Cottsway Housing Association Limited (202123463)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123463

Cottsway Housing Association Limited

30 November 2023

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:
   1. Repairs to the mains water pipe.
   2. Water quality concerns.
   3. Application of its permissions policy.

Jurisdiction

2. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. Paragraph 34(a) of the Scheme explains a complaint must relate to the actions or omissions of a member which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, have affected the complainant in respect of their application for, or occupation of, property.
4. Paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme states:
   1. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwellings which they own and let on a long lease.
5. Paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which:
   1. Fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
6. The resident raised concerns relating to neighbouring properties which have installed a driveway or a summer house in the garden. He states the landlord permitted the works under its landlord’s permissions policy, without obtaining planning permission from the local authority for the types of kerbs used on the pavement outside. He also believed the driveway installed at his neighbour’s property caused the leak to the water mains to occur. Additionally, he notes the type of kerbs used on a driveway do not conform to statutory regulations and he had obtained permission from the local authority for drop kerbs to be installed. 
7. This Service cannot investigate the resident’s complaint relating to the landlord’s application of its permissions policy on neighbouring properties as it does not affect the resident’s occupation of his own property. Whilst the resident believes the driveway had caused the leak, the local water board has not provided evidence or confirmation to the landlord that there was a correlation between the driveway to the mains leak. 
8. Furthermore, the matter of planning permission in respect of the types of kerbs used is not within the remit of this Service to investigate. The pavement is a public highway and it is a matter for the resident’s local authority.

Background and summary of events

Background

9. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a 1 bedroom bungalow. The tenancy commenced on 8 January 2018.
10. The resident suffers from physical and mental health vulnerabilities.

Landlord obligations

11. The landlord’s repair obligations are set out at section 2 of the tenancy agreement and at Section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which states:
    1. The landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house and keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling house for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation, space heating, and heating water.
12. The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. It would respond to urgent repairs within 5 days and emergency repairs within 24 hours. If it cannot repair the issue immediately, it will make safe the emergency repair on attendance.
13. The landlord has an obligation under both the tenancy agreement and the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) in respect of the water supply. This is limited to the supply of water after delivery to the dwelling and is concerned with water for drinking, cooking, washing, cleaning, and sanitation.

Scope of investigation

14. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states:
    1. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
15. The resident formally complained to the landlord on 18 July 2022. Within his complaint, he reported he had been campaigning for approximately 2 years regarding issues relating to the water pressure and water quality at his home, following repairs which had not been sufficient to resolve the issues. Whilst this information provides important background and context to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s position on this matter, this Service is unable to investigate the historic concerns raised by the resident as he did not bring these issues to the landlord as a formal complaint within 6 months of the matters arising.
16. The landlord’s evidence shows the previous reports of water related concerns raised by the resident was made in early 2021. The landlord carried out improvements to the resident’s water connection and installed a stop tap. There is no further evidence provided to suggest the landlord had been on notice of concerns of a leak or poor water pressure within 6 months of the resident’s complaint. This investigation will therefore consider the landlord’s handling of the matters complained about from 13 April 2022, when the landlord reported the substantive issue of a leak in the water pipe to the water board.

