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

London Borough of Hounslow (202211590)

Back to Top

A blue and grey logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211590

London Borough of Hounslow

28 March 2024


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:
    1. The resident’s reports of leaks from a neighbour’s flat.
    2. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    3. The associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property owned by the landlord, a local authority. She reports that she suffers from diabetes and other vulnerabilities.
  2. The property is a flat in a building which contains other properties managed by the landlord. The landlord retains a wholly owned subsidiary company (the contractor) to carry out repairs in the building.
  3. In late 2021, a new tenant (the neighbour) moved into a property on the storey above the resident. The resident began to report noise and ASB by the neighbour from the outset, including leaks which came through her ceilings. She first reported a leak to the landlord in early October 2021.
  4. The contractor attended the property on at least 7 occasions between October 2021 and August 2022, witnessing leaks on each occasion. However, the contractor’s notes show that, when they tried to access the neighbour’s property to investigate further, they were unable to do so. In August 2022, they entered the neighbour’s flat and found that the leaks were caused by wastewater from the washing machine.
  5. In late August 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord through this Service. It set up 2 complaints; one about its response to reports of leaks which was dealt with by the contractor and the other about reports of ASB which it addressed itself.
  6. The contractor responded to the leaks complaint on 26 September 2022. It accepted that it had not provided an adequate service because it did not follow its own procedures. This had led to delays in solving the problem. It apologised but provided no compensation.
  7. The landlord responded to the ASB complaint on 6 October 2022, stating that it received the resident’s first report of ASB on 2 August 2022 and had responded appropriately. It had visited the neighbour, investigated, and warned them to make less noise. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaints to stage 2 on 24 October 2022. She said the leaks had caused damage to her possessions and the ASB had made life unbearable. The landlord acknowledged her escalation request in March 2023. It accepted that there were some failings in its handling of leaks but not for its handling of reports of ASB. 
  8. The resident referred the matters to this Service, stating that the leaks continued. She said she wanted the property to be repaired and compensation for her damaged belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman understands how distressing these events have been for the resident. However, in cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred. Instead, we assess whether the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances.
  2. The resident has said that the condition of the property has had an impact on her health. However, this Service is unable to establish a causal link between reports of health issues experienced by complainants and the actions or inactions of landlords. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of her complaint. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which these events may have caused.

The resident’s reports of leaks from a neighbour’s flat.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy (the policy) says that it will “ensure that [its] property does not cause a danger to neighbours, members of the public or trespassers”. It will attend emergency calls within 4 hours. It will also make an appointment when a repair is reported for all internal non-urgent works and complete these within a timeframe agreed with the resident.
  2. The policy says that, where tenants refuse access for essential repairs, the landlord will “use appropriate legal methods to ensure the completion of all necessary work” and “will apply the appropriate access procedure.”
  3. The policy also provides that the landlord is liable under s.82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, for damages and compensation to tenants who suffer because of failure to maintain properties.
  4. This Service’s written policy on remedies, says we will usually order a landlord to pay compensation if its actions have caused avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment, or other unfair impact. We say that, when awarding compensation, a landlord must consider whether any statutory payments are due, if any quantifiable losses have occurred and the time and trouble a resident has been put to as well as any distress and inconvenience suffered.
  5. The Ombudsman is clear that actions taken by contractors on behalf of a landlord can validly give rise to a finding of maladministration against a landlord.
  6. This Service relies on our Dispute Resolution Principals (DRP’s) in deciding whether a landlord’s response to an insurance issue is fair. Among those principles are the following:
    1. A landlord should initially at least consider whether there is any evidence that it has been at fault for any claimed damage to a resident’s property or belongings and not refer residents straight to an insurer.
    2. If a landlord accepts that it was at fault, it may not be reasonable to ask residents to claim on their own contents insurance.   
  7. The landlord’s contractor visited the property on at least 7 occasions between October 2021 and August 2022 on an emergency basis. On each occasion, the operative observed water leaking through ceilings or evidence that it had done so. They tried to access the neighbour’s property to find the source of the leaks but were unable to gain access until August 2022. On this occasion, the operative observed that the washing machine was draining into a bucket. The operative isolated the cold-water supply to the machine.
  8. In September 2022, the landlord wrote to the neighbour demanding access, visited with its contractor, and plumbed the washing machine in correctly. It warned the neighbour about causing future leaks. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s reports of leaks except that it occurred 10 months after the first report of a leak which was unreasonable delay. 
  9. The contractor accepted, in its stage 1 complaint response of 6 October 2022, that its operatives had failed to follow the correct procedure when visiting, which was to “call their supervisor whilst they were on site to highlight the ongoing leak and challenges in obtaining access to the flat above”. The supervisor should then have contacted the landlord so that it could take appropriate action. It said there was no evidence that this had ever occurred and, therefore, the problem had been allowed to persist much longer than it should have.
  10. While the contractor accepted there had been failings and said it had learned from these, it did not offer the resident any compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. Given the length of the delay and the distress caused to the resident, this was an inadequate response to the reports of leaks.
  11. The resident wrote to the landlord asking it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 24 October 2022. In it, she said there had been 15 leaks. She wanted compensation as many of her possessions had been damaged, including kitchen appliances, rugs, books, and furnishings.
  12. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the leaks complaint on 3 April 2023. It accepted that the contractor had been responsible for delays until August 2022 but said that it had decided, when it learned of the problem, that it was not appropriate to attempt to gain entry to the neighbour’s property by legal means as the leaks were only intermittent. This does not comply with the landlord’s repairs policy which says that it will apply the appropriate legal access procedures when necessary and was therefore an inappropriate response.
  13. The landlord offered no compensation at stage 2 either. This was not appropriate according to the Ombudsman’s guidance and good practice. The resident says there were 15 leaks between October 2021 and September 2022. We must consider the landlord’s response to reports of leaks as it cannot be expected to act if it is not aware of a problem. We have only been provided with evidence that she reported 7 leaks. However, whether there were 7 or 15, she had lived with leaks and the fear of leaks for an extended period due to the failures set out above. The landlord failed to recognise this impact.
  14. We have seen photographic evidence of the leaks. While we assess such evidence with caution, it indicates that the leaks were substantial. Therefore, to show learning and to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to act effectively, the question of compensation should, at the least, have been addressed by the landlord but it failed to do so.
  15. The landlord also told the resident, in its stage 2 response, that she had to claim on her own insurance for damaged items. There was nothing wrong, in principle, in doing this. However, it gave the impression that she would not later be able to claim against its insurance. Its policy and our DRPs say it should, at the least, have considered allowing her to claim on its policy. While it later recognised in an internal email that this was the case, this Service has seen no evidence that it ever invited her to do so.
  16. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks was not in line with its policy and failed to address her reports of leaks in an adequate manner.

The resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as any behaviour capable of causing nuisance or annoyance. Its ASB procedure says that, after receiving an initial report of ASB, it must complete an assessment form, decide whether the behaviour alleged is serious, (grade 1) or less serious (grade 2). It must acknowledge the report by letter and conduct interviews. It may provide the reporter with diary sheets and must then decide whether to interview the alleged perpetrator. It will then identify what action to take, if any, and may close the case if appropriate.
  2. The resident has provided this Service with copies of 2 letters she sent to the environmental health department of the local council dated 5 January and April 2022. The letters set out detailed statements of the ways in which she considered her neighbour had been responsible for ASB. She said they made noise most nights, listened to loud music and television and also carried out repair work using mechanical equipment and dropped heavy objects on the floor, making loud bangs during the small hours, as well as causing leaks on several occasions.
  3. While the landlord in this case is part of the same local council, there is no evidence that the authority’s environmental health department told the landlord about the resident’s ASB concerns. It says it received the first report of ASB from her on 2 August 2022 and this is supported by the available evidence.
  4. Having received this report, the landlord followed its policy. It visited the neighbour, interviewed them, and inspected their property. It saw no evidence of work equipment. They said they occasionally carried out repairs but not at night. The landlord sent them a warning which reminded them to refrain from making noise during antisocial hours. This was a satisfactory response to a report of ASB as it responded to the report, investigated, and acted in line with its ASB policy.

The associated formal complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days of receipt. If it is likely that a response will take longer, it will notify the resident of the delay. Its policy says it will decide whether a complaint is upheld, partially upheld, or not upheld.
  2. If a resident is dissatisfied with the stage 1 complaint response, they can request a review, which is stage 2 of the procedure. They must do so within 28 days of the stage 1 decision. The landlord says it will respond within 20 working days. If they are still dissatisfied, they can complain to this Service.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that landlords should respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 days. The Code also says that, where residents raise additional complaints during an investigation after it has issued a stage 1 decision, these must not be included in a stage 2 response from an existing complaint. These must form the basis of new complaints which should be dealt with separately. 
  4. The landlord’s policy does not accord with the Code in that it allows itself 15 days, rather than 10 to reply at stage 1. It must be clarified that landlords will be required to ensure that their complaints policies accord with the Code as from 1 April 2024. 
  5. When this Service informed the landlord of the resident’s concerns, it set up 2 complaints and said it would respond to both within 1 month and did so. This was slightly outside the timeline set out in the policy but, as the landlord was clear that it would require longer, this was in line with its policy.
  6. The resident informed the landlord that she wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2 in October 2022, but the landlord did not respond until after it had been contacted by this Service in March 2023. It then provided responses within a month. Overall, 5 months passed between the escalation request and the decisions. This was well outside the landlord’s service standard which was 20 working days. This delay was a failure of complaint handling. 
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 responses sent on 24 March and 3 April 2023 dealt primarily with events which had occurred after the original stage 1 complaint. These should have been dealt with as a fresh stage 1 complaint as it meant that the resident did not then have the opportunity of responding to the landlord’s response on the further issues. This Service concludes that the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint fell short of reasonable standards.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of leaks from a neighbour’s flat.
    2. The associated formal complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident and apologise for the maladministration identified in this decision.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord must pay the resident £500 comprising:
    1. £300 for its failures in handling the resident’s reports of leaks. This sum is in line with this Service’s guidance on remedies.
    2. £200 for its failures in handling the associated formal complaint, in line with our guidance on remedies.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should explain its rehousing arrangements to the resident if it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord should assess its complaints procedure to ensure that it complies with best practice and provide training to staff on the correct way of dealing with further matters raised after a stage 1 response.