Tower Hamlets Homes (202217121)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217121

Tower Hamlets Homes

29 February 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy of the property. The landlord is the owner. The property is a 2-bedroom second floor flat. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities listed on its systems for the resident.
Prior to the incident which led to the resident’s complaint she has said there were intermittent leaks from the property above over a 2-year period. The most recent of which was reported to the landlord on 29 July 2021. On 12 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the electric switches in the property keep tripping. The resident reported this happens when the bathroom light is switched on.
On 14 November 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to submit a formal complaint. The resident said she had been experiencing intermittent leaks from the property above for over a year. The resident said that she thought the problem had been resolved however when the landlord recently attended she was informed the bathroom light was full of water. The resident said she had been without a light in the bathroom all weekend and that she would like the leak resolved.
The landlord responded to the resident, at stage one of its complaints process, on 29 November 2021. It said that there had been a clear history of leaks from the property above affecting the resident’s home. It also said that the resident’s light had been reinstated and works raised to undertake repairs in the property above.
On 6 April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the leak had returned and to request escalation of her complaint. The landlord provided its final response to the complaint on 10 May 2022. It said that the landlord had attended the neighbour’s property on 25 April 2022 and found no leaks. However, it would be re-attending on 19 May 2022 to investigate further. It also confirmed the resident’s bathroom light had been reinstated on 27 April 2022.
In bringing her complaint to this Service the resident has said:
1. She does not believe the leak has been fixed and expects it to reoccur.
2. She would like the landlord to find a permanent solution to this on-going issue.

Assessment and findings

Scoping

The resident has referred to intermittent leaks from the property above over a 2-year period prior to her stage one complaint. The Ombudsman encourages resident’s to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from November 2021 onward. Reference to events that occurred prior to this date is made in this report to provide context.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states “We will: Aim to deliver repairs which are “right first time” where possible, by which we mean that no further visits or recalls are necessary, and that the same repair is not reported in the following 6 months.”
The landlord’s repairs policy states “General repairs are split into two main categories, depending upon the urgency of the works. Each category has a target time limit to complete the job: – Emergency 24 hours (2 hour response to make safe and prevent danger if required, with additional works completed within 24 hours) – Normal priority / routine (20 working days).”
The landlord’s repairs policy defines emergency repairs as “generally those that have serious effects on people or damage to the home. They include but are not limited to: A water leak that cannot be contained”. It also defines routine repairs as “those which may cause inconvenience but are not of an urgent nature and do not pose an immediate risk to the resident’s health and safety. This includes but is not limited to: – minor leaks and blocked drains”.

