Bromford Housing Association Limited (202109346)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109346

Bromford Housing Association Limited

4 February 2022

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:
1. The landlord’s decision to not remove the laminate flooring cover in the kitchen prior to the resident moving in.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water damage to the laminate flooring in the kitchen of the property.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s Repairing and Maintaining policy confirms its responsibilities and the terms outlined in the tenancy agreement, to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property and to renew or remedy defective elements of a property for those fixtures and fittings the landlord is responsible for.
The Repairing and Maintaining policy required for this report, sets out the landlord’s categorised repair appointments as:
1. Immediate, a two-hour timescale that might require out-of-hours attendance for a defect that might lead to injury or property damage if left.
2. Emergency same-day appointment, which might need out-of-hours attendance for repairs that pose a risk or significant impact to the safety and/or welfare of the resident and/or property.
3. Emergency next day appointment following a call for repairs that pose a reduced risk or inconvenience to the resident if left unattended for more than two days.
4. Appointed repair as required by the resident, and dependent on the availability of the landlord’s appropriate resources for a repair where there is no risk of harm or significant inconvenience or impact on the resident.
The landlord’s Empty Homes policy confirms that “all floors will be level and free from trip hazards”. If the kitchen floor is fitted with a laminate flooring cover and it is fit for purpose, this may be left. It also states that the “laminate flooring will be left; if it’s in a good and safe condition, gifted to the new customer.”
The resident’s Tenancy Agreement under section 3.40 notes that the resident is required to report any damage to the property to the landlord in a timely manner when it was first detected.

Background

The resident is an assured non-shorthold tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 23 September 2020.
The landlord has provided a Void inspection schedule dated 16 September 2020. This document indicates that there was no sign of damage, including water damage, to the laminate flooring or the pipes in the kitchen prior to the resident moving in.

