Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202426134)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426134

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

24 July 2025

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

This complaint is about how the landlord handled reports of a leak from a neighbouring property into the resident’s property.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bed bungalow. The resident is a wheelchair user, and lives in the property with a live-in carer. She has been helped in bringing her complaint by a disability advocate. For ease of reference, the actions of her representative will be referred to as the resident’s actions throughout this report.
The resident reported a leak in her living room on 17 May 2024. She said it was coming through the skirting boards by a party wall. She made a complaint about how the landlord handled the leak on 17 June 2024. She said it had been ongoing since May 2024, and she found it difficult getting around her property in her wheelchair because of the leak. She said she was unhappy that she had to remove carpets from her property because of the leak, and wanted to be reimbursed for her damaged carpets.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 24 June 2024. It said it had attended all repairs within the relevant timescales, and there would be a further survey on 2 July 2024 to confirm the leak was resolved. It said it would not offer any payment for the carpets as it had dealt with the leak in a reasonable time, and signposted the resident to her contents insurance.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, so escalated her complaint on 19 July 2024.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 16 August 2024. It said it responded to the leak in a reasonable time, and completed the works to resolve the leak on 25 June 2024. It said there had been no further reports of a leak since then, and it did not uphold the complaint. It also referred the resident to its housing options team for support related to mobility.
The resident replied to the stage 2 response with a further complaint on 6 September 2024. She said:
1. She did not think the stage 2 response adequately dealt with the issues raised.
2. The issue was not resolved. While the works in the neighbouring property had been completed, she was still suffering due to issues outside of her control.
3. The landlord only provided dehumidifiers after she requested them, and she chased them up on several occasions. The dehumidifiers were running at a cost to her, and bringing up large amounts of water. She said the skirting boards were ruined.
4. When the dehumidifiers were delivered she was told not to open the windows while they were running. This had health implications for her, as she is unable to regulate her body temperature.
5. The situation caused flare ups of illness and chronic pain, as well as stress and anxiety.
6. She could not access all of the property using her wheelchair because of the leak.
7. Rooms had to be moved around as a result of the leak, causing upheaval. Her live-in carer had to sleep in a damp room.
8. She had public health concerns related to the drainage in the area, with neighbouring properties experiencing blocked drains and toilets.
The landlord logged a further complaint on 18 September 2024. We have not seen any evidence of a stage 1 response to the further complaint.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 25 September 2024. She said:
1. She was unable to fully access the property in her wheelchair because she’d had to remove water damaged flooring.
2. Communication with the landlord had been difficult.
3. She had further concerns about plumbing and drainage on the development. Others had reported sewage backing up into their properties, and she did not believe there was adequate drainage in the development.
4. She wanted external scrutiny to check the waste plumbing on the development was fit for purpose, met building regulations, and was signed off at appropriate stages by a building inspector.
On 19 March 2025, the resident confirmed the landlord had fixed the leak. She said she was worried about long-term sustainability of drainage in the property, including issues with sewage backing up.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The rules which govern our Service say we may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. Any events which were not part of the resident’s initial complaint have not completed the complaints process, so we cannot consider them as part of this investigation.
As such, this investigation will only consider matters raised in the resident’s original complaint (the handling of the active leak and her request for compensation for damaged carpets). Should the resident wish to pursue her further complaints with the Ombudsman, she would need to refer those complaints to us after those complaints have gone through the landlord’s internal complaints process.
It should be noted, however, that assessments of whether or not the development’s plumbing and drainage system complies with Building Regulations and was appropriately signed off would not fall within our remit, even if it had completed the complaints process. That would be a matter for the local authority. We would also not be able to look into any concerns the resident has about drainage and plumbing issues in other properties. Any residents affected by plumbing and drainage issues would need to make their own complaint, should they wish to do so.
The resident has also referred to the effect the leak had on her physical and mental health. We cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing. That would be a matter for the courts, who can consider medical evidence and reach binding decisions on personal injury claims. However, we can consider any distress or inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Handling of the leak

