Citizen Housing (202315479)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315479

Citizen Housing

24 February 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 handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak.
   2. Request to reimburse the insurance excess fee.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bedroom flat with the landlord (a housing association) and sublets the property.
3. In April 2022 the resident reported a leak at the property. He explained that the leak appeared to be coming from a communal area or pipes that were not within the leased property. The leak was repaired on 22 April 2022 and confirmed as an issue with an internal waste pipe.
4. On 31 May 2022 the landlord spoke with the resident, and he decided that he would make a claim via the landlord’s building insurance. On 31 August 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint about the handling of the leak, and that the buildings insurance would not cover the loss of rent and other financial losses as his tenant was unable to live in the property while the repair works were ongoing.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 September 2022. It said that the leak had been repaired in line with the relevant repair timescales. It also advised the resident that while the leak was the landlord’s responsibility to fix, it would not compensate him for any loss of rent. This was because there was no clause within the resident’s lease to state that the landlord was required to cover financial losses. The resident did not escalate this complaint at the time.
6. On 9 June 2023 the resident raised a second formal complaint as he was unhappy that he was being asked to pay an excess fee of £350 to settle his insurance claim. On 12 June 2023 the resident also advised that his complaint should include that he wanted the landlord to cover his financial losses, which were a loss of rent, council tax, and a payment to a private loss adjustor. He said that the landlord should pay this as it had admitted fault for the leak and that the insurance claim was still ongoing.
7. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 22 June 2023, the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said that its handling of the leak had been dealt with in its stage 1 response letter sent on 14 September 2022. Regarding the financial losses, the landlord explained that the leak was not something it could have predicted or foreseen and there was nothing it could or should have done to prevent it. In any event, as a leaseholder the resident’s own tenant was his responsibility, and he should have taken out business insurance to cover the financial losses he was asking for. Finally, all insurance policies have would usually have an excess amount attached to them and the resident would be required to pay this.
8. The resident escalated his complaint on 3 July 2023 and the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 26 July 2023. The landlord advised that the decision made in its stage 1 complaint response was correct. It acted within its required timeframe to repair the leak and did not consider itself responsible for the losses requested by the resident. He should claim on his own insurance for any rent loss, or other financial losses associated with his complaint.
9. On 27 July 2023, the resident referred his complaint to this Service. He advised that the insurance claim had been settled. However, he would like the landlord to cover his losses which included payment of council tax, rent, and the excess fee of £350 paid to the insurance company.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Complaint

10. As part of his complaint the resident requested that the landlord pay for his financial losses. The resident has said that the landlord should cover his financial losses during the time that the insurance claim was being settled. This was because his tenant had to move out of the property, resulting in a loss of income. While this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or award damages. Claims concerning liability are most appropriately considered by the courts.
11. The resident’s lease agreement does not include an obligation on the landlord to ensure that he is able to make an income from the property. A claim for loss of rent or other financial loss is something better suited for consideration by an insurer via a rent guarantee policy or something similar. If this type of insurance was not held by the resident in his capacity as a landlord, he would need to seek independent legal advice at his own cost to see if there are other options available to him.

Reports of a leak

12. The landlord’s repair policy sets out that where it is responsible for a repair it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours or make safe the issue until a repair can be completed. Routine repairs will be completed within 28 working days. The repair policy defines emergencies as issues such as uncontainable water leaks. As a leaseholder, the resident was responsible for repairs within the property and the landlord was responsible for issues to the structure of the building and any common or communal areas.
13. On 12 April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that there was a leak entering his property. He explained that a contractor had already been out to attend neighbouring flats (Flat A and Flat B) on 11 April. Flat B had been checked by the contractor and no leak was found, but the contractor could not gain entry to Flat A. However, Flat A had instructed their own plumber to attend who had given the “all clear”. Therefore, the resident believed the leak may have been coming from the internal pipes within the block that the landlord was responsible for.
14. The landlord actions aligned with its repair policy as it sent a contractor out the same day to investigate the report of the leak. The contractor noted that after investigation it found that Flat A was responsible for the leak as a pipe running into the soil stack of the bathroom had been disconnected. The landlord advised the resident that it had spoken with Flat A and told them about this and confirmed that the water to this flat had been turned off.
15. The tenant of Flat A continued their investigation of the leak on 13 and 14 April. The landlord remained in contact with the tenant of Flat A to ensure that the leak was being managed. On 21 April 2022 the resident called the landlord to say that the contractor had not been correct. And that it appeared the leak was continuing and was from the main communal pipe. The landlord’s contractor attended the property within 24 hours of this report and found that the leak was coming from an internal waste pipe within Flat A. The landlord repaired the leak on 22 April 2022 after it confirmed that the pipe was its responsibility. These actions followed the landlord’s repair policy as it attended within 24 hours and fixed the leak.
16. While the Ombudsman understands the resident’s frustration that the leak was not repaired on the contractor’s first visit, the landlord’s actions were reasonable. It ensured that after each report it attended the relevant property within 24 hours and conducted the appropriate work to make safe or repair the leak. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of the contractor after the initial attendance, but after it was told that the leak was continuing it acted promptly to arrange a new appointment. Therefore, taking all the circumstances into account there was no maladministration.

Request to reimburse the insurance excess fee

17. The resident was provided a summary of the landlord’s building insurance cover on 25 April 2022. Within this summary under the “Schedule” section it showed that a £350 excess fee was deductible in respect of each claim.
18. After the resident made a claim on the landlord’s buildings insurance, he was told by the insurer that he would need to pay a £350 excess fee before the claim could be settled. The resident called the landlord on 9 June 2023 to query this and to request that the landlord cover the fee as he was not responsible for the leak. The landlord recorded this as a complaint and responded on 22 June 2023. The landlord Said the resident that he would be responsible for the excess fee as the person making the claim. The landlord repeated this in its stage 2 complaint response, advising that the £350 was the resident’s responsibility.
19. The landlord’s response aligned with the details set out in its leaseholder handbook, which says that if a resident needs to make a claim under the building insurance policy that an excess on the claim may need to be paid by the resident. Therefore, taking all the circumstances into account there was no maladministration.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of a leak.
    2. Request to reimburse the insurance excess fee.