Gateway Housing Association Limited (202311690)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311690

Gateway Housing Association Limited

17 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and damp in his property and the subsequent offer of compensation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. This is a 2-bed ground floor flat. The resident took ownership of the lease on 21 December 2022, via a private sale from the previous leaseholder. The landlord was not involved in the sales process.
The resident said that the former leaseholder told him that there had been a previous leak into the property on 3 October 2022. This was caused by water ingress from blocked communal pipework in the car park next to the flat, which caused water damage to the property. This leak had been attended to by contractors on the same day. Drainage contractors repaired suspended pipework in the car park, which ran to the property’s kitchen sink. They also discovered a blockage in the communal pipes, which they jet washed and cleared.
It was agreed between the vendor, resident, and the previous leaseholder’s insurance company that the insurance compensation of £19,808.98 (due to damage in the property from the water ingress) would be paid to the resident, upon completion of the sale.
On 15 December 2022, the resident stated he received a phone call from his estate agent to advise that there had been a further leak in the bathroom and that this would be resolved, and dehumidifiers left in the property to dry it out.
On 20 December 2022, drainage contractors attended again and found that a blocked drain in the car park was causing an overflow into the resident’s bathroom and toilet. There was a large silt build up in the toilet, up to the brim. The contractors found a blockage in the drains in the car park and heavy limescale present. They cleared the limescale and jet washed the drainage stack pipe, cleared the toilet, and then tested to ensure it was in working order.
The resident took ownership of the flat on 21 December 2022. His service charges were £89.19 per calendar month at the time. He asked the landlord for any reports regarding the previous leaks to the flat so he could discuss this with his home contents insurer.
The resident reported a leak in his bathroom via email on 30 December 2022.
The resident called and emailed the landlord on 3 and 5 January 2023 and reported that there was a leak in his property, and it was “not suitable for living in”. He said he had arranged a builder and various trades people to carry out internal refurbishment works, to commence on 9 January 2023. He stated they could not start these works whilst there was an ongoing leak. He asked the landlord to contact its insurance company to check for previous claims in respect of leaks.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 6 and 8 January 2023, asking it to send a contractor to attend to the leak as soon as possible. He said there was an issue with the communal stack pipe. He asked the landlord to resolve this as soon as possible and offered for his own plumber (who was completing internal refurbishment works) to quote for the works.
On 8 January 2023, the resident asked to raise a formal complaint, due to the severity of the leak.
On 10 January 2023, the resident called and emailed the landlord again. He tried to raise a formal complaint again and asked for the landlord to urgently assess the leak. He said he had raised this 2 weeks previously and that the leak “looks really bad and can affect the entire flat”. He also enclosed photographs.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 11 January 2023. He said he had “opened a formal complaint” the previous week due to “lack of support” from the landlord. He stated that the leak was “spreading every day” and had been doing so since 29 December 2022. He said he had just finished “a long drainage and claim process” which he believed the landlord was aware of. He said he did not understand why it was taking almost 3 weeks to send someone to inspect the leak and that this needed resolving as soon as possible. He stated that if the landlord continued to take no action, he would be “asking for a daily rate” of compensation, due to not being able to live in the flat. He said he had hired his own plumber to do the internal refurbishment works who had already offered to quote for the leak works.
The landlord responded to the resident on the same day, 11 January 2023. It said that an urgent job had been raised with its contractor to attend the bathroom stack pipe and that the contractor would contact the resident directly.
The resident responded that he thought that the job had been raised the previous week and he was chasing the landlord to find out why he had not been contacted yet. He asked the landlord to call the contractors to “accelerate the process.”
The resident emailed the landlord again on 12 January 2023, asking the landlord to contact its contractor for an update.
The landlord called the resident on 13 January 2023. In response to the call, the resident emailed the landlord to state leak issues had been ongoing since October 2022, prior to him living there, and asked the landlord to chase its contractors for a survey so that the issue could be resolved. He said he needed to rearrange his internal refurbishment works so this information was crucial.
On 16 January 2023, the resident emailed the landlord again, asking to raise a formal complaint. He stated that he had called the drainage contractors directly that day and they had informed him that the landlord booked the appointment on 11 January 2023, and this was a 7-day repair. He said he had been sending emails and chasing the landlord since the end of December 2022 and that this was a serious matter, it was “not safe”, and the landlord was being “negligent”.
