Citizen Housing (202230632)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230632

Citizen Housing

28 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s report of a leak.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property was a 2-bed maisonette and the tenancy commenced on 13 February 2017. The resident moved to a new address within the landlord’s housing stock on 5 August 2022.
The neighbour in the above property responsible where the leak originated was an assured tenant of the landlord.

Landlord obligations

The tenancy agreement requires its residents to:
1. Allow the landlord, agents, and contractors to enter the property to:
  1. carry out inspections
  2. carry out works to the property, including works that it considers necessary on health and safety grounds
  3. carry out its obligations under the tenancy agreement or imposed on it by law.
2. It would normally give residents 24 hours’ notice of attendance unless it was an emergency.
3. In an emergency where it cannot gain access residents agree that the landlord can force entry. Listed examples include where water is overflowing. In this case it would secure the property and repair any damage because of the forced entry.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not contain specific timescales to complete repairs. It states it aims to carry out repairs reported ‘non-emergency’ via pre-arranged appointments, except in the event of emergency repairs.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
1. Are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale
On 22 January 2022 the resident reported a new unrelated leak, separate to the leak considered in this investigation. The new leak was affecting the communal hallway and caused water to enter his property under his flat door. This Service recognises the distress caused by this leak. However, we have not received evidence the resident formally complained to the landlord about the new leak.
This investigation will concern the landlord’s handling of the leak reported by the resident on 25 August 2021.

Summary of events

On 25 August 2021:
1. The resident reported a leak on his ceiling.
2. The landlord raised a repair job on the same date, categorising it as an uncontainable leak.
3. It attended the resident’s property to inspect the reported leak. It suspected the leak was caused from the above property. The resident stated the landlord did not attend and he was not advised the operative was on his way. The operative closed the repair job.
4. The landlord raised a further works order for the above property. It instructed its repair team to turn off the water supply, drain down, remove any defective fittings, and replace.
5. It visited the above neighbour’s property but could not gain access.
On 26 August 2021 the landlord instructed its repairs team to inspect the service duct access panel for leaks. Its inspection confirmed the area to be dry. It gained access to the above neighbour’s property and identified and completed repairs to pipework under the bath and secured the toilet. It identified the bath and the first row of tiling appeared to have dropped. It listed further repairs to install new first row tiling around the bath and grout to prevent water leaking behind, which it suspected to be the cause of the leak.
On 17 September 2021 the resident chased an update from the landlord. On 20 September 2021 the landlord attempted to contact the resident to discuss the planned works but was unsuccessful.
On 21 and 22 September 2021:
1. The resident reported water continued to leak from the ceiling above his kitchen and living room.
2. The landlord raised an emergency repair. It contractor attended on the same day. It could not however gain access to the resident’s property. It arranged to attend the following day when the resident was home.
3. It confirmed the cause of the leak was likely the above neighbour’s property. It attempted to contact the neighbour to gain access but was unsuccessful.
4. The landlord raised a new repair job for tiling of the neighbour’s bathroom. The landlord confirmed there was an error on the system which caused the repair on 26 August 2021 to not be followed up.
On 5 October 2021 the resident called the landlord for an update. The landlord advised it had raised a further works order for 29 October 2021.
On 13 October 2021, the resident complained to the landlord. He explained the landlord had not repaired the leak affecting his property since July 2021 and communication has been poor about planned repairs.
On 20 and 26 October 2021 the landlord re-raised the repair job for repairs to the tiling in the neighbour’s bathroom to obtain the correct supplies and instruct its contractors ahead of the planned works on 29 October 2021. The landlord could not gain access on this date as the neighbour reported illness and the attendance was cancelled. The repair records noted the tiling works were rescheduled for 18 January 2022.
On 27 October 2021, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It stated:
1. On 25 August 2021 it could not gain access to the resident or the neighbour’s properties when its operative attended. It acknowledged it incorrectly closed the repair job and did not arrange a reattendance.
2. It was its policy for its operative to contact the resident when they were on their way to attend. It would discuss this issue with its repairs team to take learning. It apologised to the resident.
3. It raised a new repair attendance for 22 September 2021. Its operative inspected the resident’s property and identified water stains on the ceiling. It was unable to access the neighbour’s property. A further system error was made by its operative which caused the inspection of the neighbour’s property to not be followed up.
4. On 5 October 2021 the neighbour agreed to an inspection of his property for 29 October 2021. However, they cancelled the inspection due to ill health.
5. The landlord apologised for the delays and offered £50 compensation.
Between 5 and 7 November 2022:
1. The landlord raised a new works order for all wall tiles to be refixed to the neighbour’s bathroom wall.
2. The neighbour refused the planned repairs as he was concerned with the tile colour.
On 2 December 2022 a new work order was raised by the landlord, for its contractor to collect materials and replace the tiles in the neighbour’s bathroom. It noted the walls were wet behind the tiles and therefore to ensure the wall was watertight, it would need to wait for it to dry before returning to fit the tiles.
On 9 February 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended the neighbour’s property. Its repair record stated the contractor confirmed the wall was dry enough to tile and when they left the property to collect tools and supplies, the neighbour did not allow access. After 15 minutes of attempting to gain access, they left the job.
On 28 March 2022 the resident requested an update on the planned repairs.
On 7 April 2022 an internal landlord discussion confirmed the contractor which attended on 9 February 2022 did not mark the repair as requiring a follow up on its system. This resulted in the repairs planned not identifying the repairs were outstanding. It updated the resident that it would be arranging repairs urgently.
On 8 April 2022 the resident chased an update for his complaint. He confirmed he did not receive the landlord’s stage 1 response. On the same date he escalated the complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 11 April 2022.
On 19 April 2022 the landlord completed repairs in the above neighbour’s property to resolve the leak. It fitted a new shower wall board and sealed around it to make it water secure.
On 11 May 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It stated:
1. In a telephone conversation with the resident on 10 May 2022 he confirmed there had not been any further leaks from the neighbour’s property above.
2. It apologised for the delays in repairing the leak in the above property. It acknowledged there was poor communication with the resident between October 2021 and April 2022.
3. It also acknowledged service failure in its repairs management as per its stage 1 response.
4. It offered an additional £50 compensation, which in total was £100.

