One Housing Group Limited (202001943)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001943

One Housing Group Limited

26 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of repair issues with the resident’s Heat Interface Unit (HIU).

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of a leak in the building’s communal riser cupboard.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident first submitted a complaint to the landlord about problems with the HIU and his hot water supply on 17 March 2017. Neither party has provided evidence to indicate that this complaint progressed fully through the landlord’s complaints process.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. As a result, this investigation will consider the complaint raised by the resident in early 2020 that exhausted the landlord’s complaints process on 30 July 2020.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a shared owner of his property having purchased it in July 2016. The property is a one bedroom flat.
On 16 April 2019 the resident reported that his HIU was failing. A HIU operates as an alternative to a boiler in an individual property. In a block such as the one in which the resident lives, a central boiler provides heating and hot water to the entire complex and a HIU uses the heat distributed from this network to service an individual property. The units separate the central and individual systems via a plate heat exchanger which transfers thermal energy from a fluid in the central system to a fluid in the individual system.
On 30 April 2019 and 13 May 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident in response to a reported fault with his HIU. It noted that, because this was a fault with his personal unit, the repair responsibility fell with the resident. It noted that it was happy to diagnose the fault and install a replacement part free of charge once the resident purchased the part.
In February 2020 the communal pipework at the block failed resulting in major leaks and some residents being left without heating and hot water. The landlord investigated the extent of the water damage and noted it had largely affected communal areas, with only two leaseholders reporting damage inside their properties. The landlord commenced work on the communal boiler and pipework which was replaced over the course of February, March and April 2020. The old pipework was replaced with new stainless-steel pipes. Residents were provided with £200 compensation each in recognition of the disruption and inconvenience they experienced.
On 19 February 2020 a contractor attended the property to carry out an inspection of the HIU. The contractor provided its report to the landlord stating that the HIU was leaking. It stated that “it was clear” that the HIU had never been serviced and that was why it was failing. It also noted that the resident had asked a private contractor to assess the HIU who suggested replacing it due to its poor condition, and the landlord’s contractor had advised the resident the same.
On 1 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord, following a group of residents’ email to the landlord about the handling of the works following the failure of the pipes system in February 2020. The resident stated that the water heating system and his heating interface unit were “terrible”, noting that the frequency with which they stopped working was ridiculous. He considered this to be due to poor descaling and ended up costing residents hundreds of pounds annually to fix.
On 4 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident stating it understood that the property currently had heating and hot water. On 5 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord noting that his hot water was failing multiple times a year, that it currently didn’t work and that he considered this to be due to limescale build up in the “pm valve.”
On 13 March 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord, noting that he had repeatedly been without hot water during the period in which he had lived at the property and had spent a significant amount of money on his HIU which nevertheless would need to be replaced. He considered the damage to likely be caused by debris and limescale from the central boiler and stated that the landlord was “basically” not providing him with hot water.
On the same day the landlord wrote to the resident noting his responsibility under the lease to repair his HIU. It noted his complaint that he believed the damage to the HIU was likely caused by debris and limescale from the central boiler and stated that this would be investigated. It noted a call it had made that day to arrange for an engineer to attend and inspect the issue would have been a step towards understanding the cause of the failure, but the resident had declined this. It had asked the resident to forward the reports he had from his own engineers who had attended, or any other evidence to support his view of the landlord’s fault or that confirmed he had been carrying out the annual servicing of the HIU as required of such units. It again extended the offer of the engineer attending to investigate the issue as to why the resident had no hot water.
The resident responded on the same day, 13 March 2020, providing the email communications he had with contractors who had previously inspected the HIU. He asked the landlord to arrange for the contractor to attend and carry out the inspection. He stated he had no hot water or heating for approximately three weeks and had “barely working” hot water for over three years. He stated that a servicing had been carried out during each of the breakdown call outs that had occurred, which were followed up by repairs often involving the replacement of parts in excess of £200 and labour costs in excess of £100. He noted these breakdowns and subsequent servicing were occurring every 3-9 months.
On 17 March 2020 the landlord replied to the email noting that it would make arrangements for its engineer to attend and report back. It noted however that, as it had previously explained, it was unable to authorise the repair of the HIU unless there was evidence that the landlord was responsible or that something it had done had contributed to the unit not working.
