Citizen Housing (202316101)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316101

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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding a leak affecting the communal area and the associated repairs.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the bin store was not secure and this was leading to fly tipping and security issues, including unauthorised entry.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for meter readings.
4. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a housing association landlord and his tenancy started on 14 May 2012. The landlord has stated that it has no vulnerabilities listed for the resident.
The property is a one–bedroom flat on the second floor of a block.
On 22 May 2023, the resident’s neighbour reported a major leak affecting his property and the communal areas. The fire service attended on the same day to help contain the leak. The landlord’s contractor attended on the next day, carried out repairs to stem the leak and checked the communal lighting.
The resident made a stage one complaint on 30 May 2023 in which he stated that following the leak, water was still present in the communal ceiling tiles and light fittings, there were water marks on the communal walls and he said he could still hear water inside the walls. He also stated that the communal carpets had a musty, damp and mouldy smell as there were no windows in the corridor. The landlord’s contractor attended on 1 June 2023, checked the electrics and raised a follow-on job to replace the communal light fitting and some damaged ceiling tiles.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 15 June 2023 and apologised that it had not carried out a follow-up inspection of the block to see if any additional works were needed. It had therefore arranged for a surveyor to attend on 20 June 2023 to inspect the building.
The resident sent a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 16 June 2023 in which he questioned why the landlord had not arranged for a follow-up inspection by a surveyor sooner to identify any additional works. He said he had expected the landlord to arrange the survey after completing the initial repairs to see if any further works were required.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 17 July 2023 in which it responded to the resident’s complaint about its handling of the leak. It also incorporated responses to other matters that the resident had raised separately, which related to the bin store, fly tipping and the arrangements for reading residents’ meters. The landlord stated the following in the stage 2 reply:
1. It confirmed that all works relating to the leak had been completed. A surveyor had inspected the building on 20 June 2023 and, as a result, the carpets had been cleaned on 26 June 2023.
2. The landlord confirmed that CCTV had been installed in the bin store and it was actively trying to address the fly tipping issues. It was also looking to make the doors to the bin store more secure.
3. In response to the resident’s request for past meter readings, the landlord said it did not retain these records but advised the resident that he could request a meter reading using his online account or by ringing the landlord’s contact centre.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 July 2023 and stated that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 reply. He said he was unhappy that the landlord had combined his 3 complaints into one response.
The resident contacted this Service on 2 August 2023 to explain that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said that he had spent a lot of time chasing the landlord for replies to his complaints and the landlord had not addressed all of the points in his complaints.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
The resident contacted this Service on 2 August 2023 and 6 November 2023 and stated that his complaints included:
1. The landlord’s response to his reports that the bin store was not secure and this was leading to fly tipping and security issues, including unauthorised entry.
2. The landlord’s response to his requests for meter readings.
Paragraph 42.l. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion…seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon”.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the Ombudsman has concluded that both of these elements of the resident’s complaints have already been investigated by this Service. The matters relating to the security of the bin store were investigated under case reference 202307295 and the matters relating to the meter readings were investigated under case reference 202309513. Therefore, the following matters are outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman for the purposes of this investigation:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the bin store was not secure and this was leading to fly tipping and security issues, including unauthorised entry.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for meter readings.
Similarly, the Ombudsman has not investigated the complaints associated with these matters as they were part of the previous investigations mentioned.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding a leak affecting the communal area and the associated repairs

The landlord’s repairs guidance leaflet states:
1. “When you report a repair, we’ll offer appointment slots between 8:00am and 6:00pm and aim to complete the repair within 28 working days”.
2. “Emergency repairs are required when there is an immediate health and safety risk or significant damage to your home’s structure, this includes…uncontainable water leaks”.
The landlord’s website at the time of the reported leak stated: “We complete emergency repairs in 24 hours or make them safe until a permanent repair is possible (within 12 days)”.
During the evening of 22 May 2023, the resident’s neighbour reported a leak affecting his property. The landlord has confirmed that the fire service attended on the same evening to contain the leak. The landlord raised an emergency order on the same day for its contractor to attend. The landlord’s repairs log shows that the contractor attended at about 11am on 23 May 2023 and isolated the appliance that was leaking in the neighbouring property.
As the neighbour had described an uncontainable leak, it was appropriate that the landlord had raised an emergency order and had attended within 24 hours of raising the order to isolate the appliance that was leaking.
The landlord raised an emergency order on 23 May 2023 to check the communal lighting, which the landlord’s records stated had been affected by the leak. The landlord’s repairs log shows that an operative attended on 23 May 2023 and checked the lighting outside the neighbour’s flat. As the lighting had been affected by the leak, it was appropriate that the landlord had raised an emergency order on 23 May 2023 to check the lighting as it may have constituted a health and safety risk. It was appropriate that the contractor had attended within 24 hours, which was the landlord’s advertised timescale for emergency jobs.
It was reasonable for the landlord to have relied on the competence of the contractor to check for any health and safety issues relating to the lighting.
The landlord’s records also show that a maintenance supervisor attended the building on 23 May 2023 to check the position. It was reasonable for a supervisor to visit the block the day after the leak had first been reported as this gave him an opportunity to assess the impact of the leak and to ensure there were no health and safety issues that needed immediate attention.