He stated that he had secured an urgent appointment with the contractors that morning and that a contractor attended and told him that a neighbour had also reported a blocked drain to the landlord on 13 January 2023. He said that he believed the neighbour had reported a leak from the communal roof and asked the landlord to contact its contractor as a matter of urgency to find out more information and asked for urgent feedback. He said there was an “unbearable” smell in his flat and water on the floor and walls.
The landlord arranged for a site visit from its surveyor and on 17 January 2023, the landlord’s surveyor and the drainage contractor attended the resident’s property. The contractor noted that the stack pipe was leaking as it had cracked from temperature changes. It carried out works but was unable to seal the leak completely.
On 18 January 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to ask for urgent action regarding the water ingress. He stated his builder was on– site to carry out internal refurbishment works but could not continue as there was an ongoing water leak in his flat which had worsened. He asked for immediate action.
On 19 January 2023, he sent the landlord a video of the car park adjacent to his flat. (This Service has not had sight of this video). He emailed the landlord to say his flat was “full of water” and he wanted the landlord’s contractors to resolve the issue and deal with the drainage. He stated that the landlord’s contractors had told him that the water ingress was “definitely not” a car park water leak and was due to water coming into his property from the flat above. He said there was water ingress into his flat, each time the property above used any water/flushed the toilet. He asked for this to be repaired urgently and for a dehumidifier to be provided to dry the damp areas.
The landlord responded on the same day to advise that it had spoken to its contractor that afternoon who said there was “nothing they could do at the moment.” The contractor had said that major works were necessary which it needed to quote for and send the quote to the landlord’s asset management team to approve. This is because it needed to knock down walls and replace the pipe system and this was not a “quick fix” and “raising more jobs” to the contractor would not “solve anything.”
The landlord’s surveyor emailed the resident later that day (19 January 2023) and advised the resident that although its contractor had not sent a quote, it would attend the next day to carry out the repair on the leaking stack pipe and that the blockage in the pipe had been fixed.
On 20 January 2023, the landlord’s contractor attended the property. It removed the plasterboard and boxing around the stack pipe, took internal photos of the stack pipe, patch lined the crack on the toilet stack pipe, carried out repairs to the shower and toilet stack pipe and replaced a section of the pipe. It also used a wet vac to clear all the flooded water. It also left a dehumidifier for the resident and took an electricity meter reading. The contractor’s report stated that the boxing and plasterboard would need to be replaced once the area had dried out.
On 23 January 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that the leak had not been resolved. He said he had contacted the landlord’s contractors directly and that there was water at the bottom of the pipe.
The landlord’s contractor attended the same day with a high-pressure water jet. It could find no holes in the stack pipe. It could not test if the stack was leaking as there were no facilities plumbed in as the resident was having the flat decorated, prior to installing new sanitary ware.
The resident emailed the landlord again, after the contractor’s visit. He said the contractor was “not attending to the severity of the leakage” and was just “patching around.” He said the bottom of his bathroom stack pipe needed replacing. He stated he was having major renovations in his flat so it would be the perfect time for the landlord’s contractors to fit a replacement pipe. He said he had been given advice from two independent specialists that the stack pipe needed to be replaced, due to historical and ongoing leaks and he wanted a “proper assessment and fix.”
The landlord’s surveyor responded on 24 January 2023. It said its contractor had informed it that the water in the bathroom was due to residue from when the leak was repaired and that this would eventually dry out, with use of the dehumidifier. It asked the resident to wait until the end of the week to check progress. The resident responded that it had not dried at all and that the leak was ongoing. He asked the landlord for historical repair reports from October 2022 and said that he had been waiting to move into the flat since 21 December 2022 and the delays were increasing his costs as his builders had to stop the bathroom works and flooring works until all the leaks in his property had dried. He said he wanted a permanent solution and would be seeking compensation from the landlord from 3 January 2023 (when the landlord’s offices re-opened after the Christmas break) for delays to works and for paying additional rent on a tenancy elsewhere.