On 23 March 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to state that his HIU was “in a very bad state” and he had been advised to replace it for an estimated cost of £2,657.16. He stated that when he moved into the property he had “not working” hot water, heating and a HIU that was in “a terrible condition”. He noted that the engineer sent out by the landlord was of the view that the HIU never adequately been serviced.
On 6 April 2020 wrote to the residents at the block setting out the work that had been carried out following the failure of the communal pipework in February 2020. It noted that having spoken to “many” leaseholders, only two had reported damage inside their homes.
On the same day, 6 April 2020, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response regarding the problems with the HIU. It apologised for the delay in responding which had been caused by the landlord’s focus on delivering a critical repairs service during the Covid-19 lockdown period. It set out the following:
1. Members of the property services team had contacted the resident to request provision of the HIU servicing records and call out reports to assist with this investigation into the complaint. The resident had not provided these.
2. Whilst the maintenance of HIU’s is the responsibility of a leaseholder, it had agreed to arrange for contractors to attend the property and inspect the HIU. It set out the findings of the contractor’s inspection from 19 February 2020, that the HIU had never been serviced and this was why it was failing.
3. The landlord noted that the issues the resident had experienced with the HIU over the previous 3 years were not linked to the failed pipework in February 2020. It stated that it had over 90 properties in the block, and only two leaseholders had reported issues with their HIU which it and its contractors suspected was due to a lack of regular maintenance. It stated that there was no evidence of debris in the water to clog the HIU.
4. The resident was aware that his lease established his responsibility for the servicing and repair of the HIU. Much like a traditional gas boiler, it needed to be maintained in line with manufacturers guidance, which was an annual service. Having reviewed the complaint it was unable to uphold it, given there was no evidence of a failure by the landlord to uphold its obligations.
On 7 April 2020 the resident telephoned the landlord to state that he was unhappy that it had taken so long for things to “get to this position” and stated that he still believed the landlord to be liable for the HIU. The resident stated he had carried out repairs every three to six months which cost him hundreds of pounds and would not last longer than this period before another repair was required. The landlord responded on the following day, 8 April 2020, noting it would look into the issues raised. Its internal emails noted that the resident should be advised in response of the “as seen” clause that would have been part of the purchase agreement, and that he would have needed to rely on his own surveys.
On 8 April 2020 in the evening the resident called and wrote to the landlord to report that a leak had occurred in the communal riser cupboard. The resident stated in an email the next day that the landlord had advised him on the telephone that someone would attend that evening to deal with the leak.
The resident confirmed the next morning, 9 April 2020, in another email to the landlord that he had been calling repeatedly with no resolution, and that he had been emptying buckets of water in an attempt to contain the leak which meant he hadn’t slept. The landlord replied noting that its contractors had been instructed to attend as soon as possible and they were treating the matter as an emergency. The landlord also stated that emergency priority repair jobs were attended to within 24 hours, and that the resident should not have been told that a contractor would attend the previous night.
On 9 April 2020 the landlord’s contractors undertook a temporary fix on the pipe in the communal riser cupboard.
On the same day, 9 April 2020 the resident wrote to his MP noting that he had had regularly interrupted hot water and heating during the time since he had moved into the property in July 2016, and that his HIU had required a repair every 3-6 months. He stated that the landlord and the previous owner sold him a property that had no hot water, even though the landlord’s website set out that it was the point of contact and “requires the right to sell the property and for the property to be in a fully repaired condition on sale”. He stated that it had taken him years to establish that the HIU was at least beyond repair due to lack of servicing and would cost at least £3,000 to replace.
The resident also noted there was a leak at the time in the communal hallway resulting in water seeping from the water meter cupboard to “at least” the threshold of his door. He reported having called the landlord over the previous twelve hours to arrange for someone to come and stop the leak. He also noted that he didn’t know the legal position on shared ownership but did not want to keep his share in the property. He requested the MP’s assistance in seeking a resolution from the landlord.
On the same day, 9 April 2020, the landlord’s internal emails noted that when the sale had gone ahead, it had been between the original leaseholder and the resident. An email in reply noted that the lease began with a shared ownership sale that occurred in 2016. The staff member who processed the sale had reviewed its communication with the resident and could not find any enquiries in relation to the HIU. An email from the legal team noted that, provided the resident hadn’t “asked the question” in respect of the HIU, the burden was on him as a buyer to assess its condition.
On 10 April 2020 the resident rang the landlord on three occasions to seek an update and request a repair to the leak in the communal area.
