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

Kirklees Council (202307979)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307979

Kirklees Council

27 June 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 the landlord’s handling of a leak from a burst pipe.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, since March 2021. The property is a 1 bedroom bungalow.

Summary of events

  1. On 16 December 2022 at approximately 5:30pm, the resident reported an uncontainable leak from a burst pipe in the loft, that had flooded her property. The landlord raised an emergency works order and said it attended at 10:10pm, and carried out a temporary repair to stop the leak. It noted that follow on works were required to locate and resolve the burst pipe.
  2. Later that evening, at approximately 7:00pm, the resident reported that the electrics at the property were not safe. The landlord raised an ‘immediate response’ works order and said it attended at 9:58pm, and made them safe.
  3. The next day at approximately 9:45am, the resident reported that the living room ceiling had collapsed because of the leak. The landlord raised an emergency works order and said it attended that day at 10:28am, and made the kitchen ceiling safe, to prevent it from coming down.
  4. The same day, the landlord raised a works order for the follow on works to locate and resolve the burst pipe. It said it attended on 18 December 2022, but was unable to gain access.
  5. On 19 December 2022, the landlord raised a routine works order to replaster the ceilings.
  6. The following day, the landlord visited the resident to inspect the damage and agreed to provide a dehumidifier. It asked the resident whether she could stay with family while the works were carried out, which could take several weeks, and the resident confirmed that she could. The landlord subsequently noted that no decant was required.
  7. On 21 December 2022, the landlord said it completed the repair to the burst pipe.
  8. Two days later, the resident asked when the dehumidifier would be provided. The landlord contacted the supplier but found they were closed for the Christmas period. It updated the resident and told her that the dehumidifier would be delivered after Christmas.
  9. The landlord visited on 3 January 2023 to inspect the condition of the property. It noted that the condition of the property had slightly improved. It needed to establish if things would improve further once the dehumidifier was provided and in use. The next day, the landlord delivered a dehumidifier to the property.
  10. On 10 January 2023, the resident reported that the dehumidifier was not working. The landlord visited 2 days later to check this and confirmed it was working.
  11. Between 16 and 19 January 2023, the landlord completed the plastering repairs to the ceilings, which included removing damaged loft insulation. It said it checked and reinstated the electrics 13 days later.
  12. On 2 February 2023, the resident asked when new loft insultation would be fitted. The landlord replied that it would attend on 24 February 2023 to inspect and replace this.
  13. On 24 February 2023, the resident reported that operatives attended but could not replace the loft insulation as they did not have enough. This was subsequently completed on 13 March 2023.
  14. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 11 April 2023. She said when she initially reported the leak, the landlord did not attend to make the living room ceiling safe. She was subsequently told by the operative that attended to make the kitchen ceiling safe (after the living room ceiling had collapsed) that it should have done. She asked for compensation for her damaged items. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day.
  15. The landlord contacted the resident on 24 April 2023, to discuss her complaint. She said that the landlord did not attend to make the ceiling safe when she initially reported the leak. She had told the call handler that the ceiling was unsafe during the initial call on 16 December 2022, but no action was taken. This lack of action caused the ceilings to fall and resulted in damage to her belongings.
  16. On 25 April 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It summarised the call with the resident the previous day. Her request for compensation through the landlord’s insurance department had been declined because the leak was a result of a frozen pipe, which was unforeseen. It could not authorise any compensation and suggested she discuss this with her housing officer, to see if there was any further help available.
  17. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 2 May 2023. She said when she reported the burst pipe on 16 December 2022, she told the landlord that the ceiling was going to collapse, there was water coming from the ceiling and sparks coming from the electrical plug sockets. The landlord sent a plumber to stop the leak and an electrician to make the electrics safe, but did not send a joiner to make the ceilings safe. She called back the following day to report that the living room ceiling had collapsed and at that point, it sent a joiner to make the kitchen ceiling safe. It should have done this when she first reported the leak, and if it had, her living room furniture would not have been damaged. She asked for compensation for the damaged items. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 3 working days later.
  18. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 1 June 2023. It attended within the permitted timescale to make safe the leak and ordered a follow on job. It reattended the following day to make the kitchen ceiling safe; and again on 21 December 2022 to complete the pipe repairs, as there were access issues. All works were completed within the required timescales set out in its repairs policy. The cause of the leak was due to weather conditions and it could not have foreseen or prevented this. Therefore, it was not responsible for any damage caused and would not offer any compensation. Residents should arrange their own contents insurance to provide cover in these types of situations. 
  19. Four days later, the resident escalated her complaint to this Service as she was not happy with the final response. She said the landlord did not send a joiner to make the ceilings safe, despite her telling it they were going to collapse. The ceilings did collapse and damaged her belongings and she wanted to be compensated for these. 

