The Riverside Group Limited (202306164)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306164

The Riverside Group Limited

21 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 response to the resident’s request for compensation following a burst water pipe in his kitchen.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has lived in his 3-bedroom house since 2012.
3. On 11 March 2023 the resident reported that a pipe in his kitchen had burst.  The landlord attended the same day and made the pipe safe and stopped the leak. It noted that it had fitted a copper pipe to the washing machine pipe.
4. The resident subsequently made a complaint to the landlord on or around 13 March. He told the landlord that the burst pipe caused water damage to his flooring, furniture and belongings. He said that he had to pay £350 excess on his home insurance claim. He asked the landlord to compensate him for this accordingly.
5. On 16 March 2023 the resident told the landlord that it had not caried out preventative maintenance, such as servicing the water appliances or carried out property inspections. As such, it had not fulfilled its obligations set out in its tenancy agreement. He said, if it had done so, the leaking pipe may have been identified earlier.
6. On 27 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said:
   1. the resident had told it that he was seeking reimbursement of the insurance excess, time taken off work to allow access to his insurance assessor, the cost of removal and disposal of items, cost of a skip and running costs of a dehumidifier.
   2. As the burst pipe was not a result of any works that it had carried out in the resident’s home, it did not consider that it was at fault. Therefore it would not offer compensation.
7. On the same day the resident escalated his complaint as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to not compensate him. He said that the landlord had not carried out property inspections, in particular, it had not inspected the water pipes which it should have done.
8. On 20 April 2023 the landlord told the resident that it did not carry out property inspections unless it received a request from a resident to do so.
9. On 26 April 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:
   1. it had repaired the leak on the same day the resident had reported it.
   2. it serviced water appliances such as hot water cylinders and immersion heaters. It said it would not service any appliances that were installed by residents which included washing machines.
   3. the resident had told it that he had not used the dehumidifier, therefore it would not issue him with an energy voucher.
   4. it would not compensate the resident as it was not liable for the leak.
10. The resident told this Service that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response because it:
    1. had breached its tenancy agreement, “blamed” him for the water escape and refused his claim for compensation.
    2. failed to provide him with an energy voucher for running the dehumidifier and compensate him for the two unpaid days he had to take off work.

Landlord’s policy and tenancy agreement

11. The landlord’s tenancy agreement stated that residents must allow access for it to:
    1. inspect the condition of their home.
    2. inspect and service any gas, electrical and water appliances.
12. The landlord’s responsive repair policy stated that it would carry out emergency repairs, including temporary ones within 12 hours of the repair being reported. It classified an emergency repair as one where there was “an immediate health and safety risk to its residents, their home or their neighbours.”

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

13. It is noted that the resident has concerns about the delays in repairing his kitchen and the wording around complaints in his tenancy agreement. The evidence does not demonstrate that these issues were raised with the landlord during the course of the complaints process, or immediately thereafter. While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s situation, in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the that were raised by the resident during the course of the formal complaint. We cannot consider matters that were not raised with the landlord in the first instance. This is because the landlord should be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
14. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and whether this was reasonable in the circumstances. This includes whether any redress offered was proportionate given any failings that were identified. We cannot make decisions as to liability and therefore this investigation has not assessed whether the landlord could or should reasonably have prevented the burst pipe, or if it indeed was responsible for the escape of water. Matters of liability are best decided by a court or insurer. As such, the resident may wish to make enquiries with the landlord about making a claim via its public liability insurance, if it has cover in place. Conversely, the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation following a burst water pipe in his kitchen

