Wandle Housing Association Limited (202319561)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319561

Wandle Housing Association Limited

17 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 handling of a leak.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder. She signed her lease on 20 May 2015. The property is a 1 bedroom, fifth floor flat.
4. On 28 December 2022 the neighbour in the flat below the resident’s property reported a leak coming through his ceiling to the landlord. The landlord did not make any contact with the resident about this.
5. On 1 January 2023 the resident, who had been away for a week, returned to her property. The neighbour in the flat below spoke to her upon her return and made her aware of the leak. He said he believed it was coming from the resident’s property.
6. The resident reported the leak to the landlord on 2 January 2023. It attended the property on the same day to investigate the source. It concluded that the leak was coming from pipes located inside her property and so it was not responsible for repairing it. The resident subsequently arranged for a private plumber to carry out the repair.
7. On 5 February 2023 the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. She said that:
   1. her plumber advised her that the leak was caused by “an internal pipe join that had not been fitted correctly in the original build and so had become loose”.
   2. her flat and the flat below had suffered “significant water damage” due to the leak.
   3. when the neighbour in the flat below reported the leak on 28 December 2022, he suggested to the landlord that it was coming from the resident’s property. He told the landlord that the resident was away and asked that it contact her. It did not do so.
   4. if the landlord had contacted her immediately, the damage caused to the flats “would have been avoided or much reduced”.
   5. if she was able to claim on her insurance, she faced paying an expensive excess.
   6. she had asked the landlord to cover any costs she incurred. After “several weeks of attempted contact to get a response”, the landlord refused her request.
   7. she wanted the landlord to reconsider covering her costs.
8. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 February 2023. It said:
   1. the repairs to the internal parts of the property were the resident’s responsibility.
   2. it “strongly recommended” the resident made a buildings insurance claim.
   3. it would not pay the insurance excess.
   4. the resident moved into the property in 2015 and had not previously reported the pipe was leaking. It was therefore unlikely to be a building defect issue.
   5. when it received the report of a leak on 28 December 2022, it was not clear where it was coming from.
   6. it apologised for the delay in notifying the resident about the leak. It offered her £50 compensation for this.
   7. it had since put measures in place whereby customer services staff would ask appropriate questions about leaks at the first point of contact. They would contact the flat above or below where required.
9. The resident was unhappy with the response. She asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 1 March 2023.
10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 April 2024. It said:
    1. the stage 1 response provided suitable advice about how to make a buildings insurance claim. It was “unable to deviate from this process”.
    2. it would provide the resident with information on how to make a claim through the NHBC warranty. In the covering email to the stage 2 response, it caveated this by suggesting that it was unlikely the warranty would still cover the pipes.
    3. it was sorry for the delay in issuing the complaint response. It offered the resident a £100 “goodwill gesture” for any inconvenience caused by the delay.
11. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. She referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She explained that she had made a buildings insurance claim but she paid £700 excess (£350 for each flat damaged). The outcome she sought was for the landlord to reimburse her for the £700. She said the damage could have been avoided if the landlord contacted her once it became aware of the leak. She also referred to the “significant delays” by the landlord when responding to her complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a leak

12. Under the terms of the lease, the resident is responsible for keeping any pipes within her property in good repair and condition. If a pipe leaks, she is responsible for ensuring she repairs it within a reasonable time and at her expense. Such expenses usually includes paying the excess if she makes an insurance claim.
13. There is no express term within the lease obliging the landlord to notify the resident if it becomes aware before she does of a potential leak that is her responsibility. However, it is responsible for keeping in good repair the exterior of the building and communal parts. An unattended leak within a property could adversely affect these shared areas. Other leaseholders and shared owners in the building can also require the landlord to enforce mutual covenants that protect them and their properties from nuisance, annoyance or disturbances. It is therefore in the landlord’s best interests to notify the resident if it becomes aware of a leak in the property. It would also be a fair and reasonable thing to do in the circumstances.
14. The landlord reasonably recognised that its communications with the resident could have been better in its stage 1 response. It apologised for not notifying her about the leak. It offered her £50 for this lack of contact. It said it had put measures in place to ensure that in the future, customer services staff would contact residents in the flats above or below a leak if appropriate. This reasonably demonstrated that it had learnt from the complaint.
15. The landlord advised the resident that she could make a claim on the buildings insurance policy. She told it she would have to pay £700 in excess costs. This was due to the excess for each flat costing £350. She asked the landlord to confirm if it would reimburse her the excess cost. It said in the stage 1 response that it would not. It also disputed that the leak was caused by a defect in the original build. It suggested that it was unlikely to be a defect given no leaks had been reported since the resident’s lease began in 2015.
16. The landlord’s response in relation to liability for the leak and associated costs was limited. It did not explain whether any investigation into the leak or pipework had taken place. It was not reasonable to suggest that it could not be a defect issue simply because no issues had previously presented. In the Ombudsman’s view, a fairer response would have been for the landlord to refer the matter to its public liability insurer to determine liability. That it did not was a failing.
17. When issuing the stage 2 response, the landlord advised the resident the NHBC warranty was unlikely to cover the leak. It provided her with an email address for its homeownership team and said that team could provide more detail on this. It also provided her with an email address for the insurance team. It said making an insurance claim remained the most likely option she could pursue.
18. The resident contacted the homeownership team 4 months later and asked it to send her information about the NHBC warranty or any other building warranties in place. In response it provided her with a copy of the insurance certificate for a 10 year building warranty with Premier Guarantee, running from July 2015 to July 2025. It advised her that after 2 years, the warranty only covered structural defects. It said that she should therefore make any claims for a leaking pipe through the buildings insurance policy rather than the warranty.
19. Although Premier Guarantee provided the warranty rather than NHBC as suggested in the stage 2 response, this is unlikely to have had a bearing on the outcome. It is common practice across providers that the warranty covers minor defects for 2 years after a property is built, with only structural defects covered for the full 10 year period.
20. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that the warranty would no longer cover the leak. However, just because something is out of warranty, does not necessarily mean the landlord is no longer liable for it. Liability depends on the circumstances of the case and the actions of all parties. As outlined above, the landlord did not fully address the resident’s concerns about liability in its complaint responses.
21. Overall, the Ombudsman find that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the leak. Although it acknowledged that its communications could have been better and demonstrated learning from the complaint, it should reasonably have referred the matter to its insurers to determine liability.
22. In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its service failure.
23. We also order the landlord to refer the matter to its liability insurer and ask it to determine who is liable for the leak and payment of any excess costs. If the  insurer declines to consider the claim or is unable to reach a conclusion due to the passage of time, the landlord should pay the resident a further £350 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its service failure.

