Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Hillingdon (202000105)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000105

London Borough of Hillingdon

5 January 2021


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 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 response to the resident’s reports regarding:
    1. multiple instances of water ingress at his property between August and December 2019; and
    2. the identity of the person occupying the residence above him.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been a secured tenant at the property of the landlord since August 2002. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The property has a residence located above it (Flat A). The residence next to Flat A (Flat B) also shares a corner with the property.
  3. The resident has previously brought a complaint to this service regarding the landlord’s response to his reports about anti-social behaviour and instances of water ingress caused by Flat A up to May 2019, following which the Ombudsman determined there was no maladministration by the landlord.
  4. The landlord operates a three stage complaints process.
  5. The landlord also operates a repairs policy which notes that “leaking pipes” are its responsibility, which it will treat as “urgent repairs” (differing from “emergency repairs”) to be attended to within 24 hours.

Summary of events

  1. On 5 August 2019, the resident reported that there had been water ingress at his property which he suspected came from Flat A. He reiterated this report on 9 August 2019 and advised he wished to make a formal complaint regarding the water ingress. He further advised his preferred resolution would be for the tenants of Flat A to be evicted.
  2. The landlord replied on 14 August 2019 and advised that it would not open a new complaint as a complaint regarding water ingress from Flat A was “subject of consideration by the Housing Ombudsman Service.” It further advised it would arrange for its ‘Tenancy Management Team’ to contact the resident to provide further assistance. The landlord has advised this service that it contacted the resident on or before 11 September to discuss the water ingress, during which the resident advised that he believed the cause of the water ingress to be the tenant in Flat A “allowing her son to overflow the [bathroom] sink.” The landlord has also confirmed it spoke with the tenant at Flat A at this time and subsequently arranged for inspections of the pipework at the resident’s property, Flat A, and Flat B.
  3. The landlord has provided this service with its repairs report for the period of August to December 2019 along with internal correspondence which notes its attendance at the resident’s property on 1 October 2019. It noted there was “no live leak” and that it “could not see any signs of a historic leak, e.g. water stains or a damaged surface.” The landlord advised that no one answered the door at Flat A. At Flat B, the landlord advised it found a “slight leak” from the kitchen sink waste pipe, which was repaired. It further advised it “does not believe that this leak would go into [the resident’s property].” It also advised that the hot water tap was “leaking slightly” and that it would arrange for a plumber to repair the tap and accompanying “gate valve.” The resident subsequently called the landlord on the same date and advised he had “spoken to an independent plumber” who had advised “the problem ‘cannot be related to the gate valve’.”
  4. On 4 October 2019, the resident requested an update on the landlord’s progress with entry to Flat A. On 7 November 2019, the landlord advised the resident it had not yet gained entry but was considering “enforcement action.” The resident also advised the landlord he believed that the current occupant of Flat A was not “the tenant that moved in.”
  5. The landlord has advised this service that it attended Flat A on 21 November 2019 and subsequently advised the resident that “there were no signs of any leaks … but we were going to lag the cold water pipe in the kitchen as it had signs of condensation on it.” On the same date, the resident emailed the landlord and disputed that the condensation had caused the water ingress. He noted that previous instances of water ingress had been caused “when the child that was in the flat at the time left the bathroom plug in with the taps running” and that “you have to assume that someone in [Flat A] has left the plug in the bathroom sink with the taps running” again. He further reiterated that he did not believe the current occupant of Flat A was the correct tenant.
  6. On 28 November 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised its “Counter Fraud Team” was investigating his allegation regarding the occupant at Flat A. The landlord further advised that the tenant at Flat A had not admitted to causing the water ingress and that it had “no evidence to substantiate your allegation that (deliberately or otherwise) your neighbour caused water ingress at your home.” It reiterated that as the issues raised were already the subject of an investigation by this service, the resident “cannot progress this further as a complaint,” but he was “at liberty to raise this with the Housing Ombudsman.”
  7. On 3 December 2019, the resident reported a further instance of water ingress and also provided photographs. On 5 March 2020, the resident contacted the landlord again and noted that this service’s investigation had been limited to the landlord’s responses up to May 2019 regarding the resident’s reports of water ingress prior to this date and would therefore not consider his reports of water ingress from August, September, and December of 2019. The resident therefore disputed the landlord’s decision not to open a complaint regarding his most recent reports on the basis they were subject to an investigation by this service. He further disputed the landlord’s decision not to take any further action against the tenant of Flat A for causing water ingress.
  8. On 13 March 2020, the landlord agreed to open a new complaint and it subsequently provided its stage one response on 20 March 2020. The landlord advised it agreed that this service’s investigation was limited to May 2019 and that it recognised the reports of August, September, and December of 2019 should be dealt with under the initial stage of its formal complaints procedure. It also advised that following the resident’s reports, it had completed nine instances of repair works between September and December 2019 and was therefore “unable to conclude that [it] has been unresponsive to your reports.” The landlord has provided this service witch its repairs report log which confirms there were nine entries over this period. It further advised that it had conducted a “full inspection … which did not reveal any signs of current or historic water leakage.” It advised that it was “satisfied that the correct person was in occupation at [Flat A]” and that it was “unable to evidence that your neighbour … has deliberately caused water ingress to your home” and subsequently it could not take any further enforcement action. It noted that there “have been no reports of water ingress for the last three months.” It concluded that its decision would “not be overturned through a further internal investigation” and advised the resident that the complaint could therefore be immediately raised to this service.