Summary of events

17. Between 13 and 19 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord about a leak at a neighbouring property and this affected his water pressure. The landlord confirmed it had already contacted the local water board to report the leak in the water pipe. The water board confirmed a case was opened and it would attend on 20 April 2022.
18. On 24 May 2022, the landlord’s contractor responded to the landlord following a survey of the water supply pipework. It confirmed it would install a new 32mm blue M.D.P.E. (medium density polyethylene) pipe from the water board’s stop valve to the houses on the street. It confirmed the resident’s property would have its own connection made. It would then disconnect the old feed and install valves at selected points on the street to allow each water connection to be isolated individually.
19. On 18 July 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. He explained:
    1. The local water board had attended to fix leaks inside affected homes front gardens as the landlord failed to complete preventable maintenance of the water pipes.
    2. The water pipes were between 50-72 years old and needed replacement a long time ago.
    3. There was water quality concerns and he states he and his neighbours have suffered from stomach issues due to the water. The local water board are investigating the water quality.
    4. He wanted the landlord to replace the water pipes.
20. On 21 July 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to update him on the works. It explained the water board had confirmed it would complete its works on 26 July 2022. It would therefore be able to survey the works required.
21. On 23 July 2022, internal email correspondence at the landlord explained:
    1. It could not place the order for its original quoted works as the water board indicated that some of the work may have already been completed by them.
    2. Whilst on site, the water board had dealt with queries from residents. This resulted in the work it had planned to do taking much longer. However, as goodwill gestures, the water board tried to help residents with their concerns and upgraded some of the pipework the landlord had already planned to complete.
    3. It would not ordinarily complete repair work alongside the water board. It needed to wait until the water board completed its planned works before it could assess further work it required.
22. Between 26 July 2022 and 27 July 2022, the landlord contacted its contractor and advised the water board would not provide a report on what works were completed. The contractor and landlord agreed a resurvey would be required to confirm what further works were required following the water board’s repairs. The landlord would provide the contractor with a plan of properties on the street it owned to the contractor ahead of arranging a resurvey.
23. On 28 July 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It stated:
    1. The water board had completed repair works relating to leaks at surrounding properties and had also renewed some of the water mains supplying the resident’s property.
    2. Prior to the water board’s attendance, the landlord had contacted its contractor to visit the affected properties and provide a quote to replace the current pipework. It confirmed this was listed as upgrade work.
    3. The contractor had previously attended and made temporary repairs. However, it recognised these were not sufficient and a full replacement of the pipework was required. A quote was obtained and plans to replace the pipework would be undertaken once the water board completed the work it was required to do.
    4. The water board did not provide a report of the work it undertook. However, it had verbally confirmed what had been done to the landlord’s surveyor. Following this, the landlord had contacted its contractor to reattend and provide a new quote relating to the outstanding work following the water board’s repairs. Their contractor would work with the water board to complete the remaining work.
    5. The works required would include replacement of the pipework which had not already been replaced, with new blue plastic piping.
    6. Residents affected by the planned works would be written to. It could not provide an estimated timescale for the work to be completed whilst it awaited for a new quote. It would however request the quote to be provided as soon as possible.
    7. The water board had not raised concerns with the water quality. It however advised the resident to report water quality concerns to the water board, who would contact the landlord if there was a health and safety issue.
24. On 29 July 2022, the resident requested his complaint be escalated to stage 2. He stated:
    1. He was concerned with his neighbour hiring unqualified contractors to fit a driveway which could have potentially damaged the water network in the area and subsequent leaks.
    2. He wanted the landlord to implement better policy to recognise the need for repairs in aging properties, rather than to rely on residents to report concerns. This was due to previous unsuccessful repairs resulting in leaks still occurring. He explained if a policy was in place, it would have recognised the pipes were old and needed to be replaced.
    3. There was a leak coming from the mains pipe at a nearby property which caused weakness in the external pipe. This required the water board to carry out repairs the landlord should be responsible for to provide sufficient water pressure to the area.
    4. He requested the landlord urgently replaced the water pipes to resolve the issues. He also wanted the landlord to provide suggestions to improve its service and policies.
25. Between 2 August and 9 August 2022, the resident clarified his reasons to escalate the complaint were:
    1. No date was confirmed by the landlord to complete the pipe work repairs.
    2. The landlord had not provided a copy of its permissions policy which was discussed previously as in review stages in 2021.
26. On 10 August 2022, internal correspondence showed the landlord and its contractors discussed when it would complete a resurvey of the works. It was explained it could not be arranged sooner. This was due to the number properties affected and needing access to all properties. It would therefore need to give a longer notice period to its residents so they could make arrangements. The landlord and contractor agreed to resurvey the works on 13 September 2022.
27. On the same date, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It stated:
    1. Its contractor confirmed it would resurvey the required works on 13 September 2022. A letter would be sent to residents as the contractor needed to access multiple properties. Following this, it would make a decision on the follow up work required.
    2. It confirmed the water board had no concerns with the driveway installed by the resident’s neighbour.
    3. The pipework issues were uncommon and it has required investigation to resolve the matter. It relied on the expertise of its specialist contractor.
    4. The landlord’s permission policy was still under review due to the complexity of the document. It would publish the policy on its website for residents to view once agreed. 