On 15 April 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident and set out:
1. It was already dealing with a complaint regarding the HIU and so would not be opening a new complaint on that case, instead confirming the final response would be provided to him promptly following the earlier response on 6 April 2020.
2. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding the leak which he felt may risk flooding his flat. Its contractors had inspected the affected area and confirmed the leak was in the riser cupboards at the end of the corridor, and as such the leak would not affect his flat. Its contractors would be replacing the pipework that week and making new connections the next week. It stated that the issue would not be registered as a formal complaint given it was not affecting his property and it had arrangements in place to rectify the leak accordingly.
On the same day the resident replied to the landlord stating that it was an updated complaint. He stated that he had found out that the quality of water being supplied from the communal boilers was bad enough at times that it could damage the HIU. It stated that because the water from the communal boilers “probably” contains debris as evidence by numerous other residents facing similar issues, the advice to replace the HIU could be a further waste of money for him. He noted that he was showering out of a bucket.
He additionally stated that he had reported the leak in the riser cupboards multiple times since 8 April 2020, attaching photos noting that the water had saturated the ground up to the threshold of his door. He stated that this contradicted the contractor’s advice to the landlord that the leak was contained to the riser cupboards. He requested that the landlord buy back his 40% share of the property.
On 17 April 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord at 3am noting that he had been having significantly impacted sleeping patterns for over a week due to the need to continuously empty the bucket that was collecting the water. He noted the rider cupboards had been closed while the pipes had been replaced, which made it harder to access and empty the bucket.
On the same day the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging receipt of his update and stating that the leak issue would be investigated, and a formal complaint raised. It noted residents would be receiving a letter that day to confirm contractors would be carrying out essential repairs to the riser cupboard in relation to the leak on 20 April 2020.
The landlord’s internal emails of that day include a discussion of the resident’s concerns. A staff member noted that she had previously told the resident that the leak shouldn’t be affecting his flat, but that the resident had provided video and photographic evidence that the leak was in fact reaching the flat and risked causing damage. It specifically noted the resident’s comment that “the water [had] saturated the ground up to the threshold of [his] door.” It was discussed that the pipework was being replaced at the block, and that the only option prior to this being finalised would be to turn the pipework off to the entire site which would leave residents without water, hot or otherwise. It was noted the repair would be finalised within the next two weeks, and that no damage had occurred to the resident’s property or the communal landing.
On the same day the landlord also received an enquiry from the resident’s MP seeking an update regarding the HIU complaint. The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day regarding the HIU complaint, stating that it has spoken to its legal team about comments the resident had made that the HIU was not working when he purchased the property. The legal team had confirmed that:
1. Given the resident purchased the property directly from another shared owner he would have had to rely on his own searches of the property and raise any concerns with the shared owner at the time, and his legal representative would have been involved with this. It noted the resident had stated he was unable to contact his previous legal representative. It explained that the landlord’s role was similar to that of an estate agent in facilitating the sales process but with each party having a legal representative.
2. It had no record of whether the previous owner knew the HIU was not working. As a result it could not accept responsibility for repairs to the HIU. It noted it had agreed to send its contractors to investigate the issue and provide the results to the resident as a good will gesture. It had also recommended to the resident that he speak to his neighbours to ask about which contractors they use to service their HIUs, given the resident had stated his contractors had not been in a position to do so.
On 18 April 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord noting that he had been averaging two to three hours of sleep per night due to the need to get up and change the bucket, which was collecting water from the communal leak, and that he had to control the spread of water over the previous ten days. He provided photos showing that the water had reached the boundary to his apartment. He requested again that the landlord buy back his share of the property and noted he would not be paying any rent or service charge.
On 20 April 2020 the communal pipework was renewed. The landlord wrote to the resident noting that the communication sent to the resident about the HIU complaint on 17 April 2020 constituted its final response. It noted that its staff had contacted the resident to advise that its contractors would be fixing the leak, and that a formal complaint was due to the resident on this issue by 6 May 2020.
On 4 May 2020 the landlord provided its complaint response to the resident noting that:
1. The resident was aware from previous communication that the landlord had arranged for contractors to undertake replacement pipe works at the property. The works commenced following completion of similar works at neighbouring landlord properties, and was scheduled to be completed that month. It had written to residents every two weeks since the work commenced to keep them updated with the progress of the works, and a staff member on site Monday to Friday who was the main point of contact for residents during the works.