Emails between the resident and the landlord’s surveyor on 25 and 26 January 2023, show that the landlord told the resident that it had asked its contractor to renew the resident’s stack pipe and it was expecting a quote to provide a replacement imminently.
On 30 January 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to let him know that the contractor had told it that it would not be renewing the pipe as it had sealed it. The resident responded that the leak continued, and the landlord and surveyor agreed to meet at the property, together with the contractor.
The landlord, resident and contractor met at the property on 1 February 2023. The resident emailed the landlord on the same day, following this visit. He stated that the following was agreed:
1. The contractor would provide a report as to what it identified in the flat in January 2023 and what steps, actions and materials were used to repair the leak.
2. The landlord would provide a report of the leak in October 2022, identifying reasons for the leak and repairs carried out, together with a drainage certificate.
The resident called and emailed the landlord and contractor on 8 February 2023. He stated that the property had been dry until the previous day but that the stack pipe was leaking again. He asked the landlord to intervene urgently as he had builders in his flat, completing the renovation works and they had to stop works for the third time since January 2023.
The landlord’s contractor attended on the same day, 8 February 2023. It noted that the leak was coming from an area above its previous works and was coming from the floor above. It asked the residents above to run their water and found no leaks from this. It said it smelt foul water and could see some water ingress to the resident’s flat, on the mechanical coupling from the flat above. It said it could not break in and make access for an inspection due to liability reasons. It said it would have to identify the source of the leak as the leak was intermittent. It suggested inspecting the neighbour’s flat above for leaks and if none found, then the top floor flat. It said it needed to rule these areas out before conducting further works.
The resident emailed the landlord later that day. He said that it should be replacing the stack pipe, and the situation was impacting on his financial, personal, and professional life. He stated that he had been unable to move into the property as he had stopped internal refurbishment works, due to the severity of the leaks in the flat. He said he was paying for rent on another property, plus additional costs to his builders.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 10 February 2023. He said the following:
1. He had reported a leak at the end of December 2022 and “negligence and delays” since the beginning of January 2023 and the delays in dealing with this were affecting his personal and financial life.
2. He was meant to be meeting the landlord’s contractors at the property that day. The leak was ongoing, and the contractor had told him that the dehumidifier needed to be collected that day.
3. If the leak spread to other rooms which he had paid to have refurbished, then this would ruin the works and he would take financial action.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the same day.
Emails between the landlord’s surveyor and the resident on 10 and 11 February 2023 show that the landlord advised the resident that its contractor would inspect the flats above the resident to check for leaks. It also told the resident that his upstairs neighbour (another leaseholder) had contacted it that day to say there was a small leak on a pipe. It also asked the upstairs neighbour to check for any leaks from his bath. The resident stated that another neighbour had reported a leak from the roof a couple of months ago, which had not been inspected. He asked what the landlord was doing about this leak and asked the landlord to share the contractor’s report.
The landlord’s surveyor, resident and contractor met at the property on 13 February 2023. The resident stated he was still at risk of flooding from the flats above and wanted to know when the landlord would replace the stack pipe. He asked for an urgent update so he could let his builders know as they had stopped works again and this was causing him additional costs.
The dehumidifier was removed from the resident’s property on 14 February 2023.
The landlord’s contractor conducted a drainage test to the stack pipe on 24 February 2023. It was unable to locate any leak. It also noted that there was a damp patch on the ceiling on the third floor, which showed that there had been a water leak. It said that it was possible that during rainfall, water may leak from the roof down the side of the stack pipe. It also found a flexi water feed pipe next to the stack pipe, which was dripping. It is unclear if any works were carried out to the water feed pipe.
The resident emailed the landlord and contractor on 27 February 2023. He said he understood that they would not be opening the stack pipe as the leak was not coming from there. He stated that his upstairs neighbours had both reported water leaks from the roof 2 months ago and the landlord had taken no action. He asked the landlord and contractor to investigate the roof to rule this out as the possible cause of leaks into his flat. The landlord responded that it would conduct further investigations into the possible roof leak into the communal stairwell and would update the resident with its findings. It asked the resident not to contact the contractor directly as all communication needed to come from the landlord.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 27 February 2023. It said the following:
1. Communication between the landlord’s surveyor and the resident were still ongoing and further investigations regarding the source of the leak were being undertaken by the landlord and its contractors.