Events after the complaints procedure

28. On 15 August 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm its contractor would attend on 13 September 2022 to conduct a survey on the mains water supply pipes following upgrades and repairs by the water board.
29. On 3 October 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It explained its contractors attended on 13 September 2022 and confirmed there were no leaks following the works completed by the water board. It was working with its contractors to identify what pipe work needed to be replaced.
30. On 30 November 2022, correspondence between the resident and the landlord confirmed the contractor did attend in November 2022. However, it needed to schedule a further survey in December 2022 as it needed to access all the properties to provide an accurate quote.  
31. On 8 December 2022, the landlord’s contractor confirmed the required works to the landlord following the resurvey.
32. On 27 January 2023, the works to the mains water pipes were completed.

Assessment and findings

33. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its Dispute Resolution Principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes

b. put things right, and

c. learn from outcomes.

Repairs to the mains water pipe

34. The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is obliged to keep any installations for the supply of water in good repair and proper working order. There is no evidence of correspondence with the water board provided by the landlord. However, the landlord’s evidence does suggest between 21 April 2022 and 23 May 2022 it was established it had responsibility for the repairs to the water pipes supplying water to the resident and his neighbours properties. It also had contacted its contractor to survey the works required.
35. This Service is aware the landlord had previously instructed its contractors to complete temporary repairs to the water pipes following the landlord’s identification of a leak to the mains water pipe on 20 April 2022. The landlord in its stage 1 response confirmed this showed the previous repairs not to be sufficient. Whilst the resident believes the landlord should have replaced the water pipes sooner due to the reported age of the pipes, this Service recognises the landlord was entitled to have made repairs to the pipe before considering replacement, in the hope the problem would be resolved.
36. The landlord has not provided evidence of its cyclical works programme in place for the renewal of the water pipes or any evidence to confirm when it had planned to review any related programmed works. Whilst this may not have raised that works were due to be completed, this Service would expect to see evidence the landlord had a system in place and had communicated this to the resident.
37. The landlord showed good practice to recognise that it needed to take a different approach and replace the pipework following a new leak in April 2022, to resolve the issue and seek an enduring or lasting resolution. The evidence shows the landlord was proactive and had promptly contacted the water board to inspect the issue on the day it was recognised. The water board attended within 24 hours. The landlord then instructed its contractors to conduct a survey of the works which the contractors had completed by 24 May 2022. This Service recognises the impact living with poor water pressure had on the resident at this time. However, the required works required were substantial and therefore could not be repaired in a quick timeframe. The landlord’s response and its communication with contractors and third parties was appropriate in the circumstances.
38. The landlord did arrange inspection of the leak within 24 hours of the issue being reported. This was in line with its repairs policy for emergency repairs. The landlord has not provided this Service with a policy relating to timescales with major repairs.  However, we recognise the difficulty of providing a specific timeframe when major works to the water pipes were required.
39. In respect of the major works, if it was not able to provide a timescale for repairs to be completed, the landlord should implement a good standard of communication with the residents affected to ensure they were fully informed of the works required and regularly updated. The evidence provided shows the water board took the decision to complete emergency repairs to the water pipes and repair the leak whilst the landlord was in the process of making arrangements for its contractor to carry out the works. It was confirmed the water board had also taken steps to complete some of the repairs the landlord had planned as a goodwill gesture to the residents. This prevented the landlord from being able to carry out its own repair works promptly.
40. The landlord has not provided this Service with evidence of the correspondence it had with the water board. However, internal emails at the landlord have evidenced it had chased the water board for updates. The evidence also confirms the landlord was in regular correspondence with the resident and had advised it needed to wait until the water board completed its repairs before it could resurvey the works and arrange for its own works to commence.
41. Furthermore, once the water board completed its works in July 2022, the landlord showed good practice to communicate with the resident that it would be arranging a resurvey of the works with its contractor to replace the pipework. It confirmed the leaks had been repaired. Whilst the resident was unhappy with the delay for the landlord to replace the pipes, there is no evidence the resident reported any issues after this date such as experiencing poor water pressure to suggest a new leak occurred or had caused any further detriment to him.
42. The evidence does show the landlord had initially acted promptly to survey works in April 2022 following reports of a leak. This Service appreciates the landlord was restricted in its scope of works until the water board completed its repairs. It is also acknowledged that due to the type of works, it was not a repair which could be completed quickly and required a careful approach to ensure the works were completed effectively, preventing future issues. It showed good practice to manage the residents expectations and communicated effectively. This Service finds the landlords handling of the repairs to the mains water pipe to be no maladministration.

