Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202100919)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100919

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

10 November 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 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 repairs following leaks in the resident’s home.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

2. As per Section 5 of the resident’s tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for external pipes, skirting boards and floors but not floor coverings. It is also responsible for keeping fixtures and fittings for the supply of water, gas, electricity and for sanitation in repair and proper working order. It is not responsible for appliances fitted by the resident, such as washing machines.
3. The landlord’s repair commitment is: to agree repair timescales with residents and respond to emergency repairs within twenty four hours, and to keep residents up to date on progress and appointments, completing repairs on the first visit when possible.
4. The landlord’s compensation guidance allows for reimbursement of damaged possessions only when the landlord is at fault. It further confirms that it will consider the vulnerability of the affected household when considering the level of impact of any fault.
5. The landlord’s compensation policy confirms that the landlord encourages all residents to have home contents insurance.

Background

6. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in a ground floor flat.

Summary of events

7. The landlord’s repairs history for the property confirms that it received a report that water was “coming up through the floor” in the resident’s kitchen on 15 and 16 February 2021.
8. On 17 February 2021, the resident reported a leak in his kitchen. The landlord attended on the same day, but it could not find the leak. A supervisor returned the following day and found that the leak was coming from a washing machine pipe (which the landlord was not responsible for).
9. The landlord’s repairs history confirms that it carried out work to “repipe and reconnect [the] plumbing” in the resident’s kitchen on 25 February 2021.
10. In its later complaint response, the landlord explained that it received a report of a leak on 18 March 2021. It said “we attended and cleared the soil stack on the same day. The following day you reported that water was still entering your flat, again our operative attended and found no evidence of any further leak.” 
11. The repair records show that in March 2021 the landlord raised multiple work jobs to sanitise, clean, and repair parts of the resident’s kitchen.
12. On 8 April 2021 the resident reported a leak coming from the gas boiler in the property. The landlord attended on the same day.
13. Following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 13 April 2021. We said the resident had told us he complained to the landlord in March, had received an acknowledgement, but heard nothing more. We explained the resident was concerned about damage caused by “multiple leaks”, and asked the landlord to respond to him.
14. On 14 April 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident. It explained that it understood the resident’s complaint to be “that there was a leak of waste water into your flat from the communal soil stack which you claim caused damage to carpets in your hall and bedroom. You feel that RBH should contribute towards new carpets.” It said that it had investigated the repair records, but could see nothing indicating it had acted inappropriately or responded unreasonably to the leak report on 18 March 2021. It acknowledged that the resident had said he did not have home contents insurance, but said that if he had, it would have been the appropriate way to claim for damaged items. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
15. On 21 April 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord asking to escalate his complaint. He disputed the landlord’s explanation of the actions it had taken, and referred in detail to several past flooding issues with the boiler, the “septic tank” (which is presumably a reference to the soil stack), the removal of his vinyl flooring — which he said had not been replaced— and waste water damage to his carpets. However, he did not provide specific dates for any of the issues he mentioned. He explained that he was vulnerable due to health issues, and that the repair issues and subsequent damage was impacting on his mental health, which he did not believe the landlord had considered.
16. Also on 21 April 2021, the resident reported a leak from the flat directly above. The landlord’s repair records show that it attended the same day.
17. The landlord sent its stage two complaint response on 23 April 2021. It repeated its earlier explanation about the leak on 18 March and its actions in response to it. It listed the earlier repair reports it had received on 17 February, 8 April, and 21 April, and the actions it taken to address them. It noted that “we paid for an external contractor to clean and sanitize the affected areas in your flat, replace kitchen floor tiles and renew the kitchen base units.” It concluded that it had responded appropriately and in good time to the repairs, but recognised that they had understandably caused frustration to the resident, especially in the circumstances of his poor health. It offered to collect and dispose of any floor coverings the resident no longer wanted, and offered £100 for the inconvenience he experienced. It noted that the resident had explained he had “arranged for a private contractor to replace skirting boards in the hallway at a cost of £120.00 because they were not renewed by RBH.” It said it had no record of the skirting boards needing replacement. Nonetheless, as a further goodwill gesture, it offered to reimburse the resident the £120 he spent, if he provided the relevant receipts. It explained that this was the end of its complaint process, and how he could bring his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

18. The resident has raised concerns over the effect of the leaks in his property and his subsequent complaint, on his ill-health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not dispute his comments regarding his health, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing or award damages for these. This because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way that a court or insurer might. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused him.
19. It is an unfortunate part of everyday life that home repair issues occur, and can have a considerable impact. If a fault develops with an item which the landlord is responsible for, it has an obligation to resolve the matter as speedily and practically as it can, in line with its tenancy, policy and procedure obligations and guidelines. If a repair fault and its consequences occur due to something the landlord did, or did not do (for example, installing a component incorrectly, or not responding to a repair in an appropriate timeframe), the landlord would be expected to acknowledge its failing, and provide an appropriate remedy — such as compensation, redecorating, and apologies. However, it does not stand that a landlord should automatically provide such remedies in the event of a repair issue. There would need to be evidence indicating the landlord was in some way at fault. There are many repairs where a repair issue develops through no specific action or failings by either the landlord or the resident. In such cases, a landlord would not usually be obliged to provide a remedy for the repair’s impact.
20. In this case the repair records broadly support the explanations the landlord provided in its two complaint responses. None of the evidence indicates the different repair issues the resident faced were due to poor service by the landlord, and the repair records show that it responded promptly to the reports in line with its published timeframes, to contain the issue and prevent the damage getting worse. It is unfortunate that damage occurred, apparently immediately upon the fault becoming known, but there is no evidence showing that the landlord could have responded faster, or known beforehand the faults would develop. Because of that, the landlord’s explanations to the resident that it believed it had provided a good level of service were reasonable.
21. By the terms of their tenancy agreements, residents are almost always responsible for their own internal fixtures, fittings, and decorations. That includes any carpets and similar floor coverings which they have installed. They are also responsible for the maintenance and cleaning of their homes. In the absence of evidence that the landlord’s actions led to the damage, it was therefore the resident’s responsibility to deal with his damaged carpets and cleaning after the leaks and water damage. Tenants are also expected to have sufficient contents insurance to cover such problems. The landlord explained this to the resident, and its explanations were accurate.
22. The landlord went beyond its obligations by acknowledging the resident’s frustration, and that the effects of the repairs might have a greater impact on him than usual, because of the circumstances of his health. It offered a monetary gesture of goodwill, made efforts to clean and restore the kitchen damaged by the water, and offered to reimburse him for the costs he claimed after installing new skirting boards — despite it not having records of the need for such replacement. The resident’s disappointment and distress with the events he experienced, and their aftermath are wholly understandable, but the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances of this complaint.

Determination (decision)

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

24. The landlord responded to the repair reports reasonably and in good time. There is no evidence of the landlord’s actions or inaction causing the repair faults. It responded to the resident’s complaints about the matter accurately, and went above its obligations by offering money and assistance with the clean-up after the leaks and water damage.