2. There was some initial confusion over the matter as the resident had referred to an insurance provider and contents insurance claim by the former leaseholder. The claim related to a previous flood, unrelated to the leak the resident was reporting in the bathroom.
3. On 5 January 2023, it had spoken to the contractors, who were working on behalf of the former leaseholder’s insurance provider regarding the previous leak. It then referred the matter to its surveyors on this date.
4. It had communicated with the resident on several occasions both by telephone and via email.
5. Its contractors attended the property on 16 and 17 January 2023, along with the landlord’s surveyor. Since then, the landlord’s surveyor had been managing the matter and liaising with the resident, the contractor, and neighbouring leaseholders to carry out further investigations into the source of the leak, and it continued to do so. It was hopeful the cause would be identified soon, and the surveyor would continue to liaise with the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 February 2023 and 5 March 2023 to say he was still waiting for it to provide him with report and inspection details regarding the leaks from October 2022 onwards. He also chased payment of the electricity bill he had submitted to the landlord two weeks previously. He also said that the contractors needed to fix the wall in the bathroom which they had hacked into to get access to the stack pipe.
The landlord’s surveyor responded on 6 March 2023, advising it would instruct its contractors to attend to the wall repair.
The resident chased the landlord on 17 March 2023 to say he had not received any contact from it or the contractor regarding his bathroom wall repair. He said he had heard nothing about investigations into the roof leak either. On 20 and 23 March 2023, he chased the landlord again, and asked about reimbursement for his electricity bill. He requested £437.91, the full amount of the bill from 20 January 2023 to 14 February 2023, including the standing charge.
On 23 March 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to advise the cost of the electricity bill was too high, compared to what it normally reimbursed residents for use of a dehumidifier in the property. The resident stated that he had not used electricity in the property until the previous day as he had not been living in the flat and the works by his own builders had stopped as the property was in bad condition due to the water ingress. The resident also forwarded an electricity bill from the previous leaseholder, which he stated had also been high, due to use of a de-humidifier, following the leak in October 2022.
The resident submitted a stage 2 complaint on 6 April 2023. He said the following:
1. The delays in response times and time and trouble in chasing the landlord had affected his personal life, finances, and health, due to the stress of dealing with the landlord.
2. He had received a phone call from his estate agent a week before completion, regarding a small leak in the bathroom and issues with drainage. There were ongoing leaks. The landlord had not known about the leak in October 2022 and had no report about what had taken place. The landlord should be responsible for knowing this information.
3. He reported a leak at the end of December 2022 and contractors did not attend until the second week of January 2023 after the resident contacted the contractor directly, to find that the landlord had not raised this as an urgent repair.
4. The landlord had sent contractors to fix the leak in mid January 2023 and the leak stopped for a week and then started again at the beginning of February 2023 on a smaller scale, which affected his bathroom and living room. This took 2 to 3 weeks to dry with dehumidifiers.
5. He had to stop all his internal refurbishment works for a month until all areas dried. He was meant to be living in the flat in February 2023, when he had planned to have all internal refurbishment completed but could not move in until 6 April 2023.
6. He wanted the landlord to share information from its insurer and the works the previous contractor had completed, related to the previous leaseholder. He wanted the report from the flood in October 2022 as a matter of urgency.
7. He wanted compensation for his electricity bill for the cost of the dehumidifier.
8. He wanted an investigation into the roof leak which had been reported by his neighbours the previous year, as his report of this was ignored by the landlord.
The landlord’s internal correspondence of 11 April 2023, stated that the property was a private sale between the former leaseholder and the resident, and the landlord was not involved in the sale or purchase. There had been a previous leak, but the landlord was unsure how this had happened. The previous leaseholder had reported this directly to his insurer, who addressed the repair. The landlord had not been notified or involved by the previous owner, estate agent or insurer. The former leaseholder’s contents insurance paid for the flood damage in October 2022 and the resident received the money from the previous leaseholder to carry out remedial works.