Complaint handling

24. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint said that it would:
    1. acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt.
    2. respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
    3. respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
    4. agree any extensions to these timeframes with the resident. At both stages, the extension should not extend beyond 10 further working days without good reason.
25. The landlord has since amended its policy to more clearly explain that it will calculate the response times at both stages from the date it issues an acknowledgement. It will issue an acknowledgement at each stage within 5 working days of it receiving the complaint or escalation request. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
26. The resident submitted her complaint via a webform on 5 February 2023. It took the landlord until 23 February 2023 to send her an acknowledgement email. This was 13 working days later. It sent this only after the resident queried whether it had received her complaint. It explained that the complaint had been “put in the wrong response queue.” It apologised and explained that this happened occasionally with complaints submitted via the webform. It said it had raised this with relevant partners. This was reasonable.
27. The landlord issued the stage 1 response promptly after this on 28 February 2023. However, as this was 16 working days after the resident originally submitted her complaint, the landlord had not adhered to the target response time set out in its policy. It would have been reasonable to acknowledge this service failure in the formal complaint response. The landlord did not do so.
28. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 1 March 2023. Based on the wording of the landlord’s policy at that time, the response was due 20 working days later on 29 March 2023. It was not issued until 18 April 2023, which was 32 working days later. The landlord had, however, been in contact with the resident during this period to advise her that it needed more time to prepare the response due to “staffing issues”. It subsequently acknowledged the delay in its stage 2 response and reasonably offered her a £100 “goodwill gesture” as an apology for any inconvenience caused.
29. The Code explains that when responding to a complaint, landlords must ensure that they address all aspects of it. In its complaint responses, the landlord overlooked that in addition to its handling of the leak, the resident had also raised concerns about its responsiveness to her contact. This was a failure to follow the Code.
30. Within the online complaint form submitted on 5 February 2023, the resident said that she had spent “several weeks” trying to get the landlord to respond to her request that it cover her repair costs. The resident had made calls to the landlord but had not been successful in speaking with anyone. She then sent an email on 13 January 2023 asking that it get in contact with her. The landlord did not respond. She sent a follow up email on 24 January 2023. The landlord replied to her the following day and apologised. It said that her previous email had fallen “between the cracks”. It said it would ring her.
31. It is not evident from the records provided to this Service if the landlord did then ring the resident. Either way, she raised her dissatisfaction with its responsiveness when making her formal complaint. The landlord should therefore have reasonably addressed this within its stage 1 response. That it did not meant it did not fully address all aspects of her complaint as required by the Code.
32. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. This was due to delays in acknowledging the complaint and issuing the stage 1 response, and a failure to respond to the resident’s concerns about its responsiveness. In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by this. This is in addition to the £100 already offered by the landlord for the delay in issuing the stage 2 response.
33. Finally, we note that the landlord does not have a compensation policy. We are satisfied that, in line with our remedies guidance, the amounts of £50 and £100 offered in the complaint responses were reasonable for the communication and complaint handling failures identified. However, in order to provide more detailed guidance to staff, and in the interests of transparency to residents, we recommend that the landlord considers introducing a compensation policy.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the leak.
35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

36. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. apologise to the resident for the service failures identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
    2. pay the resident £350 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its service failures. This comprises:
       1. £100 for the service failure in the handling of the leak.
       2. £100 for the service failure in its complaint handling.
       3. the £50 offered at stage 1 for its communications and the £100 offered at stage 2 for the delayed complaint response. If these amounts have already been paid, they may be deducted from the £350 ordered.
    3. refer the case to its liability insurer and ask it to determine who is liable for  the leak and payment of any excess costs. If the insurer declines to consider the claim or is unable to reach a conclusion due to the passage of time, the landlord should pay the resident a further £350 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its service failure.

Recommendation

37. We recommend that the landlord considers introducing a compensation policy.