Assessment and findings

Multiple instances of water ingress

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy notes that it will respond to reports of a leak within 24 hours. While the resident made a report of water ingress initially on 5 August 2019 and the landlord did not respond until 15 August 2019, it was not evident that the instance of water ingress was an active leak and so the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s response time was reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. The landlord made appropriate investigations into the cause of the water ingress by investigating not only the resident’s property and Flat A, but also seeking to determine if Flat B could be a cause. While it was initially unable to gain access to Flat A, the landlord appropriately kept the resident updated on its attempts to gain access and the results of its inspection once it had gained access.
  3. The landlord appropriately kept the resident updated on the results of its investigations and the steps it was taking to address the minor faults it had identified. While both the landlord and the resident concluded it was unlikely that the fault ‘gate valve’ in Flat B was the cause, it was appropriate for the landlord to attempt to resolve any possible cause and to update the resident accordingly. Given that its investigations did not find an active leak, or evidence of a historic leak, and that there had not been a recent instance of water ingress for three months, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude in its formal response that it had taken appropriate action and did not outline any further action to be taken. The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s repairs records and they support the explanations that it gave in its responses.
  4. The landlord also appropriately acknowledged the resident’s concerns that the cause of the water ingress was the flooding of the bathroom sink in Flat A. The Ombudsman appreciates that in the absence of an admission from the occupant of Flat A, it is difficult to prove this occurred and the options available to the landlord to investigate further are limited. Given that the occupant of Flat A denied this had occurred, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that it did not have any evidence that would warrant further action, specifically the resident’s request that they be evicted.
  5. Regarding the landlord’s initial decision not to open a further complaint, the Ombudsman considers that while the investigation by this service concerning the previous complaints on the same issue were ongoing, the landlord’s decision was reasonable in the interest of managing its resources. It was appropriate, however, that following this service’s determination, it opened a new complaint regarding the most recent instances of water ingress.
  6. While the landlord operates a three stage complaints policy, given that it had already made its position clear in its previous responses, it was reasonable for it to limit its response to a single formal response given the previous complaint considered under its own complaints procedure and then by the Ombudsman.

Identity of the person occupying the residence above

  1. Following the resident’s expressions of concern that the person occupying Flat A was not the tenant, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s concerns and advised in its correspondence dated 28 November 2019 that its “Counter Fraud Team” was investigating.
  2. Given the resident’s ongoing concern on this issue, it was also appropriate for the landlord to address the issue in its formal complaint response. The Ombudsman considers that it is for the landlord to satisfy itself that the correct person is in residence and was subsequently reasonable that the landlord advised the resident that it had done so. Given the landlord’s data protection responsibilities, it was reasonable that the landlord did not elaborate further on its investigation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint concerning the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding:
    1. multiple instances of water ingress at his property between August and December 2019; and
    2. the identity of the person occupying the residence above him.

Reasons

Multiple instances of water ingress

  1. The landlord made reasonable investigations into the possible causes of any water ingress and took appropriate steps to resolve the possible causes it identified. Given that its investigations did not uncover evidence of a historic or ongoing leak, it was reasonable that it took no further action.
  2. The landlord also made appropriate investigations into the resident’s concerns that the cause of the water ingress was flooding of Flat A’s sink. Given the lack of evidence that this had occurred, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise that it was unable to take any further action.

Identity of the person occupying the residence above

  1. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s concerns and reasonably responded that it was satisfied the correct person was in residence.