress a claim. In the circumstances, we find no maladministration.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak under the bath. 

Recommendations

21. The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
    1. The landlord should ensure that its explanations about its warranties and builder warranties are clear.
22. The landlord is asked to provide feedback to the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding this recommendation within 4 weeks of this report.