ForHousing Limited (202308903)

REPORT

COMPLAINT

For Housing Limited

20 November 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the flat upstairs.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The housing records confirm the resident has a disability.
3. The resident reported a leak from the flat upstairs on 23 January 2023. The landlord responded on the same day and rectified the leak.
4. The resident made a complaint on the 24 January 2023. He said it took him over 3 hours to get through to the landlord’s out of hours service to report the leak, which he said was uncontrollable.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 February 2023 and said:
   1. The resident telephoned the landlord’s out of hours team on 23 January 2023 to report a leak from the upstairs flat but was unable to get through. He continued to attempt to contact the landlord and got through on the sixth attempt; some 2 hours later.
   2. It visited the resident’s home within 4 hours of his initial telephone call.
   3. The leak was caused by a blockage on the sink waste trap in the flat upstairs and was cleared by the plumber. No pipes needed to be replaced.
   4. It was not responsible for the damage to the resident’s possessions given it attended within 4 hours and remedied the leak. The resident would need to make a claim on his home contents insurance for any accidental damage that was caused.
6. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 16 February 2023. He said it took the landlord over 3 hours to answer his telephone call and it had not provided an answer as to why this was the case. He noted the delay in answering his telephone call caused him alarm and distress given water was pouring into his flat. He also said the landlord failed to provide temporary lighting and gave conflicting information about the cause of the leak. He asked for a copy of the plumber’s report and noted his possessions were damaged by the leak.
7. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 27 April 2023 and said:
   1. It was acknowledged in the stage 1 complaint response that call handling waiting times were longer than usual due to unexpected call volumes and an apology had been offered for this. The resident should have remained in the queue or selected the call back option.
   2. It attended to the leak in accordance with its emergency repair response timescales.
   3. Dehumidifiers were only provided where there was a severe leak and it was sorry the resident was not told this at the time or offered support to clean up his property.
   4. The resident should make a claim on his home contents insurance policy if his possessions were damaged by the leak.
   5. It was sorry for the delay in issuing its final complaint response and had put measures in place to prevent a recurrence.

Post complaint events.

8. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to its complaints panel. He said he made the request on 18 April 2023 but received no response. The landlord confirmed on 31 May 2023 that it no longer had a complaints panel and he could escalate his complaint to this Service.
9. The resident moved into another property owned by the landlord in November 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the flat upstairs.

10. The housing records confirm the resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours service on 23 January 2023 but was unable to get through. He made 5 further calls and finally got through on the sixth attempt; some 2 hours after he made the initial telephone call. He told the landlord there was a leak from the flat above and he had been unable to contact his neighbour. It was appropriate for the landlord to raise an emergency repair in accordance with its repairs and maintenance policy. This says it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. Major leaks are classified as emergency repairs.
11. The landlord visited the property within 2 hours of raising the repair. It managed to gain access to the neighbour’s flat and stopped the leak.
12. While the landlord attended to the leak in a timely manner, there is no evidence it confirmed the extent of the leak or established if the resident’s home or possessions were damaged. This later led to conflicting accounts on the scale of the leak, with the resident noting his property was flooded, while the landlord stated there was only minimal water ingress.
13.  There is no evidence the landlord checked the electrics or provided temporary lighting following the leak. This meant it did not meet its obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement. This confirms the landlord is responsible for electrical wiring. This was a failure.
14. It was appropriate for the landlord to check its telephone records for 23 January 2023 and to establish the resident had phoned on 6 occasions to report the leak. This demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
15. The landlord confirmed on 15 February 2023 in its stage 1 complaint response that it responded to the resident’s report of a leak in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs and maintenance policy. It said it was not responsible for the damage to his possessions given it attended within its repair timescales. It suggested the resident made a claim on his home contents insurance policy. This was in accordance with statements on the landlord’s website and ensured it managed the resident’s expectations.
16. While the landlord acknowledged it took longer to answer the resident’s telephone call than it would have liked, its comments that there was a ‘‘slight delay’’ was insensitive and trivialised the fact that he had spent over 1 hour trying to report the leak. These comments damaged the landlord’s relationship with the resident and led him to conclude that it did not care and he was not safe in his home.
17. The resident told the landlord on 16 February 2023 that he was left without lighting in the living room and kitchen following the leak. He said he contacted the landlord on 24 January 2023 and was told to borrow a lamp from a neighbour. He confirmed the electrics were checked on 27 January 2023, although no record of this was provided by the landlord to this Service. This was a failure.
18. The landlord confirmed in its final complaint response on 27 April 2023 that the leak was caused by a blockage and not a defective pipe, as suggested by the resident. It again confirmed the resident would need to make a claim on his home contents insurance policy. This provided clarity and ensured the landlord managed the resident’s expectations. While the landlord said it had previously offered an explanation for the delay in answering the resident’s telephone calls in its stage 1 complaint response, this was not the case. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s request for a copy of the plumber’s report and did not clarify its position regarding the lighting, despite being asked to do so by him.
19. In summary, the landlord attended to the resident’s report of a leak in a timely manner. It did not, however, provide the resident with temporary lighting or arrange for the electrics to be checked for several days. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord, for which it is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

20. The housing records confirm the resident made a complaint on 24 January 2023. There is no evidence the complaint was acknowledged by the landlord. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, which says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. This was a failure.
21. The landlord did not issue its stage 1 complaint response until 15 February 2023. This was outside the 10-working day target set out in its complaints policy. There is no evidence it sought to understand the resident’s complaint or the outcomes he was seeking prior to sending its response. This was not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code). This was a further failure.
22. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint on 16 February 2023. Neither did it respond to his subsequent email of 24 March 2023 in which he noted he had not received a response. He said the delays were affecting his mental and physical wellbeing. This was a failure and meant the resident was unclear what steps the landlord was taking to address his concerns,
23. The landlord did not issue its final complaint response until 27 April 2023. This was not in accordance with the 20-working day target set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. This was a further failure. While the landlord apologised for the delay, it did not offer the resident any compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may do this where poor complaints handling is identified. This was a failure.
24. The landlord did not address the resident’s complaint about the lack of lighting or consider his request for a copy of the plumber’s report. This was a further failure and not in accordance with the Code. This says landlords should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
25. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence. In this case, the landlord said it had taken learning from the complaint, but no details were included in the response setting out what action had been taken to prevent a reoccurrence. This was a further failure.
26. In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints procedure and there were delays in issuing its complaint responses. It also failed to identify any learning from the complaint or offer compensation. It is evident the situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress. He told the landlord the situation affected his mental and physical health and he had to chase the landlord up on a number of occasions for a response. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint, for which it is ordered to pay £100 compensation.

Determination

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

Orders

29. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
30. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
    1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of his reports of a leak from the flat upstairs.
    2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of his complaint.