2. Prior to the resident’s report of the leak in the communal riser cupboard adjacent to his flat, its contractors had reported the issue. They undertook a temporary fix on the pipe on 9 April 2020 and renewed the pipework on 20 April 2020. It noted that the resident was concerned that the leak would cause damage to his property, but that it had inspected the leak and ascertained it was within the confines of the communal riser cupboard and the dripping water was exiting down through the riser cupboard and into the basement carpark below. The resident had been advised of this, but it also understood his concerns and the reasons why he felt it necessary to place a bucket in the communal riser cupboard to collect the water.
3. It partially upheld the complaint. It did not consider there to have been any service failure given the repair was completed in line with its service expectations. However it appreciated the concern the resident had for his property and the reasons why he placed a bucket in the communal riser cupboard. In recognition of this and as a goodwill gesture, it made an offer of £50 to him.
On the same day, the landlord replied to the resident’s MP noting that it had engaged with the resident repeatedly about the repair issue. It noted that the resident had been disputing the repair responsibility for the unit and had informed the landlord that when he purchased the property from the previous owner that the HIU was not working. It expressed that it empathised with the resident’s situation, but also noted that the terms of his lease set out ownership responsibilities for this component and that it falls within the remit of the leaseholder. It had on a number of occasions tried to explain this to the resident and provided him with advice on remedying the unit.
On 4 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP, setting out various points including that any debris or discolouration of the hot water supply from a resident’s hot water taps would be as a result of lack of maintenance of their HIU. It stated this was not caused by contamination stemming from the landlord’s central boiler supply.
On 9 July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to challenge its response to the MP and request that the complaint be escalated. In response to the landlord’s position as set out to the MP on 4 June 2020 that there was not contamination coming from the central supply, he sent it pictures of blue material which he considered belonged to the communal pipes in the HIU. He also stated that the water entering the HIUs was causing damage and should be treated to avoid the build-up of limescale which was causing parts of the HIU to fail. He set out that various other residents had told him they were having similar problems.
On 10 July 2020 the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it would respond individually to any other residents listed in the resident’s communication, so as to avoid any breach of GDPR requirements given the other residents hadn’t provided the landlord with their consent for the resident to act on their behalf.
On 30 July 2020 the landlord provided its final complaint response regarding the resident’s HIU in which it set out the following points:
1. It acknowledged the disruption to residents of the property following the “catastrophic failure” of the communal pipework in February 2020 and again offered its apologies for this. It set out that it had offered each resident compensation at an increased level above its state policy amount, which resulted in £200 being added to service charge accounts. It also did not pass on the costs of repairing the pipework to leaseholders.
2. It was unable to comment on the presence of blue material or sediment in the photographs of the HIU or the assertion that the material came from the communal water supply. It noted that the water in the communal supply was chemically treated as part of the regular planned maintenance visits, and that water testing was also undertaken as part of these visits.
3. It provided the contractor’s report regarding the burst pipes as requested by the resident. It also provided the specifications and servicing records of the boiler.
4. In response to the resident’s request that the resident’s association be granted access to the plantroom so that they could instruct a commercial contractor to carry out a survey and test the communal water, it stated that it was unable to agree to the request. It justified this position on the basis that the plant room contained a large amount of equipment and for health and safety reasons was considered a ‘controlled access area’ for authorised personnel only.
5. It noted that its contractors had undertaken the full replacement of pipework, risers, valves, strainers and additional shut offs, which contradicted the resident’s position that he was told by the contractors that not all the work had gone ahead. It noted that the contractor’s position was that none of its staff had had such a conversation with the resident or other residents. The work had been signed off as meeting building regulations by an external assessor.
6. It had advised the resident previously on multiple occasions that in line with his lease, the HIU was his responsibility to maintain and repair. It noted that the resident should have checked this as part of the purchase of the property and the landlord could not be held liable for it. As a gesture of goodwill, it had previously sent engineers to check the HIU and they had advised that it required parts/replacing. It stated that it would not be undertaking this work.
7. It noted that it would not be upholding the complaint as there was no evidence of service failure by the landlord in relation to the communal pipework or the resident’s HIU. It also noted that the servicing and maintenance of the communal system had been carried out in accordance with statutory and regulatory obligations.