Assessment and findings

The first evidence of a reported leak was on 25 August 2021. The landlord attended the resident’s property on the same date. While the resident stated he reported the leak in July 2021, there is not enough evidence for this Service to decide on these facts or support either version of events. Equally, the resident stated the landlord’s operative did not contact him ahead of the initial visit on 25 August 2021 and this led to a failed attendance. Again, this Service does not have enough evidence to understand what occurred in this incident, especially where the landlord confirmed its operative attended the resident’s property. The landlord did however apologise and ensured its contractors contacted the resident ahead of their future attendances. This was reasonable and the evidence showed the contractors did keep to this process thereafter.
This Service requested evidence of all communication history the landlord had with the resident and/or confirmation that no further communication existed. The landlord failed to respond to this request. This Service would expect the landlord to promptly respond to requests for additional evidence and information to ensure the complaint can be investigated fully. The landlord’s failure to comply has unfortunately impacted this Service’s investigation to assess the above issues. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this was evidence of a complaint handling failure.
The landlord acted proactively to arrange inspection of the neighbour’s property on 25 August 2021. While it was unable to gain access on this date, it was able to enter the neighbour’s property on 26 August 2021. On this attendance it completed repairs to the pipework under the bath and the toilet. It also identified a defect in the tiling around the neighbour’s bath, which was a potential cause of the leak. The landlord appropriately instructed a tiling contractor to complete further works. This was evidence of good practice from the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged it did not rearrange an attendance at the resident’s property to inspect the reported damage of the leak to his ceiling after 25 August 2021. It instead incorrectly marked the repair job as complete and apologised. This resulted in the landlord failing to progress the tiling works at the neighbour’s property. The resident was also required to chase the landlord for an update on 17 September 2021, where it eventually attended to the resident’s property to complete an inspection, approximately 1 month after the landlord was on notice of the leak. While the landlord’s repairs policy timescales were not clear, it categorised the repair as an emergency. The landlord’s handling of the repair was not suggestive it treated the repair with the urgency expected with an emergency repair. This delayed remedial works and was evidence of a service failure.
The landlord has not provided this Service with evidence it communicated with the resident regarding the repair, or when it planned to complete the repair to the neighbour’s property in line with its repairs policy. The evidence confirmed the resident was not provided with a plan of action in respect of the outstanding repairs throughout the case. This was seen where he was required to chase the landlord for updates on 5 October 2021 and 28 March 2022. The resident informed this Service he was only advised the landlord had been waiting to access the neighbour’s property to complete repairs. This was further evidence the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectation on repairing timescales or reasons for its delays, it should have been proactive, regularly communicated with the resident to provide him with updates and asked him if there was any further issues as the repairs were outstanding. This was likely to have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. This was evidence of a service failing.
The landlord acknowledged an additional administrative error with its repair logs on 9 February 2022 where its contractor did not mark the repair as outstanding following no access. In addition, this Service’s investigation of the repair records suggests further issues with the landlord’s management of repairs. Specifically, there are several instances where the landlord re-raised a new repair job in October, November, and December 2021. However, the landlord was aware of the need to replace the neighbour’s tiling from August 2021. While this Service recognises the landlord faced difficulties agreeing works with the neighbour and accessing the property, its repair log should ensure it contains sufficient level of detail to provide explanations for listing new repair works. The level of detail in its records was poor and represents a record keeping failure.
