Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Grand Union Housing Group Limited (202014248)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014248

Grand Union Housing Group Limited

30 June 2021


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports of an odour coming from their water tank.

Background and summary of events

  1. The residents are tenants of the landlord.
  2. On 12 October 2020 the residents reported to the landlord that there was “a bad smell” coming from their water tank. A contractor attended on 14 October 2020. The landlord’s repair records show that the contractor noticed a smell coming from the bottom of the water tank. He recommended a follow up tank flush.
  3. The residents raised a complaint to the landlord on 25 October 2020. They were dissatisfied that it had not resolved their issue, and that the smell persisted. They reported “unknown substances coming out of [their] water supply, both hot and cold”. They said the landlord had not taken further action since 14 October.
  4. On 27 October 2020 a contractor attended. The landlord’s repair records show that the contractor said the immersion heater “could do with cleaning as there [was] a funny smell”. He said the cold water tank was dirty and had bird faeces inside. He reported that there were holes in the roof allowing birds to enter. He recommended a tank replacement.
  5. On 3 November 2020 contractors attended to take a sample of the hot water cylinder. They tested for legionella, and E-Coli. They then fit a new tank, and disinfected the hot and cold water distribution system, and the calorifier (water heater).
  6. A contractor attended on 5 November 2020 to sample the water, and ensure all traces of disinfectant had rinsed through.
  7. On 12 November 2020 the landlord advised the residents that it had raised a work order to inspect their roof on 2 December. It also advised them on 13 November that it would close their complaint as the problem with the tank had been resolved. It said it would forward them a report of the water sample results.
  8. The residents emailed the landlord on 24 November 2020. They asked why it had not tested for legionella in the old tank, but had in the new tank. They said that when they had asked previously (it is unclear when) about its testing, it had said that it did “not feel the test was appropriate… as [they] didn’t show symptoms of legionella”.
  9. The landlord responded to the residents on 27 November 2020. It confirmed that “samples were taken from the old tank before it was removed”, and that they tested negative for legionella and E-Coli. It said it had made an error in its previous conversation with them on the subject. It apologised for any stress caused. It provided them with copies of the sample results. 
  10. On 13 December 2020 the residents raised a complaint to the landlord. They were dissatisfied with the water tests it had completed. They said that “the samples had temperatures high enough to kill any bacteria including legionella. Yet no test was done on [the] cold water”. They said it should have tested the old tank, and the cold water from the tap in their bathroom.
  11. The landlord issued its formal complaint response on 16 December 2020. It explained that the cold water supply to the bathroom taps was not supplied by the cold water storage tank, but by the cold water main. It said that it did not need to test the old tank for bacteria as it replaced it, and disinfected the distribution pipework. It acknowledged that it had “miscommunicated some of [the] information [they] had asked for” which may have caused them anxiety. It apologised for this, and offered them a goodwill gesture of £75. It concluded by explaining how they could refer their complaint to this Service if they remained dissatisfied. 
  12. In the residents’ correspondence with this Service on 13 April 2021, they explained that they believed that the water could have posed a risk to their health, and they therefore felt neglected by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

  1. This Service will not consider the residents’ concerns that the water may have been contaminated, and impacted their health, or that there was neglect on the landlord’s behalf. These issues would usually be more appropriately addressed via the courts.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy sets out that the landlord is responsible for the structure, services, and common parts of the property, including the installations for supplying water. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will offer a resident up to £100 when its service failure has had a low impact on the resident, and was low effort to resolve.
  3. The landlord first inspected the water tank on 14 October 2020, and attended again on 27 October. During its second visit it identified that there was an issue with the cold water storage tank. It decided to replace it, and promptly completed the work. It also took various water samples to test for bacteria, disinfected the distribution systems, and raised a work order for the roof repairs. The evidence therefore indicates that the landlord took pragmatic and reasonable action to resolve the problem once it had identified that the tank was the cause.
  4. In the landlord’s complaint response it acknowledged that it had previously miscommunicated information to the residents concerning what water samples it had taken. It apologised for it, gave them the correct information, and offered a goodwill gesture of £75. As explained above in paragraph 15 the landlord will offer up to £100 for low impact failings. Its offer was therefore in line with its policy. It was also in accordance with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance as there is no evidence of the failing having a permanent impact. The landlord corrected its mistake, and gave the residents an explanation for why it did not sample the old tank.
  5. It is not in the Ombudsman’s remit to assess the technical competency of the landlord’s actions in this case in regard to the water testing. Such issues relate to health and safety, and would be a matter for the relevant local authority. Nevertheless, the evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and resolve their issue. Its actions were proportionate to the issues reported, and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. It acknowledged that it had given inaccurate information, and its offer of compensation was a suitable remedy for its failing.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord responded to the residents’ reports, and took action to resolve the issue. It apologised for the giving them incorrect information, and compensated them for it. Its offer was reasonable, and proportionate.