Policies and Procedures

The resident’s lease sets out at clause 3.4 that the resident is responsible for repairing and keeping the premises in good and substantial repair and condition. The premises include the service media within and exclusively servicing the premises.
As set out in clause 5.3(b) of the lease, the landlord is responsible for the tanks and other gas, electrical, drainage, ventilation and water apparatus and machinery in, under and upon the building which are not the responsibility of the leaseholder, including the communal boiler plant.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy sets out at section 6.0 that the landlord is not responsible for the gas safety and servicing for leaseholder and shared owner properties. It does note however that it will work to assist and enable owners to comply with their obligations, where possible.
Section 10.2 of the policy states that repairs to a resident’s home involving a leaking water or heaping pipe, tank or cistern will be addressed within one working day.
Section 16.0 of the policy notes that it will manage repairs to shared communal areas to the same timeframe and standard as internal repairs. When a repair affects residents’ day to day usage of their own homes, the landlord will aim to keep affected residents updated of progress. Occasionally repairs to such installations may be temporarily remedied and the bulk of the work may be deferred in to a planned programme for cost efficiency.

Assessment and findings

HIU repair issues

According to the terms of the lease and the landlord’s repair policy, the resident is responsible for the repair and maintenance of his HIU system. The resident has disputed that this is the case and expressed that the regular problems with the HIU have caused him distress, inconvenience and had a significant financial impact on him. Nevertheless, the landlord has maintained a consistent position over the course of its communication with both the resident and his MP that it is not obligated to carry out any repair or replacement work. The landlord’s internal communications demonstrate that it carried out a thorough investigation into the issue to establish with certainty that it had no repair obligation to the resident. Various emails note that it had reviewed the lease and its repairs policy to justify its position.
The landlord also sought input from the resident to diagnose the issue in requesting he provide records of the HIU callouts and servicing his own contractors had undertaken. The landlord stated that the resident did not provide these. The landlord also made goodwill offers to the resident to organise inspections of the HIU by its own contractors and the installation of a particular part should the resident decide to purchase it as a solution to the repair issue. The results of the inspection indicated that the HIU had likely never received its annual service, which the landlord established with its contractors and in communication with the resident to be necessary to keep it in good working condition. Evidence has been provided that this was also communicated to the resident previously in 2019.
The landlord sought advice from its legal team to establish that the property would have been sold “as seen”, meaning it would have been the responsibility of the resident’s legal representative to ensure any relevant checks to the property were carried out. It carried out an investigation of its records from that time to this end, noting that there were no records of the resident contacting it with any questions about the HIU, its condition or the repair responsibilities regarding this. The actions taken by the landlord in making enquiries with its legal team were reasonable given they confirmed the repair responsibility for the HIU lay with the resident, as had been communicated to him on multiple occasions.
It noted in its investigation that the issue with the communal pipework that had arisen in February 2020 was not related to the issues the resident was having with his HIU. The records available establish that this possibility was considered and investigated, and the landlord justified its position noting that only two of ninety in the block had reported issues with the HIU. Its contractor’s position was that this was likely due to a lack of servicing, which supported the position established on the basis of the inspections of the resident’s HIU rather than a broader issue being caused to multiple HIUs by the failure of the communal piping. The resident meanwhile did not provide any evidence that the fault with the HIU was due to a wider failure with the communal system.
When pressed by the resident on these issues and the possibility of other communal problems causing problems with the HIU, it provided the servicing records and other evidence to him. It maintained a consistent position that it had carried out its statutory and regulatory obligations to service the communal parts of the block and relied on the evidence of its contractors to refute the claims made by the resident that it was at fault for the HIU issues. It was entitled to do this given the specialised knowledge of its contractors and addressed each of the potential issues raised by the resident in turn on the basis of the contractor evidence.
It repeatedly communicated with the resident to explain the term of the lease and made an offer to organise the inspection and then later to install a replacement part should the resident purchase it. It also attempted to provide other assistance to the resident in advising him to potentially speak to his neighbours about their contractors should he be unhappy with his own in terms of progressing the necessary works to the HIU. In this way it complied with the terms of its repairs and maintenance policy to “assist and enable owners to comply with their obligations.”