Overall, the length of the delay was unreasonable. While the landlord clearly encountered difficulties gaining access to the neighbour’s property, the administrative delays added to the length of time the repairs took to complete. The neighbour was a tenant of the landlord, and his property was identified as a cause of the leak, therefore the terms of the tenancy agreement allowed the landlord to force access to the neighbour’s property. While the landlord understandably wanted to avoid forcing access, this service would expect to see evidence it had made the neighbour aware of its rights to do so, ensuring their compliance with the necessary repairs to resolve the leak for the resident took place quickly. There is no evidence the landlord advised the neighbour of this, or that it considered escalatory action, this is evidence of a service failure and caused the repair to take approximately 8 months to complete. This was unreasonable and caused distress to the resident.
The resident informed this Service he suffered from damaged personal possessions including his wardrobe. There is no evidence the landlord sought to inspect the condition of the property following its 8-month delay to resolve the leak or considered ‘make good’ works in line with its policy. While the remedial works resolved the leak in April 2022, this Service has not been provided with additional evidence of the landlord’s consideration of damage caused by an ongoing leak for a substantial length of time. Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord advised the resident of its insurance procedure to make a claim for his damaged personal possessions. This Service would expect the landlord to have monitored the condition of the property and supported the resident to make a claim. This caused the resident and his family to suffer additional distress and inconvenience. This was unreasonable and evidence of a service failure.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak was unreasonable. It took 8 months to complete repairs. There were several administrative errors which delayed repairs, it did not consider what action it could take to enforce the tenancy agreement to complete urgent repairs at the neighbour’s property or managed the resident’s expectations and communicated effectively. It also did not consider the condition of the property following a prolonged period of exposure to a leak and make good repairs or refer the resident to its insurance providers. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak was maladministration.

The associated complaint

The resident states the landlord did not provide its stage 1 response to him on 27 October 2021. The evidence seen by this service confirmed the landlord’s stage 1 letter was dated 27 October 2021. While the resident may not have received the email, this Service has no possible way of truly understanding how the error occurred. We acknowledge the resident was frustrated he had not received the stage 1 response however, the landlord sought to provide a further copy to the resident promptly once it was made aware the resident had not received it. This was good practice and did not suggest the landlord had failed to provide its stage 1 response outside of the complaint handling timescales.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 8 April 2022. The landlord did not provide its response until 11 May 2022. The landlord was late to provide its response by 5 days.
This was not in line with the landlord’s complaint handling policy or the Code timescales of 20 working days. Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident about delays to provide its stage 2 response or sought to agree an extension with him. This was unreasonable and left the resident in the complaint handling process without managing his expectations to expect a resolution of his complaint. This caused him distress and inconvenience. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint was service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord took 8 months to repair the leak. It did not consider enforcement action to enter the neighbour’s property causing the leak to complete repairs, kept unclear records, and made administrative errors causing further delays. It did not manage the resident’s expectations, consider the property condition following exposure to a prolonged leak and refer the resident to its insurers for damaged personal possessions.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response 5 days late and did not agree an extension with the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. If the landlord has not already done so, pay the resident £100 which it offered in its stage 2 response on 11 May 2022.
3. Pay the resident compensation in the sum of £600 comprising of:
  1. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by the failures in its handling of the leak.
  2. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures in its handling of the repairs.
  3. £100 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should self-assess its record keeping practices in line with the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report.