Anchor Hanover Group (202229590)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229590

Anchor Hanover Group

26 June 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 the resident’s reports of a leak in the meter cupboard, and the associated damage to the communal carpet.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a 1 bedroom ground floor flat in a block, and his tenancy started in March 2022. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
3. In July 2022 (the exact date is unclear) the resident reported there was a leak in the meter cupboard that was affecting the communal carpets. The landlord arranged for the carpets to be “deep cleaned”. It is unclear if it took any action in relation to the leak at the time.
4. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 January 2023 to make a complaint about its handling of the reported leak. He said he was unhappy as he had reported the issue shortly after starting his tenancy, but “no action” was taken. The landlord attended to inspect the leak the next day.
5. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 9 January 2023. It explained it had attended to inspect the leak and found a “small” leak in the meter cupboard. It had requested quotes from contractors to fix the leak, and would progress with the works once it had received the quotes. In the interim it was “swaddling” the pipes with cloth, which were “checked and replaced regularly”. It explained it had inspected the carpet and found it did not show any signs of being damp, or that it was “recently saturated”.
6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked his complaint to be taken to stage 2 on 10 January 2023. He stated the matter was a “serious issue” and was unhappy the landlord had concluded the leak was “minor”.
7. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 16 February 2023. It said the tendering process was not yet complete, but it would keep him informed about when it would start works. It gave an explanation of what the works entailed. It explained it had investigated and found the leak was not affecting the corridor, and as such it was not prepared to replace the carpet. It stated its operatives had found the cupboard did not smell of damp, but accepted if the door was closed there would “likely” be a damp smell due to the leak.
8. The resident contacted this Service on 26 March 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He stated that he was unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to replace the carpet, and the leak was still ongoing.
9. The landlord fixed the leak on 12 April 2023.

Assessment and findings

Reports of a leak in the meter cupboard, and the associated damage to the communal carpet.

10. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to communal areas.
11. The landlord’s tenant handbook states that it has 3 categories of repair, which are:
    1. Emergency repairs, which it will attend to within 24 hours.
    2. Urgent repairs, which it will attend to within 7 days.
    3. Routine repairs, which will be completed “by appointment”.
12. When the resident asked this Service to investigate his complaint, in March 2023, he raised a concern that the landlord’s handling of the repair had impacted on his wife’s health. He explained that she had a “bad smell allergy” which meant her breathing was affected. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
13. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if he considers that his wife’s health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
14. Internal landlord emails, seen as part of this investigation, indicate that the landlord was on notice about the leak in the meter cupboard some time in July 2022. The exact date is unclear, but an internal email from 13 January 2023 stated that the resident reported the issue to his housing officer in July 2022, who then arranged for the carpets to be deep cleaned. While appropriate to arrange for the carpets to be cleaned, there is no evidence to indicate the landlord took any action in relation to the reported leak at the time. This was unreasonable and a failing in its handling of the matter, which caused the resident an inconvenience.
15. After the resident made a complaint, on 3 January 2023, the evidence indicates the landlord responded promptly, and inspected the next day. This was appropriate and went some way to putting right its earlier failing. However, the resident was inconvenienced by the need to raise the matter as a complaint in order for the landlord to take the appropriate action.
16. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 9 January 2023 set out its position in relation to the status of the repair. It explained the actions it was taking to mitigate against damage, while awaiting quotes. While it was appropriate to set out its position, it offered no assessment of its handling of the matter, or an acknowledgment it had been on notice about the issue for 6 months, this was inappropriate.
17. The comments in it stage 1 complaint response around the resident’s concerns about a “mould smell” lacked transparency. An internal landlord email, from 13 January 2023, stated that operatives reported a “mould smell” in the vicinity of the leak. That the stage 1 response simply cited “lifestyle smells” were reported was inaccurate, and evidence its complaint response lacked transparency. The approach to the resident’s concern about the smell were dismissive, and failed to acknowledge the reports of its own operatives.
18. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint set out in detail what works it planned to complete. This was reasonable in the circumstances. That it failed to give an indicative timeframe of when it hoped works would start was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter .
19. The stage 2 complaint response also set out its position in relation to the resident’s request to replace the carpet, which was appropriate. While its decision not to replace the carpet was evidently disappointing for the resident, the landlord set out its position with clarity, and gave an explanation of the reasons for its decision. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
20. The resident later told this Service, in December 2023, that the landlord had replaced a small section of carpet after issuing its final complaint response. He stated he was unhappy with that it had not replaced the whole carpet. Given this occurred after the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure, the landlord’s decision is not within the scope of this investigation. This is in line with the approach set out in our Scheme that states the landlord needs to have had the opportunity to respond to a matter as a formal complaint before we can investigate. The resident may wish to raise a further complaint with the landlord if he remains unhappy with its decision.
21. The stage 2 complaint response also went some way to putting right the lack of transparency in its stage 1 complaint response. It explained it had investigate the reports of the smell further, and found no smell in the corridor. It accepted it was “likely” it would smell inside the cupboard when the door was closed, due to the ongoing leak. The landlord gave a full explanation of its investigation into the smell and outlined its position. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
22. The leak was fixed 8 months after, the evidence indicates, the landlord was put on notice about the issue. This was an unreasonable delay. The resident was inconvenienced by the fact the landlord did not respond when it was first on notice, and not until a complaint was raised. Given the matter was outstanding at the time of its final complaint response, it is unclear why the landlord did not seek to offer the resident redress in recognition of the delay. That it did not do so was inappropriate, and evidence it failed to adopt the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of putting things right.
23. There was a delay in responding to the issue when the landlord was first put on notice. The landlord failed to assess its own handling of the matter, and its first complaint response lacked transparency. The landlord’s position in relation to replacing the carpet was reasonable, and it explained its position with clarity. That it did not offer redress for the delay in responding to the repair was inappropriate. As such we have made a series of orders below.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the meter cupboard, and the associated damage to the communal carpet.

Orders

25. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the leak.
    3. Remind its staff responsible for investigating complaints the importance of:
       1. Giving a transparent account of its understanding of the issues.
       2. Giving a thorough assessment of its handling of issues complained about in its complaint responses.
       3. Offering redress when its handling of a matter has caused the resident a detriment.