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

Red Kite Community Housing Limited (202317139)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317139

Red Kite Community Housing Limited

10 December 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:
    1. handling of the resident’s reports of high water pressure.
    2. complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a 1-bedroom flat. The tenancy commenced in July 2015.
  2. On 25 May 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. He said that when he turned on the cold tap in his bathroom wash hand basin there was a violent hammering and knocking in the pipes. He said that pressure had ‘rocked’ the water flow pump system causing his washing machine to shake and judder. He said that the water pressure was dangerously high, and the surge of water had broken his washing machine and flooded his kitchen. As an outcome he wanted the landlord to check the system and repair his washing machine.
  3. On 1 June 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended the property and found the water pressure was ‘so high’. They subsequently set the water pressure to the resident’s requirements. On 12 June 2023 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said that its contractor had lowered the water pressure, and it recommended that the resident contact his water supplier to ascertain if any works in the area may have affected the water pressure. It added that it could not locate any recent works carried out by its contractor that may have caused this. It explained that it would not repair or replace his washing machine and recommended that residents have contents insurance.
  4. The same day the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said it was unreasonable to expect him to claim on his contents insurance as he felt the issue was due to the landlord’s negligence. He said he could not risk installing another washing machine in case it happened again. He said the water pressure had always been ‘dangerously’ high and asserted that the contractor had confirmed this during their visit. He added that when he turned on the tap in the bathroom his electric shower would stop and register a fault. He wanted the landlord to carry out a risk assessment and repair his washing machine.
  5. On 20 June 2023 the landlord said it could only escalate the complaint if the resident provided evidence of raising his concerns about the water pressure prior to requesting a formal complaint. The resident responded on 26 June 2023. He said the severe knocking in the system had always been present and provided examples of times he had mentioned this. He added that he was worried about the loud knocking and juddering in the system. On 25 July 2023 the landlord reiterated that there was a lack of evidence to support the resident’s belief that there were long-standing water pressure issues. In recognition of the delay in responding to him, it offered £50 compensation.
  6. Following contact with this Service the resident asked the landlord again to escalate his complaint on 10 August 2023. He said there was enough circumstantial evidence for the landlord to consider his case and he was unhappy that the landlord had not checked the safety of the water system. He said the landlord was more intent on refuting his case than addressing the issue and added he was left with a broken washing machine, damaged flooring and visits to the laundrette until the matter was resolved.
  7. On 16 August 2023 the landlord issued its final response. It said it would only consider an escalation request where new evidence was provided or where it had not investigated all points raised in a complaint. It said that its contractors had not done any work that caused the high water pressure. It added there was no evidence provided by the resident or in its records to conclude that there was an issue with the water pressure that would have caused his washing machine to disconnect. It said that due to this lack of evidence, it would not accept his escalation request and referred him to this Service.
  8. In the resident’s referral to this Service, he said he was concerned about juddering in the pipes and that the landlord’s contractor had confirmed the water pressure was dangerously high. He felt the landlord had dismissed his complaint and was unhappy that the landlord had told him to claim for his damaged washing machine through his contents insurance. As an outcome, he wanted the landlord to address the water pressure in the property and compensation to cover the cost of repairing his washing machine.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident asserted that prior to his formal complaint, he raised various issues relating to the water pressure with the landlord. The landlord has provided this Service with its repair records from 2015 onwards and there is no evidence that these matters were raised with the landlord in the 12 months prior to his May 2023 complaint. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (usually within 12 months) of the matters arising. This is in accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Therefore, this assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions and handling of reports from 25 May 2023 up to the landlord’s 16 August 2023 final response.
  2. Additionally, this Service recognises that the resident felt that the landlord was responsible for damage caused to his washing machine and flooring due to its handling of reports of high water pressure. However, it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for damage to the resident’s possessions. This would be better suited for the courts or through an insurance claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of high water pressure