Communal leak

The resident first reported the leak in the communal riser cupboard on 8 April 2020, calling and emailing the landlord multiple times over the course of the night. The landlord attended the next day to carry out a temporary fix of the issue, which was in line with its emergency call-out times as set out in its repair policy. It noted that final works would be completed on 20 April 2020 as part of its upgrading of the communal pipework. Nevertheless, the issue persisted over approximately the next twelve days. The resident repeatedly filled and emptied a bucket that he put in place in the cupboard to attempt to stem the leak issue due to concerns he had that left untreated the leak would cause water damage to his property. The landlord’s contractors attended the property on repeated occasions over this period to establish what could be done to address the leak.
In discussing the issue with the resident over that period, the landlord initially stated that there was no risk of the leak causing damage to the property, as it was contained to the riser cupboard. The resident disputed this however, sending photos to the landlord on 15 April 2020 to establish that the water was reaching the boundaries of his property when left unattended. Following receipt of this communication the landlord’s internal emails indicate that it considered whether a resolution could be implemented prior to 20 April 2020.
The evidence indicates that the landlord’s staff discussed that the only option to fully address the leak prior to the finalisation of the communal pipework replacement would be to turn the water and heating off to the entire block. It considered this not to be a feasible course of action and that, while the resident had reported the water to be getting as far as the boundary to his property, no damage had been caused to the property or communal landing. This was a reasonable approach to take when considering the impact the decision would have had on the rest of the residents in the block, though inevitably left the resident to deal with the leak in continuing to empty the bucket.
The repair work took between two and three weeks to carry out from the time the resident first raised the issue of the leak. The landlord’s decision to carry out the repair works at the same time as the broader communal works that were already being undertaken was reasonable given the alternative would have been to cut off the water and heating for the rest of the block. Nevertheless, it is not disputed by the landlord that the length of time the repair was outstanding caused distress and inconvenience for the resident. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord made an offer of £50 compensation to the resident in recognition of these factors. The evidence supports the position that the landlord made a reasonable decision considering all the circumstances of the case, balancing its responsibility to both the resident and the other residents in the block.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding the complaint about the resident’s HIU.

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord regarding the complaint about its response to the communal leak.

Reasons

The landlord has repeatedly stated that the resident is responsible for the repair and, if necessary, replacement of his HIU. This position is supported by the landlord’s policies and the terms of the resident’s lease. It has investigated this position, seeking advice from its legal department who confirmed that the resident was responsible for carrying out checks on the condition of the property and any appliances when he became a shared owner. The landlord acted appropriately in investigating whether other communal issues were causing damage of the HIU, and also attempted to assist the resident by arranging its own contractors to attend and carry out an inspection of the HIU.

The communal leak caused significant inconvenience to the resident who repeatedly filled and empty a bucket in the cupboard to avoid water ingress in his property. Following minor emergency works the day after the report, the landlord considered its position and decided not to undertake any other repair work prior to the finalisation of the communal works that were occurring at the time. This was reasonable given the alternative would be to shut down the heating and water for the entire block, and the landlord acted appropriately in making an offer of compensation to the resident for this inconvenience.

Recommendations

I make the following recommendation:

That the landlord, within the next four weeks, pay to the resident compensation of £50 as set out in its original offer.

The finding of reasonable redress is contingent upon the above recommendation being implemented.