Leaks from above

On 12 November 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to report that her electric switches kept tripping when she used the bathroom light. The landlord attended the same day. This was reasonable and in-line with the landlord’s emergency repair timeframe. The landlord’s contractor reported back that there was no leak into the bathroom at the time of their visit. They recommended a plumbing check in the property above to address any possible leaks.
The landlord’s contractor inspected the property above and on 25 November 2021 undertook works to rake out and re-mastic around the neighbour’s bath, wash hand basin, toilet pan and kitchen sink. The next day the landlord re-instated the light to the resident’s bathroom. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s repairs policies.
On 3 December 2021 the landlord contacted the resident by email to check if the bathroom light had been reinstated and if anything remained outstanding. On 7 December 2021 it recorded that the customer had provided feedback that she was not experiencing a leak at present. However the issue had been on-going for two years and will be back in touch if the leak returns. The landlord reassured the resident that works had been completed in the property above.
It was positive that the landlord sought to engage with the resident following its stage one complaint response. However, as part of the stage one response the landlord had accepted there had been a clear history of leaks at the property. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to deliver repairs “right first time” and “that the same repair is not reported in the following 6 months”. Its redress and compensation policy states “reassure the service user that effective action has been taken to ensure the same thing will not happen again (backed up by action and monitoring)” Given this, it was incumbent on the landlord to check whether the repairs had been effective and monitor the situation moving forward. Rather than relying on the resident to report a recurrence of the leak. It did not do this which was unreasonable.
On 6 April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the leak had returned. The resident said she had been without light in her bathroom for two weeks and requested her complaint be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord attended the same day, in line with its policy for emergencies, and disconnected the light.
On 14 April 2022 the landlord raised works for a plumber to investigate and remedy a leak in the upstairs neighbour’s property. It is unclear why this job took a week to raise following the landlord’s contractors attendance on 6 April 2022. The landlord’s policy states additional works following an emergency repair should be completed within 24 hours. The Ombudsman accepts this is not always going to be possible, especially where access to a third party’s property is required. However, given this, it would have been reasonable to have expected the additional works to have been raised to the landlord’s contractors within 24 hours of the initial report. It was unreasonable the landlord did not do this and these delays led to a period where the resident was without a working light in their bathroom.
On 21 April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that its contractor had missed an appointment at her property on 20 April 2022 to investigate the leak. The resident reported that she had been waiting at home since 2pm. She received a text from the landlord’s contractor stating it had been unable to gain access to her property but no one had attended.
The landlord’s repairs policy states “appointments missed by our contractors will be monitored and reported as part of our performance monitoring process. It is our policy to compensate tenants for these, in the form of a £10 voucher.” However, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s email, either directly or as part of its final complaint response. This was unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s policies.
On 25 April 2022 the landlord’s contractor undertook an inspection in the property above. The contractor reported that the leak going into the resident’s property had stopped and no leaks were found. Following this on 6 May 2022 the resident’s bathroom light was reinstated.
On 10 May 2022 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. It said that it had been unable to identify any leaks when it attended on 25 April 2022 but that it would be attending again on 19 May 2022 to undertake further investigations.
It is unclear what further investigations the landlord undertook on 19 May 2022, if any, as its records do not contain any details of this appointment. However, it is clear the landlord failed to follow up with the resident. The landlord’s repairs policy states ‘Our policy is to keep tenants informed about what is happening.’ Further its complaints policy states “the customer relations team will: … track promises made in complaint responses”. Given this, it would have been reasonable for the resident to have expected the landlord to follow up with the outcome of its inspection upstairs. However, it failed to do so and no further works were ordered at this time. This was unreasonable, not in line with the landlord’s policies and caused detriment to the resident.
On 30 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the leak had returned. This was the fourth time the resident had cause to report a leak into the same location from the property above since July 2021. The landlord attended the same day and disconnected the bathroom light. The next day the landlord undertook works to renew the bath combination waste in the neighbour’s property and reinstated the resident’s bathroom light. This was appropriate action and undertaken in line with the landlord’s policy timescales for emergency responsive repairs.
The landlord then attempted to follow up with the resident in November and December to check if the repair had been effective. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repairs and complaints policies.
The resident has confirmed that since the landlord undertook repairs in August 2022 she has not experienced further leaks from above. As such, it appears an effective repair was undertaken at this time which has resolved the issue. However, overall the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports and communication with her has not been adequate. The Ombudsman understands that it can be difficult for a landlord to identify the source of a leak, particularly an intermittent leak. However, given the history of leaks experienced by the resident, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not carried out more extensive investigations to identify the source of the leak much earlier. It was also inappropriate that the landlord had failed to keep the resident updated or to offer the resident any financial redress to put things right. All of this amounts to maladministration for which there is a series of orders set out below.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states: “Stage 1 – Complaints Investigation … 8.8 Responses should be an assessment and evaluation of the events that led up to the complaint being registered.” The landlord’s stage one response acknowledges a clear history of leaks at the resident’s property but failed to look into why or set out how they were going to learn from this. This was unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s policies.
The landlord’s complaints policy also states that at stage two it will “establish findings, conclusions and identify any learning”. However, the landlord’s final response was lacking any real detail. It did not investigate the history of leaks at the property, it did not identify what had gone wrong and did not establish any learning from its investigation. This was unreasonable, not in line with its policies, caused inconvenience to the resident and amounts to service failure. As such, an order is set out below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from above.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord should take the following action within 4 weeks and provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £450 compensation which consists of:
  1. £400 for distress and inconvenience associated with its failures identified in handling the resident’s reports of a leak from above.
  2. £50 for inconvenience associated with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
2. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.