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states that it is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity and sanitation. Its policy states that residents are responsible for plumbing to washing machines. It says it will respond to urgent repairs within 5 working days.
  2. Its repair policy states it promotes residents’ insurance schemes to cover their possessions from accidental damage. Its compensation policy states that where a claim is made for personal possessions that have been damaged as a result of action or inaction by the landlord, this will be forwarded to its insurers for consideration under its liability insurance.
  3. Following the resident’s complaint the landlord acted appropriately by attending to the issue within its urgent repair policy timescales. The contractor described the water pressure in the repair logs as ‘so high’ and subsequently reset it. While this was a reasonable initial step it is unclear if they investigated the pipework or any faults to the plumbing system as requested by the landlord when it raised the repair order. Furthermore, the landlord’s repair log indicated that the resident was concerned that the boiler was also making noises. However, there was no evidence that this was investigated. Instead, it appeared that the contractor signposted the resident to another contractor. Given the resident’s concerns and the contractor’s findings, the landlord should have responded proactively and arranged for the boiler to be inspected.
  4. Indeed, in the resident’s initial June 2023 escalation request he said there was ‘inadequate redirected’ pipework from the bathroom to the kitchen and asked the landlord to risk assess the situation. Considering the landlord’s contractor had already confirmed the water pressure was ‘so high’, this should have prompted the landlord to carry out a meaningful inspection of the pipework to satisfy itself that no remedial works were required. However, there was no evidence that it did so. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who likely felt the landlord was not taking his concerns seriously.
  5. In the resident’s referral to this Service, he was unhappy that the landlord had told him to claim for the damage to his washing machine on his contents insurance. The landlord acted fairly by interrogating its repair logs to ascertain if there had been any historical reports of high-water pressure. It concluded there was no evidence this matter had been reported before or that the washing machine had broken due to high water pressure. As the landlord found no evidence to suggest that the resident’s washing machine was damaged due to its action or inaction it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to claim for any damage through his contents insurance. Further, this advice was in line with its repairs and compensation policies.
  6. However, it is recognised that the resident claimed he had reported various issues that suggested problems with high water pressure before his formal complaint. Given this, the landlord should have invited the resident to submit a claim for consideration under its liability insurance. As such a recommendation has been made below.
  7. Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of high water pressure was unsatisfactory. It missed multiple opportunities to assess the cause/s of the high water pressure, despite the resident requesting a risk assessment and raising concerns about his shower tripping and pipework. Additionally, the landlord knew that its own contractor had acknowledged the water pressure was ‘so high’. Yet it did not appear to react to this. Instead, the landlord appeared focused on whether it had dealt with similar reports in the past and whether it could be held liable for the damage to his washing machine, rather than attempting to resolve any possible current issues with the water pressure.
  8. This amounts to maladministration and orders are made below for remedy. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which suggests awards from £100 compensation should be considered where there has been a failure that has adversely affected the resident which the landlord failed to acknowledge and made no attempt to put things right.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s feedback policy refers to escalation requests as appeals. It says that appeals will be considered based on any new evidence or information not previously taken into account. It adds that it will acknowledge an appeal request within 2 working days and aim to provide a formal response within 10 working days. Its policy says that it bases its approach on managing feedback on the principles defined by this Service: Be fair, put it right, and learn from residents.
  2. The Ombudsman’s March 2022 Complaint Handling Code (The Code) says that if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure unless an exclusion ground applies. The Code adds that a landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action. Reasons for declining to escalate a complaint must be clearly set out in a landlord’s complaints policy and must be the same as the reasons for not accepting a complaint.
  3. On 12 June 2023 the resident told the landlord he wanted to take his complaint further. He explained that he wanted to claim for the damage to his washing machine on the landlord’s insurance. Further, he said the pipework from the bathroom to the kitchen was inadequate and asked for a risk assessment to take place. Although the landlord responded promptly to his concerns it failed to escalate the complaint. The resident had clearly provided information that the landlord should have formally responded to. This was a missed opportunity to escalate the complaint and provide its final position on the matter. This was a failure on the landlord’s part, and it did not act in line with its feedback policy or the Ombudsman’s Code.
  4. In response to this, the resident asked to ‘appeal’ his complaint. He provided information to the landlord about how he felt the tap in his bathroom had caused the fault to his washing machine and how it had affected his shower. The landlord again did not escalate his complaint and instead said that it could only proceed with a ‘formal appeal’ if he could provide evidence of raising the water pressure concerns prior to his May 2023 formal complaint. This was inappropriate and the landlord missed another opportunity to escalate the complaint.
  5. Nevertheless, the resident provided what he believed to be new evidence to the landlord as well as examples of times he said he had previously mentioned these issues. However, the landlord failed to respond. This would have caused time and trouble for the resident who chased the landlord for a response on 14 July 2023.
  6. On 25 July 2023 the landlord acknowledged the delay in responding to him and offered £50 compensation in recognition. While the landlord acted fairly in this respect it again failed to escalate his complaint. Instead, it again asked him to provide evidence to support his belief that the water pressure was a long-standing issue or had caused his washing machine to break. This was unreasonable and likely caused frustration to the resident who had already provided this information. Moreover, it caused further time and trouble for the resident who approached this Service for advice.
  7. Following another request to escalate his complaint on 10 August 2023 the landlord formally refused his request on the grounds of a lack of evidence and provided referral rights to this Service. It is unclear why the landlord took this approach, and it was unreasonable for it to do so. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who likely felt the landlord was ignoring his concerns.
  8. Overall, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint handling was unacceptable. It missed multiple opportunities to respond to the complaint at stage 2 and its interpretation of its policy was, in the Ombudsman’s view, incorrect, or unreasonably rigid and unnecessarily put barriers in the way. Its failure to escalate the complaint demonstrated an unwillingness to act fairly and in line with its policy resolution principles and delayed getting matters resolved. Due to these failures, it took the landlord over 2 months to issue its final response. This was a considerable delay and contrary to its policy timescales. This amounts to maladministration and orders are made below for remedy in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.
  9. Additionally, the landlord’s feedback policy did not appear to clearly set out when it would not accept or escalate a complaint in line with The Code. In any case, the Ombudsman’s new complaint handling code published in April 2024 states that if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. It adds that residents must not be required to explain their reasons for requesting a stage 2 consideration. As such, the landlord must consider whether its current policy reflects these changes clearly. This has been considered as part of the orders below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of high water pressure.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £300 comprised of:
      1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of high-water pressure.
      2. £50 as offered in its 25 July 2023 correspondence for its delay in responding to the resident’s escalation request if it had not done so already.
      3. A further £100 for the complaint handling errors identified in this report.
    3. Inspect the boiler and relevant pipework in the property and satisfy itself that there are no faults that may cause high water pressure. If any remedial works are needed the landlord must produce an action plan to address any repairs identified, along with timescales for completion. The landlord must update the resident and this Service on the outcome of its inspection and provide a copy of the action plan if necessary.
    4. The landlord should review the complaint handling failings identified in this report to determine what action has been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these. It must also consider whether its current June 2024 policy adequately reflects the Ombudsman’s April 2024 Complaint Handling Code. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review.
  2. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should invite the resident to submit a claim through its liability insurance for the damage to his washing machine. If the landlord does not consider a claim, the landlord should write to the resident explaining why.