Accent Housing Limited (202314860)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314860

Accent Housing Limited

25 April 2025

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:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak at his property.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bedroom first-floor flat. The landlord is a housing association and freeholder of the property. The landlord has no known health vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
3. At 6:00am on the 6 October 2022 the resident telephoned the landlord to report a leak from the building’s loft. He informed the landlord’s out of hours service (OOH) that the leak was affecting his and a tenant’s property below him. OOH informed the resident that it was his responsibility as a homeowner to resolve it.
4. The resident complained on 18 October 2022. He had called an emergency plumber on 6 October 2022 costing £689.03. The plumber identified a redundant cold-water tank in the landlord’s loft responsible for the leak. The tank previously served the landlord’s tenant below the resident. The leak caused water damage to the resident’s boiler, decoration, and carpets. He wanted the landlord to reimburse the plumber’s bill and asked to make an insurance claim for the damage caused.
5. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 26 October 2022. It said it would not reimburse him as he “had not given it the opportunity” to complete the repair. It said it would cover the cost to disconnect the redundant tank. And it provided him with its insurance details to claim for a replacement boiler and the damaged caused to his property.
6. The resident escalated his complaint on 26 October 2022. He described his OOH call to the landlord regarding the leak and considered he had provided it with the opportunity to attend. As its OOH team said it was his responsibility, he had no choice but to call a plumber. He said, in doing so he minimised the damage to his and the landlord’s tenant’s property.
7. The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 20 December 2022. It said it had previously informed him that it would not reimburse him for the emergency plumber. It remained satisfied with its decision and said it had covered the costs to disconnect the leaking water tank. It reminded the resident of its insurance details.
8. While progressing his insurance claim, the resident continued to express dissatisfaction regarding the landlord’s stance on the plumber’s bill. He escalated his complaint to stage 3 on or around 11 April 2023.
9. The landlord sent its stage 3 response on 18 August 2023. It acknowledged that it would have had no accurate record of the resident’s OOH call as the outsourced service had not raised a repair job. It accepted that its stage 2 response failed to recognise its system limitations. It agreed to reimburse the resident £689.03 to cover the cost of the plumber. It did not feel additional compensation necessary. It said its goodwill gesture to pay him directly would save him time and remove the need for another insurance claim.
10. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. He said the landlord failed to undertake a repair it was responsible for. He also said, had it correctly disconnected the water tank in the first place, he would not have experienced the leak. He considered the landlord should compensate him for his time and distress while trying to resolve the matter.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak at his property

11. The lease sets out the landlord and resident repair responsibilities for the demised property. The landlord is responsible for the water pipes, and all other water, sewage, and drainage in, under, or upon the building. This excludes such installations and services which exclusively serve the property. As these would be the responsibility of the resident.
12. The landlord’s responsive repair guide states it would respond to an emergency repair, such as an uncontrollable leak, within 4 hours.
13. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policies expect residents to insure their personal possessions against accidental loss or damage. It states there may be no right to compensation in the event of an unforeseen incident where it has not been at fault.
14. The landlord’s stage 3 response on 18 August 2023 accepted that its system limitations had informed and influenced its stage 1 and 2 decisions. As such, without its OOH service raising a repair, it incorrectly considered the resident had not provided it opportunity to repair the leak prior to him incurring the plumber’s bill. It is unreasonable that it took approximately 10 months for the landlord to thoroughly investigate and acknowledge this failure. The identified system limitation demonstrates a breakdown in the landlord’s knowledge and information management capabilities and indicates a record keeping failure.
15. Furthermore, given the resident called to report a leak, its failure to correctly take responsibility for the matter, resulted in it failing to attend within its 4–hour emergency response time. This was not appropriate and not consistent with its repair policy.
16. The evidence shows the landlord repeatedly recorded the leak as coming from the resident’s property and impacting a neighbouring home. Had the OOH service accurately determined and recorded the resident’s initial reports; it may have identified that the leak was coming from above his flat. Therefore, a service which did not exclusively supply his property. It is unclear why the OOH service did not identify this fact and arrange for the landlord to send its own plumber. This caused the resident time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience having to resolve matters himself. It also raises questions whether the outsourced OOH service had received the appropriate training to manage such enquiries.
17. The landlord does not dispute that the redundant water tank in the loft had previously served its tenant below the resident. It also accepts that it should have removed or disconnected the tank following work to install a combi boiler at the tenant’s property. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that had it taken these steps, it may have removed the risk of the resident experiencing a leak. That it did not, was a failing which adversely affected the resident.
18. It was appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s policies to provide the resident with its insurance details. That said, while the landlord’s stage 3 acknowledged a service failing, this had taken almost 10 months. Furthermore, its explanation that paying him direct to avoid another insurance claim was sufficient redress was unreasonable.
19. The landlord’s statement that a direct payment would save him time making another insurance claim was likely accurate. However, he may not have needed to make a claim or be out of pocket if the landlord had fulfilled its repair obligations prior to and during the leak. Its response did not demonstrate it fully considered the detriment its handling of the matter had on him for an unreasonable amount of time.
20. Based on our findings, we find maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter. While it acknowledged its failings after 10 months, its attempts to put things right failed to address the detriment to him. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay £150 compensation. This is consistent with our remedies guide when a landlord’s failures have adversely affected the resident.