Water quality concerns

43. The resident believed the quality of the water had been affected and this caused illness. This Service understands the resident feels the landlord has failed to properly address issues which has impacted his health. We recognise the concerns he reports have affected him and caused distress.
44. In relation to the issues raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role or expertise to assess whether the water pipe has specific defects. This is because this Service does not make findings on technical aspects in relation to a property or repairs. It is also not the Ombudsman’s role to make a determination on matters such as the impact on health, as this is not in this Service’s expertise and jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s role when considering complaints is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, reasonably applied its policy and procedure, complied with any relevant legislation and followed good practice when reaching decisions. This Service will only investigate the landlord’s handling of the reports of water quality, not the affect it had on health.
45. The landlord has an obligation to remedy any category one hazard in its properties under both the tenancy agreement and the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), which includes the water supply. This is limited to the supply of water after delivery to the dwelling and is concerned with water for drinking, cooking, washing, cleaning, and sanitation.
46. Within his initial complaint the resident reported issues with water quality and he believed this was a result of the old pipes contaminating the water. There is no evidence he reported this previously to the landlord within the dates of this investigation. In his stage 2 escalation request, the resident said the water board conducted thorough checks on the water quality and this was part of the reason the water board fixed the pipes. Within its complaint responses, the landlord stated the water board had not raised any issues of water quality following investigations the resident stated the water board was conducting.
47. The landlord has not provided evidence of a policy which provides guidance on its approach to water quality. However, this Service would expect the landlord to take a report of the water quality causing illness seriously. Whilst the landlord is not responsible for the quality of the water, it is responsible for responding to the resident’s concerns, signposting or working with contractors and partners to ensure that timely and effective investigations are sought. It should then ensure that it actions any recommendations or works that are required.
48. The resident reported the water quality was impacting him and others. Whilst the landlord explained the water board had not raised any concerns, it did not provide evidence to suggest it took any further action following the resident’s report. This Service would expect the landlord to have shown it reported the resident’s concerns to the water board and made its own investigations and took further actions as per the steps previously outlined. The landlord did not evidence it had acted reasonably and appropriately. In the opinion of the Ombudsman this is evidence of a service failure.

Determination (decision)

49. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in handling of repairs to the mains water pipe.
50. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in handling of the resident’s report of water quality concerns.
51. In accordance with Paragraph 41(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s the landlord’s application of its permissions policy and planning permission is considered outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

52. The landlord acted promptly to survey and order repairs to the mains water pipe. It was delayed by repairs undertaken by the water board however; it acted promptly to resurvey and reschedule required works following the water board’s completion of repairs and communicated effectively with the resident.
53. The landlord failed to adequately investigate the reported concern of water quality or signpost the resident to alternative services.
54. The landlord’s application of its permissions policy is considered outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as it does not relate to its provision or management of social housing and relates to a neighbouring property. 

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

55. Within four 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. Pay the resident a total of £100 in compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to appropriately investigate the resident’s water quality concerns.

Recommendations

56. The landlord should:
    1. Review its policy position in respect of reports of water quality concerns to effectively investigate reports and/or signpost residents to relevant services.
    2. Review its policy position in respect of cyclical maintenance works to the water pipes.