The correspondence went on to say that it was unaware of any leaks until a leak was reported and located during the Christmas break. Therefore, no action was taken until the offices reopened in January 2023. It involved its surveyor as the leak was identified in the stack pipe, which was a communal item. It said it would not pay the full electricity costs as the resident had been having his own refurbishment works completed, which included the use of machinery. It also asked its colleagues to investigate the roof leak.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 27 April 2023. It said the following:
1. It could not confirm if the previous leaseholder’s electricity bill was due to dehumidifier costs, but it calculated the usage at 20 pence per hour for 30 days, and this totalled £144.00.
2. The contractor’s works were standard repairs so it did not have specific reports that could be shared, and only had notes on the system. These confirmed they carried out works to the internal stack pipe in the bathroom following leak investigations.
3. It apologised for the poor experience and offered the resident an additional £156.00 for this.
4. It would learn from the complaint, to ensure it did better in how it responded to residents.
The resident complained to this Service on 4 June 2023. As an outcome to his complaint, he wanted to be compensated £436.00 for the dehumidifier use, and compensation for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble.

Post Internal Complaints Procedure

The roof was repaired sometime between October 2023 and November 2023. It is unclear on which date, from the inspection reports provided.
On 22 January 2024, the resident advised this Service that he wanted an apology and £2726.95 compensation. This included the cost of the electricity bill, £1000 for costs incurred to his builder (due to delays in fixing the leak) £1200 in accommodation and utilities for another property he had to remain in, and the cost of rearranging furniture deliveries and a refund of service charge for 2 months. He also wanted payment for distress and inconvenience.
During mediation from this Service, the landlord offered to increase its offer of compensation to £1000, which the resident refused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has complained about the landlord’s actions from October 2022. This was prior to the resident having a landlord/leaseholder relationship with the landlord so this Service cannot investigate this. This is because Paragraph 25 (a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman can only investigate complaints from people who are in a landlord/tenant relationship with a member. This investigation will focus on events from 21 December 2022, when the resident became a leaseholder, until 27 April 2023, when the landlord provided its final stage 2 complaint response. Any reference prior to December 2022 will be for context only.

Policies and Procedures/ Landlord obligations

The landlord’s Communal Repairs information for homeowners, states that it is responsible for repairs to communal areas, including blocked guttering, pipes and drains and leaks. It is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of leasehold properties and all shared areas in and around them.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy operates on a three-tier system:
1. Emergency repairs will be attended to and completed or made safe within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs will be completed within 7 days.
3. Routine repairs will be completed within 30 days. If an inspection is needed before-hand, the landlord will inspect within 7 days.
It also offers an out of hours repairs reporting system with a dedicated telephone number. It classes accident or flood damage to a building as an emergency repair and leaking roof gutters or downpipes as an urgent repair. Repairs to wastewater pipes are a routine repair.
It states that pre and post inspections will be carried out by a surveyor or asset manager when an investigation is needed to identify the cause of a problem or if a previous repair or repairs have not solved the problem.
On its website the landlord sets out that blocked drains forcing wastewater back up into the washbasin, bath, sink or toilet is an emergency repair, which it will attend to within 24 hours.
It also sets out that uncontainable water leaks are an urgent repair if these leaks are causing dampness to residents’ homes. This includes leaking roofs, gutters, or downpipes. It states these repairs may take longer if it must apply for a licence for a specialist to do the work.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. At stage 1 it will contact residents within 5 working days to acknowledge a complaint and will provide a full response within 10 working days.
It defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organization, its staff or those acting on its behalf.”
The landlord’s compensation policy states that:
1. It offers financial compensation for quantifiable loss such as higher energy costs when there has been a failure or delay to repairs.
2. It offers financial compensation up to 100% of rental costs if a room is unusable for more than 72 hours due to a delay or failure in repairs.
3. It offers discretionary compensation for distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the reports of leaks and damp in the resident’s property and its subsequent offer of compensation.

It was reasonable that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s email of 30 December 2022 when he first reported the leak into his property, until its offices re-opened as it did not have sight of the email as its’ offices were closed. The resident emailed the home ownership team, rather than contact its repairs team or out of hours repairs service so the landlord could not have been expected to know about the reported repair.
However, it was not appropriate that the resident had to email the landlord on 3, 5 and 6 January 2023 to report the leak to his stack pipe again as the landlord did not contact its contractors to attend to the leak.