Complaint handling

21. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 3-stage internal complaints process (ICP). It aimed to acknowledge and/or discuss the matter at each stage within 24 hours. And provide the relevant stage responses within 5 working days.
22. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days. And for landlords to respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
23. The Code sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The purpose of the Code is to enable landlords to resolve complaints raised by their residents quickly and to use the data and learning from complaints to drive service improvements. The landlord’s complaint policy at this time was not in line with the expectations of the Code.
24. The landlord implemented a new complaints policy in May 2023 which comprised of 2 stages. It also updated its policy and procedures to comply with the statutory Code as of 1 April 2024. This was appropriate.
25. The landlord provided an acknowledgement and stage 1 response within its policy timescales. While it did not resolve the complaint to the resident’s satisfaction, it was appropriate that it provided him with its insurance details. This was consistent with its complaints policy when matters include damage to personal property.
26. While the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request the same day, it sent its response 14 working days late. This was not appropriate and not consistent with its policy response times.
27. The landlord’s response did not demonstrate a thorough investigation into the resident’s concerns. Had it considered the facts that the leak started from outside of the resident’s property, it may have prevented the delays to resolve his complaint. That it did not, caused the resident time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience having to escalate to a third stage. This was unreasonable and avoidable.
28. Furthermore, the tone of the landlord’s stage 2 response was dismissive of the resident’s situation. By stating it had “previously informed him that it will not be reimbursing him” did not give due regard to the inconvenience the landlord’s inaction caused. This did nothing to rebuild the landlord and resident relationship.
29. On or around the 11 April 2023 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 3 of the landlord’s ICP. The landlord’s response on 18 August 2023 was late by 85 working days. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy at the time.
30. The landlord’s stage 3 final response acknowledged its failure. By reimbursing him £689.03 it took steps to restore the resident to the position he was before the leak. However, its complaint response demonstrated no learning or steps it would take to prevent a similar failing happening again. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the expectations of the Code.
31. Based on our findings, we find maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The resident experienced approximately 10 months before the landlord’s ICP appropriately investigated and progressed matters. Furthermore, the landlord failed to recognise its complaint handling failures, demonstrated no learning, and offered no redress to put things right. Therefore, we order it to pay £150 compensation.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling of the resident’s reports of a leak at his property.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

34. We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £300 compensation. The compensation is made up of:
       1. £150 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak at his property.
       2. £150 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

35. We recommend the landlord ensures its outsourced OOH service has the appropriate guidance and training to identify when a homeowner is responsible for a leak.