The landlord’s records show that following the work to isolate the leaking appliance in the neighbouring property on 23 May 2023, the contractor replaced the appliance on 26 May 2023.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 30 May 2023 in which he questioned why the landlord had not arranged for a further inspection following the maintenance supervisor’s visit on 23 May 2023. The landlord apologised in its stage one reply dated 15 June 2023 that it had not yet arranged a follow-on inspection to check whether any additional work was needed. The landlord therefore arranged for a surveyor to attend on 20 June 2023 to inspect the block.
As it had been over 3 weeks since the leak occurred, it was inappropriate that the landlord had not arranged a follow-up inspection to check whether any additional repairs were needed. The description of the leak and the attendance of the fire service show that the leak was significant and therefore it was incumbent upon the landlord to check for any damage caused by the leak and to order repairs. The Ombudsman accepts that it was reasonable to allow some drying time after the leak. However, this Service would have expected an earlier visit, rather than the landlord arranging the inspection in response to the resident’s complaint.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the remedies offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case, the landlord took steps to arrange an inspection on 20 June 2023. The inspection therefore took place 28 days after its maintenance supervisor had carried out the initial inspection on 23 May 2023.
The delay was therefore not excessive. Furthermore, the landlord apologised in its stage one reply that it had not arranged the follow-up inspection and it identified learning by saying it would in future explain to residents about the action it would take to put things right following a leak. The Ombudsman’s view is that the action taken by the landlord to arrange the inspection, apologise for the delay and identify learning was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident also stated in his complaint dated 30 May 2023 that the communal carpet had a damp and mouldy smell and water was pooling in the communal light fitting. The landlord raised an emergency order on 1 June 2023 to check the lighting and the landlord’s records show that its contractor attended on the same day. As the resident had advised the landlord that residual water was pooling in the light fitting, it was appropriate that it had raised an emergency order on the same day and it was appropriate that the contractor had attended within 24 hours.
The job notes stated that the operative had unplugged the LED light panel to make it safe and that the light was replaced on 15 June 2023. It was reasonable that the contractor had initially made the light safe while the landlord was waiting for the light to be replaced. The landlord’s records also show that it had raised orders for damaged ceiling tiles to be replaced and for a fire alarm sensor to be reinstated following replacement of the damaged ceiling tiles. The landlord’s repairs log shows that all of the work was completed on or before 10 July 2023.
Given that the contractor had already made the lighting safe, the timescale for completing the repairs to the ceiling tiles, the fire alarm sensor and the lighting was reasonable given that the landlord had to coordinate the work of different contractors. For example, the job notes stated that one of the damaged ceiling tiles had to be replaced before the electrical work could be carried out.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 reply dated 17 July 2023 that the surveyor had inspected the block on 20 June 2023 and as a result had arranged for the communal carpet to be cleaned on 26 June 2023. This was reasonable as the resident had stated in his stage one complaint dated 30 May 2023 that the carpet had a damp and mouldy smell. The carpet had therefore been cleaned within a reasonable timescale of about 4 weeks following the resident’s complaint.
In summary, the landlord dealt with the leak and the associated repairs reasonably with the exception that it did not arrange a follow-up inspection of the block before being prompted by the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord apologised for this failing, identified learning and arranged for the inspection to take place within a reasonable timescale after receiving the resident’s complaint. This Service has therefore made a finding of reasonable redress as the remedies offered by the landlord did, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, put things right. Having considered the impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident, the Ombudsman does not consider it appropriate to order the landlord to pay compensation in this case.
This Service recognises that in pursuing his complaint, the resident incurred a certain amount of time, trouble and possibly minor costs (such as phone calls). However, the Ombudsman would not usually order a landlord to compensate residents for their time and trouble in making a complaint in these circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord operated a 2-stage complaint process. The policy stated:
1. Complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days.
2. At stage 1, the landlord aimed to provide its response within 10 working days of receiving the complaint.
3. At stage 2, the landlord aimed to provide its response within 20 working days of receiving the resident’s escalation request.
4. The policy stated that the landlord would provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe if an extension of time was required.
The resident made a stage one complaint on 30 May 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 June 2023, which was 2 working days after receiving the complaint. The landlord therefore acknowledged the complaint within its advertised timescale.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 15 June 2023, which was 12 working days after receiving the stage one reply. This was 2 working days longer than its advertised timescale for responding to stage one complaints. It was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it had not met its service standard for replying to stage one complaints within 10 working days. However, the delay was relatively short and the evidence suggests that the delay did not result in any material detriment to the resident.
The resident requested the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 16 June 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on the same day. The landlord therefore acknowledged the complaint within its advertised timescale.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 17 July 2023, which was 21 working days after receiving the complaint. This was slightly longer than the landlord’s 20-working day target for stage 2 complaints and therefore it was again a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it did not meet its advertised timescale. However, the evidence suggests that the slight delay did not change the outcome of the complaint and did not cause any significant detriment to the resident.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 July 2023 and said he was unhappy that the landlord had combined his 3 complaints into one stage 2 response on 17 July 2023. He stated that he had not previously received responses to the complaints about the bin store and the meter readings.
As previously stated in this assessment, the Ombudsman has not investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaints regarding the bin store or the meter readings. However, the Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s complaints policy and can confirm that the policy does not prevent the landlord from combining responses to complaints into a single letter. Similarly, the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code does not stipulate that landlords should not combine complaint responses into a single letter.
Overall, this Service has found that the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaints reasonably and there was no maladministration in its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding a leak affecting the communal area and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 42.l. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the bin store was not secure and this was leading to fly tipping and security issues, including unauthorised entry is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 42.l. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for meter readings is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.