It was further inappropriate that the resident had to chase the landlord again on 8,10 and 11 January 2023. It was not reasonable that the landlord did not contact its contractors until 11 January 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy and information on its website states that it classes flood damage to a building as an emergency repair and leaking downpipes as an urgent repair. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact its contractors on 3 January 2023, when it first had sight of the resident’s email reporting the leak. This caused the resident time and trouble and frustration in resolving the issue. This also significantly impacted on the enjoyment of his home.
Further, it was inappropriate that the landlord categorised the resident’s reports of a leak flooding his property, as a 7 day – urgent repair, rather than an emergency repair, particularly when the resident had advised the leak was damaging his home. This is contrary to its policy and caused the resident additional distress and frustration and continued to impact on the enjoyment of his home.
It was also inappropriate that when the resident reported a roof leak on 13 January 2023, that the landlord did not respond to this point, nor arrange a site visit to inspect the roof. This is contrary to its responsive repairs policy and caused the resident frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
It was appropriate that the landlord’s surveyor attended the property, together with its contractor on 17 January 2023, however, it was not appropriate that when the contractor carried out works to the leaking stack pipe and was unable to seal the leak completely, that no alternatives were offered to the resident. The leak continued to affect his home, and this caused him distress and frustration, as well as a delay to the internal refurbishment works, he had organised with various trades people.
It was further inappropriate that when the resident contacted the landlord on 19 January 2023 to highlight that his flat continued to have significant water ingress, that the landlord initially responded that there was “nothing they could do at the moment” and that there was “no quick fix”. This would have caused the resident stress and frustration. Although this Service understands that the stack pipe may have needed major works and these take time, it was not appropriate for the landlord to communicate this to the resident in this way. This was not customer focussed and lacked empathy to the resident’s situation.
It was appropriate that the landlord arranged for the contractor to attend the following day, 20 January 2023 and that it carried out works to the stack pipe and other communal plumbing in the bathroom. It was also reasonable that it left a dehumidifier in the property to dry it out, following the works and took meter readings for the resident to supply to the landlord, so he could ask for reimbursement of the additional fuel costs.
It was reasonable that when the resident reported further leaks from the stack pipe on 23 January 2023, that the landlord’s contractor attended on the same day to carry out an inspection and works. It was further reasonable that it could not test if the stack was leaking as the resident had no sanitary ware plumbed in.
It was reasonable that the landlord told the resident that it had asked its contractor to renew the stack pipe, when it received further reports of leaks from the resident on 23 and 24 January 2023. However, it was not appropriate that the landlord then told the resident on 30 January 2023, that its contractor would not be renewing the pipe as it had been sealed. This is particularly pertinent, as the resident repeatedly told the landlord that the leak was ongoing. This would have confused the resident and caused him distress and frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
It was appropriate for the landlord’s surveyor to meet with the resident and contractor on 1 February 2023. This is in line with the landlord’s policy, which states that the landlord’s surveyor will carry out pre and post inspections when an investigation is needed to identify the cause of a problem or if previous repairs have not solved the problem.
It was further reasonable that when the resident reported another leak on 8 February 2023, that the landlord’s contractors attended the same day and identified a leak coming from the floor above, so suggested inspecting the floor above for leaks. It was reasonable that the landlord needed to rule these out before conducting further works.
However, it would have been appropriate to carry out these inspections as a matter of urgency as the resident continued to experience leaks into his flat. This continued to impact on the enjoyment of his home, and added to delays in his builders completing refurbishment works to his property, which meant he could not move in as originally planned. Further, the resident had raised the issue of water entering his property from the flat above, on 19 January 2023 and the landlord did not address this at the time. The drainage test was not conducted until 24 February 2023. This delay caused the resident distress, frustration and time and trouble.
During its drainage tests of 24 February 2023, the landlord’s contractor also noted the damp patch on the ceiling, showing there had been a water leak which could have leaked from the roof down the side of the stack pipe. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange an inspection of the roof to check for leaks at this point, particularly as the resident had reported this 2 months previously. This is a failing on the part of the landlord and contrary to its responsive repairs policy, which states it classes a leaking roof as an urgent repair.