15. It is not disputed that the landlord attended to the resident’s report of a burst pipe in a timely manner. It attended the same day and made the pipe safe and stopped the leak. The landlord’s response was appropriate and was in line with its responsive repair policy that stated that it would respond and make safe any emergency repairs within 12 hours of receiving a report.
16. The resident’s concern and subsequent complaint was that the burst pipe which led to damage to his flooring and furniture could have been avoided if the landlord had carried out preventative measures, such as servicing the water appliances and carrying out property inspections. He said as it had not done so, he had to claim on his home insurance and pay £350 excess. He said that the landlord should compensate him for that amount as it failed carry out such measures as stated in its tenancy agreement.
17. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that it was not liable to pay the resident compensation because it had repaired the leak on the same day. It added that the leak had not occurred as a result of a failing on its behalf.  
18. The landlord’s response went some way to explain why it considered that it was not liable to pay for the resident’s insurance excess. It explained that it had attended and repaired the pipe in a timely manner. It also outlined that the cause of the burst pipe was not related to something it had done, or failed to have done. However, it failed to address the resident’s specific concerns that it had not carried out property inspections or serviced the water appliances as per its tenancy agreement. Given that the resident had raised his concerns several times during the complaint process, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed these within its response. That it did not is a failing, and a departure from the guidance as set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Furthermore, it caused the resident time and trouble as he escalated his complaint because the landlord had failed to respond fully to his concerns.
19. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord explained that it serviced appliances that it was responsible for, such as water cylinders and immersion heaters. It said that the leak stemmed from a pipe connecting to the resident’s washing machine and it did not service appliances that were installed by its residents. This response was reasonable and went some way to explain the landlord’s obligations under its tenancy agreement.
20. However, the resident had raised concerns that it also had not carried out property inspections as per its tenancy agreement, during the complaint process and as part of his complaint escalation request. It is noted that on 20 April 2023, the landlord told the resident that it did not carry out property inspections unless requested by a resident, which went some way to respond to the resident’s concerns. However, as the resident had raised the issue within the complaint process in relation to the tenancy agreement, it would have been reasonable for it to have responded within its complaint. That it did not was a complaint handling failure. As a result of which it missed an opportunity to satisfy itself and the resident that it had fully responded to his complaint.
21. An excerpt of the tenancy agreement the resident referred to as demonstrating the landlord had failed to carry out its preventive measures obligations has been provided. The provision states that the resident must allow access for property inspections.
22. While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s concerns that the landlord did not carry out property inspections. The evidence provided does not demonstrate that the tenancy agreement placed a legal obligation on the landlord to carry out such inspections. Rather, the provision referred to the resident’s obligations to allow access for the landlord if an inspection was required.
23. In addition, while legislation states that landlords have an obligation to repair, there is no such obligation for it to carry out property inspections unless it is alerted to an issue, and put on notice. As there is no legal requirement for the landlord to carry out property inspections routinely, as alluded to by the resident, it follows that there was no failing by the landlord. Therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that it would not compensate him for the excess that he paid on his home insurance claim.
24. However, it is acknowledged that the resident and landlord were unable to agree on whether the landlord was liable or not for the leak. In circumstances such as this, it would be reasonable for the landlord to refer the matter to its public liability insurer. The insurer could make an informed decision as to liability and if necessary, pay damages to the resident for any costs incurred or loss. In this case, the evidence available suggests that the landlord did not refer the matter to its insurer or signpost the resident accordingly. This was a failing in its handling of the matter.
25. The landlord also missed opportunities to fully respond to the resident’s specific concerns around property inspections and appliance servicing which caused him time and trouble. Therefore we have found that given the cumulative failings in this case, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation following a burst pipe in his kitchen.
26. It is noted that the resident also requested that the landlord provide additional compensation for time taken off work and the cost of disposing his damaged items. While the Ombudsman emphasises with the resident, we would not generally recommend reimbursement for loss of earnings as residents are obliged under their tenancy agreement to provide reasonable access to facilitate repairs. Given the landlord’s position that the leak was not as a result of a failing on its behalf it was not unreasonable that it also declined to reimburse the resident the cost of disposing his damaged items.
27. The landlord explained to the resident that it would not issue an energy voucher because he had said that he had not used the dehumidifier. In response, the resident confirmed that he had used it and asked it to issue the voucher. Given that the resident had reported that he had used the dehumidifier, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to review its decision on this matter. This is subject to the resident providing satisfactory evidence demonstrating that he had used the dehumidifier during the period in question. 

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation following a burst pipe in his kitchen.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

29. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should pay the resident £50 for the time and trouble caused by its failure to respond to his specific concerns, and its failure to signpost the resident to its insurer.

Recommendations

30. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should review its decision to not issue the resident with an energy voucher, if it has not already done so. As part of this review, the landlord may wish to request evidence from the resident of his increased energy usage during the period in question.