The resident said the leak into her property started on 5 May 2024. She said she noticed a strong smell in the house, and then noticed that the carpet was soaked in 2 rooms next to the party wall, with water coming through the skirting boards. She said she pulled up the carpets and tried to pat the areas dry, but the floors would not dry out.
It is common ground that leaks into the resident’s property fall within the landlord’s repair obligations. However, a landlord’s repair obligations only begin when it is on notice of a repair issue. The resident first reported the leak to the landlord on 17 May 2024, so the landlord’s repair obligations only began at that stage.
When the resident reported the leak, the landlord arranged for an operative to inspect the property on 20 May 2024. It chased the operative for information about the leak on the following day. Its records say the operative confirmed the leak was from a neighbouring property, and they had booked an appointment to trace the source of the leak on 24 May 2024. The landlord’s records confirm there was an inspection on that day, but contain no further information about that inspection or what happened. What the records do show, however, is that it completed the works to resolve the leak on 25 June 2024.
Under its repairs and maintenance policy, the landlord is required to carry out appointable repairs (non-emergency repairs which can prevent immediate damage to the property) within 28 working days. It is required to carry out any planned repairs within 60 working days.
When the resident reported the leak, the landlord attended within a reasonable time to carry out an inspection. It concluded that works were needed in the property next door. It inspected the neighbouring property within a reasonable time, and booked in follow-on works to resolve the leak. The appointment to complete the repairs was rescheduled on 2 occasions by the occupier of the neighbouring property, and the landlord completed the works on 25 June 2024. This was within the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy.
During that time, the landlord also arranged for inspections of the resident’s property on 3 and 17 June 2024. The operative on 3 June 2024 took photos of the area affected by the leak, and also recommended an inspection for rising damp. An operative attended on 17 June 2024 and confirmed that the water in question was from the leak next door. They said that nothing could be done to repair the resident’s property until the leak was resolved.
Landlords are entitled to rely on the opinions of their appropriately qualified contractors and surveyors when assessing what steps they need to take regarding repairs. Given that the operatives confirmed the landlord could not do anything in the resident’s property until the active leak was resolved, it was reasonable that the landlord did not book any works at that stage.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 response that there would be a follow–up inspection on 2 July 2024 to confirm the works to resolve the leak had been successful. Its records show that visit went ahead, and the operative confirmed the leak had stopped.
The resident is unhappy with the handling of the leak. She said the landlord should have resolved the leak sooner, and she was unhappy her carpets had been damaged. She also said she found it difficult to get round the property in her wheelchair because of the leak.
We do not dispute the resident’s reports that she experienced significant disruption as a result of the leak. However, the evidence provided shows the landlord resolved the leak within the timescales set out in its policy (which are standard within the industry). It also sent operatives to inspect the resident’s property during that time, and followed the advice given (that it could not do anything in the resident’s property until the leak stopped). Those were all appropriate actions taken within a reasonable time.
The resident said that her flooring was damaged because of poor service by the landlord, and that this made it hard for her to get around the property in her wheelchair. While we do not dispute the resident’s reports of the impact the leak had on her, we have not seen any evidence that she raised concerns about access to all of the property prior to her complaint. As such, there was nothing to prompt any further enquiries from the landlord as to any action it could take to reduce the impact of the leak on her.
The resident also said she wants the landlord to reimburse her for damage to her carpets. We would only expect a landlord to compensate a resident for damaged items (in this case carpets) if there is enough evidence to show that it was directly responsible for the damage.
The leak started on 5 May 2024, and the resident has confirmed that the carpets were wet at that time. She reported the leak to the landlord on 17 May 2024, and the landlord resolved the leak within the repair timescales set out within its repairs policy. As such, there is no evidence that the damage was a result of failings by the landlord, rather than the existence of a leak. In those circumstances, it would be for a resident to make a claim on their contents insurance for any damage to their belongings as a result of the leak. The landlord has correctly explained this to the resident in its complaint response, and appropriately signposted her to her insurer.
However, while the landlord stopped the leak within a reasonable time, we have not seen evidence to show that it communicated appropriately with the resident during that time. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it will “ensure communication is considerate to the needs of our customers” and “where appropriate we will adapt our services…to meet the specific needs of our vulnerable tenants”.
While it carried out inspections of the resident’s property, it has not provided any evidence of updating her on when it expected it could stop the leak. In the absence of that evidence, we cannot reasonably conclude it gave the resident any updates. This meant she would not have had the necessary information to decide whether or not the property would remain suitable for the time it would take to resolve the leak, or if there was any additional support she would need as a result of her disability. We therefore find there has been a service failure with regard to the landlord’s communication about the leak.
We have not seen any evidence that the outcome would be different had the landlord given the resident that information. And it is not within our remit to speculate as to what could have been different if it had given that information. However, the landlord should apologise to the resident for the service failure in its communication. An order to that effect is set out below.
We understand the resident is also unhappy with the landlord’s actions after it stopped the leak from the neighbouring property. In particular, she has referred to poor communication, delays in providing dehumidifiers, and the cost of running dehumidifiers. However, these issues were raised as part of the resident’s new complaint, which was made after the landlord’s final complaint response. As such, we cannot consider those concerns as part of this investigation.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s records show it logged the resident’s complaint on 17 June 2024, and acknowledged it on 18 June 2024. It then issued a stage 1 response on 24 June 2024. This was within the timescales set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord’s records show the resident escalated her complaint on 19 July 2024, and gave authority for the landlord to discuss her complaint with her advocate at that time. The landlord told the resident on 2 August 2024 it had escalated the complaint, and issued a stage 2 response on 16 August 2024. The landlord’s acknowledgement of the escalation request was slightly delayed. However, its stage 2 response was issued within the 20 working day timescale set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. As such, there is no evidence the delayed acknowledgement held up the complaint response, or caused any detriment to the resident.
The resident said she was passed between departments when trying to make a complaint about the leak, and she was initially told she could not make a complaint. We have not seen any evidence of those conversations within the landlord’s contact logs. However, it is apparent that any such conversations did not prevent the resident bringing a complaint, as the landlord logged the complaint and issued a response within the required timescales.
For the reasons set out above, we find there has been no maladministration with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.
We note that the resident made a further complaint on 6 September 2024. We have seen evidence that the landlord logged the complaint, but we have not seen any evidence of a stage 1 response. As such, it is unclear whether the landlord has issued a response to that complaint. As this was a subsequent complaint which did not have time to complete the landlord’s internal complaints process when the original complaint was referred to us in September 2024, we cannot investigate how the landlord handled the subsequent complaint. However, we have made a recommendation below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been:
1. A service failure with regard to the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak from a neighbouring property into the resident’s property.
2. No maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must issue a written apology to the resident for the communication failings identified in this report.
The landlord must provide us with evidence of compliance with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should:
1. Issue a stage 1 response to the resident’s further complaint of 6 September 2024 within 2 weeks of the date of this report.
2. Inspect the resident’s property for any damage caused by the leak which would fall under its repair obligations within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord should let us know its intentions with regard to the above recommendations within the timescales set out above.