This is further compounded by the fact that the resident chased the roof inspection again on 27 February 2023. Although the landlord responded the same day, saying it would conduct a further investigation into the roof leak and would update the resident with the findings, there is no evidence anywhere on file that the landlord arranged any roof inspection or associated remedial works, during the complaint. When the resident chased the roof inspection again on 17 March 2023 and in his stage 2 complaint of 6 April 2023, the landlord provided no response to this. This is inappropriate and caused the resident distress and frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
Further, it was not appropriate that the resident had to chase the landlord on 28 February 2023 and 5 March 2023 to ask for an update on repairs to his bathroom wall. It is unclear why the landlord did not raise this repair sooner. Although this Service appreciates this would have been a standard repair, the landlord should have requested this as soon as it was aware that the leak was not coming from the stack pipe. Additionally, there is no evidence on file to show when this repair was carried out. This is a failing on the part of the landlord and the delay caused the resident additional distress and frustration and impacted on the enjoyment of his home.
Additionally, it was not appropriate that when the resident submitted his electricity bill with readings both prior to and post the use of the dehumidifier, the landlord rejected the resident’s claim and offered to pay only £144.00 (20 pence per hour) The resident’s supplier charged 66.2 pence per kilowatt hour and the resident had consumed 651 units of electricity between 20 January 2023 and 14 February 2023, whilst not living at the flat. This amounted to £430.96 usage. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will reimburse residents for quantifiable loss such as higher energy costs, so it would have been reasonable to offer the resident a higher amount, particularly as he provided a copy of the bill and unit costs used to the landlord.
Further, in its stage 2 complaint response of 27 April 2023, the landlord offered the resident only £156 compensation for the distress and inconvenience, and this is not proportionate to the adverse effect incurred by the resident, in terms of loss of enjoyment of his home, distress and inconvenience and time and trouble. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme remedies guidance suggests a sum of between £600 to £1000 in terms of time and trouble and distress and inconvenience and when there has been significant adverse effect on a resident.
Although the landlord increased its compensation offer to a total of £1,000, this is after the conclusion of its internal complaints process and after intervention from this Service.
Due to the repair failings and the adverse effect on the resident, a finding of maladministration is made, along with orders for redress.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Although the landlord defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made” and offers various means in which to raise a complaint, the resident attempted to raise a complaint on 3 occasions from 8 January 2023 to 26 January 2023. It is inappropriate that the landlord did not raise a formal complaint until the resident submitted an online complaint form on 10 February 2023. This delay caused the resident frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue. It would also have impacted on the substantive issue being addressed and this is inappropriate as it continued to impact on the enjoyment of his home.
Further, in its stage 2 complaint response to the resident of 27 April 2023, the landlord failed to address the resident’s request for a roof inspection. It offered no information at all about this and did not provide the resident with any further actions in terms of an inspection or any repairs. This is not appropriate. This Service’s complaint handling code states that landlords must respond to all aspects of a resident’s complaint. This omission caused the resident stress and frustration and impacted on the resident/landlord relationship as the resident had lost trust in the landlord to resolve the matter.
Further, although in its stage 2 response, the landlord advised the resident that it did not have any reports in respect of the works carried out to remedy the leaks, it has provided this Service with 7 repair reports from 3 October 2022 to 26 February 2023. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to share these with the resident, particularly as it had undertaken to do so. It is unclear why the landlord advised the resident it did not have these. This is a failing on the part of the landlord and caused the resident additional stress and frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
Further, although the landlord did increase its compensation offer to £1,000 this was in January 2024, after this Service’s intervention and 9 months after the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints process. This would have caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
Due to the factors above, a finding of maladministration is made, along with orders for redress.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and damp into the property and its subsequent offer of compensation.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1350.00 (this is instead of £1,000 previously offered) for the following:
  1. £350 for a contribution towards the cost of his electricity bill. This is a sum that the Ombudsman considers reasonable.
  2. £700 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the leak and damp issues.
  3. £300 for its complaint handling failures.
3. Provide the resident with repair reports affecting his property from 3 October 2022 until 26 February 2023.
4. Review its actions in respect of its repairs policy to ensure that all staff follow the policy and address repairs within its published timescales.
5. Review the complaint handling failures identified in this case and provide an action plan to determine what action has been taken or will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these.
6. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.