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident submitted an insurance claim to the landlord in January 2023, which was refused. The landlord’s decision in respect of this claim falls outside the scope of this investigation, as insurance claims are a matter for the Court to consider (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme). The resident may wish to seek legal advice, if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision, in respect of the claim.

Handling of a leak from a burst pipe

  1. The landlord is responsible for repairs to water and heating pipework, ceilings, plasterwork and electrics in the property, under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement. This says it is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property as well as systems that supply water, heating and electricity.
  2. The landlord has provided detailed information to the Ombudsman regarding the dates and times it attended to complete repairs at the property, but has not provided supporting evidence to corroborate this. An assessment has made an using the information provided; however, going forward, it is important that the landlord provide evidence to support any information regarding when it attended repair appointments. This is particularly important when the repairs would be categorised as ‘instant response’ repairs, which have a target time of 4 hours. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to review its records and identify how it can provide evidence to corroborate dates and times it attended for repairs appointments.
  3. When the resident reported the leak, the landlord raised an emergency works order, which its repairs policy says it will attend within 2 working days. This was inappropriate as the resident reported that the leak was uncontainable and it had flooded her property. Therefore, it should have categorised this as an ‘instant response’ repair, which its policy says it will attend in up to 4 hours and confirms that flooding would be included in this category.
  4. While the landlord did not correctly categorise the repair, it did attend in a reasonable timeframe of around 4 hours and 40 minutes. This is slightly over the committed response time of 4 hours for an instant response repair, but as the delay was minor, the timeframe is considered reasonable; particularly as this was being attended out of hours.
  5. When the resident raised concerns about the electrics, the landlord raised an ‘instant response’ works order, which was appropriate because of the potential risk from dangerous electrics. The landlord attended this job in around 3 hours, which was reasonable and in line with the committed response time of 4 hours, set out in its repairs policy.
  6. When the resident reported that the ceiling had collapsed the following day, the landlord raised this as an emergency works order, which was again inappropriate considering the nature of the job. However, it did attend in under an hour, which was reasonable and in line with the committed response time for an instant response repair.
  7. While the landlord incorrectly categorised 2 repairs, this did not impact the response times and caused no detriment to the resident. However, going forward, it is important that the landlord correctly categorise repairs; particularly, where these are instant response repairs, which are often high risk or emergency situations. Therefore, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on repair categorisation, in line with its repairs policy.
  8. From the records provided, it is not clear how the landlord categorised the follow on repair for the pipe. Considering that the immediate risk of flooding had been addressed, but the property was without a water supply, it would have been appropriate to categorise this as an emergency repair.
  9. The landlord completed this repair in 3 working days, which was 1 working day over the committed response time set out in its repairs policy. However, the landlord said that it had attended the day after the order was raised, but was unable to gain access. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord pre-arranged the initial visit with the resident, which meant she would have been unaware that it was attending and so limited in her ability to be able to give access. This was important in this case, as the resident was staying away from the property and would need prior warning of any appointments to be able to return.
  10. Where possible, the landlord should give prior notice of any visits; however, this is not always possible with emergencies and in this case, the follow on repair was raised and attended over the weekend. This meant it was being managed outside of the landlord’s normal working hours and so its ability to pre-arrange appointments or formally notify residents may have been limited.
  11. Overall, the repair was completed 1 working day late, which was a minor delay. Considering the timing of the works, it was reasonable that the landlord did not inform her about the initial appointment. As the resident was able to stay with family while waiting for the works to be carried out, she was not left in a property with no water supply. Therefore, this minor delay caused no detriment to the resident.
  12. Considering the condition of the property, it was sensible for the landlord to consider whether a decant was required for the resident, after the leak occurred. As the resident was able to stay with family, it was reasonable that the landlord determined this was not required.
  13. After the leak occurred, the landlord visited the resident quickly to assess the condition of the property and agreed to provide a dehumidifier to help dry it out. This was appropriate and showed that it was taking the matter seriously. It was unfortunate that there was a slight delay in providing the dehumidifier; however, this was outside of the landlord’s control. It updated the resident so she knew what was happening and provided this early into the New Year. The landlord carried out follow up visits when the resident reported this was not working and monitored the condition of the property. This again showed it was taking the matter seriously and was responsive to the resident’s concerns.
  14. The landlord categorised the replastering works as a routine repair and completed this in 32 days. This was slightly over the target timescale of 25 days, set out in its repairs policy. However, as this 32 day period included the Christmas and New Year break, and the works needed to be completed over 4 days, including the removal of loft insulation, this was a reasonable timeframe. As the resident was staying away from the property with family, this minor delay caused no detriment to her. 
  15. The landlord could not complete the electrical works until the replastering works were finished. It is not clear how it categorised this job; however, it would have been appropriate to raise this as a routine repair also. This is because the resident was staying away from the property while the works were carried out, so the same level of urgency was not required. The landlord completed the electrical work 13 working days after the replastering works were finished, which was in line with the committed timeframe of 25 working days for a routine repair. 
  16. The landlord installed the new loft insulation 40 days after the resident raised this. As this was a specialist job, it was reasonable that it took longer to complete than a routine repair. The landlord had attempted to complete this earlier than it did, but was unable to do so. While frustrating for the resident, there was nothing that the landlord could have done to prevent this. The visit in February 2023 was the first visit by its contractor, and so the first opportunity it had to assess the amount of insulation required. Therefore, it is understandable that it did not have enough insulation to complete the job at that time.
  17. As part of her complaint, the resident said that she told the landlord that the ceiling would collapse during the initial call, and that it should have sent a joiner to make the ceiling safe at that time. The records show that the landlord investigated this by reviewing the call recordings and seeking feedback internally, which was appropriate and showed that it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
  18. The feedback given was that its out of hours service would not send a joiner with a plumber. This is because the plumber would assess the severity of the leak, and any damage caused and would feed back any follow on jobs required. While frustrating for the resident, this was reasonable as the landlord needs to make the most appropriate use of its resources and should not send multiple operatives to a job, if not required. This is particularly significant for out of hours jobs, as the number of operatives available can be limited and so it is important to make the best use of operatives time.
  19. The resident has told this Service that the plumber who attended made holes in the ceiling to help the water drain faster. It is unfortunate that this did not prevent the ceiling from collapsing, but it shows that the operative was aware that this was a potential risk, assessed the situation and took steps to try and mitigate this. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that the action taken did not prevent this; however, that does not mean that the landlord was at fault. The operative carried out an assessment based on the circumstances at that time and the landlord was entitled to rely on this assessment. Therefore, the landlord’s decision not to send a joiner in response to the initial report of a leak was reasonable.
  20. The resident has said that the landlord should have insulated the pipes to prevent them from freezing. Insulating pipework in the loft can help to prevent them from freezing and bursting and while this is generally recommended, there is no specific requirement on the landlord to do this. As the resident has already experienced a burst pipe caused by freezing, it would be sensible for the landlord to ensure these are insulated to avoid further instances of pipes bursting. Therefore, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to insulate all pipework in the loft, if not already done so.
  21. While the landlord’s decision was reasonable, there is no record that this was fed back to the resident. As this was the main concern raised within her complaint, the landlord should have ensured it properly responded to this point. It is unclear why it did not do this, as it had taken the steps to thoroughly investigate the matter, but failed to communicate the response to the resident. This amounts to service failure and an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation in respect of this.
  22. The landlord’s decision in respect of the resident’s insurance claim falls outside the scope of this investigation, for reasons set out above. The resident also asked to be compensated for her damaged items via the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord’s compensation policy said it would pay compensation for quantifiable loss (where residents can demonstrate actual loss) where it had failed to meet its obligations. In this case, the landlord was not responsible for the cause of and found no fault in its handling of the leak, therefore, it was reasonable that it declined to pay the resident compensation as part of the complaints procedure.
  23. The Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the leak, but only in respect of its communication and not the actions taken to resolve the leak and carry out remedial repairs. While frustrating that some of the resident’s belongings were damaged by the leak, the landlord was not responsible for this. It was correct in its advice that residents should have their own contents insurance, to cover these types of situations.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a leak from a burst pipe.

Reasons

  1. There was a minor communication failure in the landlord’s handling of a leak from a burst pipe. 

Orders and recommendations 

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation for the communication failure in its handling of a leak from a burst pipe. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance, to this Service, within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review its records and identify how it can, where required, provide evidence to the Ombudsman to show the dates and times it attended for repairs appointments.
  2. Provide staff training on repair categorisation in line with its repairs policy.
  3. Insulate all pipework in the loft, if not already done so.
  4. The landlord to confirm its intentions regarding the above recommendations within 4 weeks.