Summary of events

On 11 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord out of hours and requested the kitchen floor to be repaired as the laminate flooring was lifting. The resident at the time reported that her daughter tripped, twisted her ankle and the resident also cut her foot due to the flooring lifting and sharp edges. She informed the landlord she was next available any Tuesday or Friday for a repair appointment.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 16 November 2020 to examine the laminate flooring. The landlord’s records confirm that the landlord considered the laminate flooring cover was the resident’s responsibility.
The landlord emailed the resident on 18 November 2020 and confirmed that it was her responsibility to repair or replace the laminate floor covering, as the floor cover was not provided by the landlord. In this email, the landlord mentioned that the resident had wanted to keep the previous tenant’s flooring to replace it herself. The landlord also advised that it would be best to remove the laminate, as there was lino flooring underneath it that would be sufficient until her own flooring was installed.
The resident fitted a new laminate flooring in the kitchen, which cost the resident £450. The resident removed the previous tenant’s laminate flooring. The new laminate flooring was installed on top of the landlord’s lino flooring. The resident did not disclose the exact date of when the new laminate flooring was fitted.
On 14 and 15 May 2021, the resident reported that there was no water pressure in the bathroom, that there was no water coming out of the taps when the toilet was flushed, and the resident was unable to shower when the washing machine was in use. The landlord’s report on 8 June 2021, shows that the landlord confirmed that appointments were raised, but they were not allocated for completion on the system.
On 9 June 2021, the resident told the landlord that she contacted Bristol Water for a pressure check, “to be told it’s inside the house, it required fixing or it will cause further damage”.
The resident reported during the weekend of 12 and 13 June 2021, that she believed a water leak was coming from the pipes. An engineer attended an emergency, out-of-hours appointment on 13 June 2021. The engineer could not detect where the water was coming from, but an email from the landlord’s contractor stated that water was present around where the resident’s washing machine had been located. He reported that the resident said she had stopped using the washing machine after the leak had started and relocated it to the shed, but the water was still present.
The engineer also reported that he noticed the water pressure was very low and noise was coming from a scale inhibitor but did not clarify the location of the scale inhibitor. The engineer confirmed that this was removed and replaced with a copper pipe to maximise pressure.
The engineer ruled out other possibilities that might have caused a leak and suggested that the only other possibility would be the soil pipe in the concrete of the kitchen floor.
Due to this appointment being an out-of-hours call, not being able to detect the cause of the pool of water and as the water was “not free-flowing water pumping out”, the engineer was unable to fix or identify where the water was coming from at the time. The engineer said in this email that he told the resident to monitor this and that her landlord would be informed on Monday.
The landlord’s contractor attended to survey where the water was coming from on 15 June 2021 but again, did not locate the exact source.
On 16 June 2021, the resident complained via email that there was no communication from the landlord after this appointment for two days and more water damage was apparent on her laminate flooring. The landlord responded to this email on the same day and continued to correspond with the resident from 17 to 24 June 2021.
From email correspondence between the landlord and its contractor on 27 July 2021, the contractor stated that during his visit on 15 June 2021, he found that the resident had “removed their flooring” but he did not make clear what flooring he was referring to. The engineer said he removed a section of the flooring cover from where the water was pooling but discovered the underside of the floor was completely dry, that the plumbing to the washing machine also had no leaks. The engineer confirmed to the landlord that he moved the waste pipe, checked it was sealed correctly and said that there was no blockage in the pipe. He said that he checked the soil pipe in the living room and found no leaks.
In this email, the engineer said, “we could only put this leak down to the washing machine leaking”. However, he was unable to check the washing machine as it was removed from the property by the resident. The engineer said that the only other explanation of the water leak was that “at some point, there had been a blockage in the sewer, that had backed up into the soil pipe under the kitchen units”.
From the landlord’s repair history, the landlord’s contractor attended the property on 21 June 2021 and informed the landlord that they “found no evidence of any leak anywhere in the kitchen”.
In an email between the landlord’s staff dated 24 June 2021, the landlord stated that a contractor attended the property and confirmed that there was “no issue there at all” and that it was concluded from the conversation with the contractor that “the problem was very likely a leak from the customer’s washing machine, which then caused water to sit and trap between the two floorings”. The landlord does not stipulate the exact appointment of when the contractor attended.
The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 15 June 2021. In this, she stated that initially, the landlord did not follow up or quickly resolve her lack of water pressure. Furthermore, the resident complained about the water coming through the kitchen floor that damaged her new floor covering. The stage one response was provided to the resident on 21 July 2021, with no form of compensation as the landlord considered that the water came from the resident’s washing machine and was not responsible for the damage that occurred.
On 21 July 2021, the landlord stated in its stage one response that it had replaced the resident’s laminate flooring cover with its own vinyl floor cover and that the kitchen was fully repaired, apart from a base unit assessment arranged for 17 August 2021. From the landlord’s repair history report, an email was sent to the contractor, that confirmed they were scheduled to attend the resident’s property on 25 June 2021. This was the last repair log made.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 July 2021, in response to her stage one complaint and insisted that the water had not come from the washing machine, that it was not near the location of where the washing machine was, and that a leak came from the side panel next to the dining room.
In this email, the resident said she was told by the landlord’s contractor that there was water damage by the back door at the bottom, under the previous tenant’s occupation. However, she did not stipulate when this conversation occurred or any further details about exactly what side panel she was referring to. However, from the photographs the resident provided to the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage two, the water damage from the side panel in question appeared to be at the bottom of the kitchen wall but this is not very clear due to the quality and size of the images she provided.
In the resident’s response to the stage one complaint, the resident said that she was told that under the previous tenancy’s occupancy, there was “a rainfall between the flooring in rainy conditions”, which settled at the lowest point of the floor, that was the dining room next to the side panel. The resident said this was apparent as the side panel was rotten, there was visible water damage on the floor in the right corner of the back door, and because there was mould underneath the original laminate flooring when she lifted it to clean it.
The resident was not satisfied with the stage one response and said that the “spec and quality” of the landlord’s floor covering was not the same as the resident’s floor covering that had been damaged. The resident provided a detailed account that the water did not come from the washing machine and escalated the complaint to stage two.
The landlord informed the resident that it would take up to a further 20-working days for its stage two response. On 24 August 2021, the landlord informed the resident of a delay of an additional 10 days for the stage two response, due to sickness within the leadership team who were investigating the resident’s complaint.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 8 September 2021 and reminded the landlord that it was past the 20 days, plus 10 days of extension for the stage two response. The landlord informed the resident that the deadline for the stage two response was 21 September 2021, as it included the recent Bank holidays, and provided the stage two response via email.
In the stage two complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the photographs the resident provided in her escalation of the complaint. The landlord noted that there were minor markings to the previous resident’s laminate flooring cover but said that it was still fit for purpose for its intended use and that it has not broken its Empty Homes policy.
In this response, the landlord stated that there was no evidence of any internal pipework leaking or of any external ingress and concluded that the only other potential source would have been the resident’s washing machine appliance or its immediate hose connection. The landlord acknowledged that the resident disputed that the washing machine caused the pool of water but stated that “Unfortunately, this is not conclusive to the water coming from another source as if the leak originally came from your appliance, it may have pooled or resettled from capillary action from under the flooring.”
The resident responded to the stage two response, stating that she would escalate the complaint further as the landlord did not include her conversation with the landlord’s contractors. The resident stated this excluded what the landlord’s contractor said as the engineer pointed out that the landlord would have realised the previous water damage if it had removed the flooring left by the previous tenant.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision to not remove the laminate flooring cover in the kitchen prior to the resident moving in.

The landlord’s records show that the resident viewed the property twice and signed the tenancy on 23 September 2020. The resident saw the previous tenant’s laminate flooring in the kitchen and the condition it was in prior to moving in.
The landlord conducted a Void inspection prior to the resident moving in. This report shows that the landlord checked the kitchen floor prior to the resident moving in, following its Empty Homes policy. The inspection checked that all fitted floor finishes in the kitchen were level and cleaned.
As the kitchen floor was concluded as such, it would have been unreasonable to expect the landlord to have lifted or removed the laminate flooring cover when it didn’t show any signs of damage at the time of the inspection.
The resident said that she originally requested the laminate flooring to be removed several times, face to face, prior to moving in but was ignored and left to believe she had no other option but to accept the laminate flooring cover. The landlord’s view, as confirmed in internal emails between staff, is that it checked with the resident about flooring and it understood that she wanted to keep this, but due to the speed of the sign-up, the landlord did not complete a ‘Gifting Form’, regarding whether the resident asked or wanted the flooring to remain down.
There isn’t any evidence provided from the resident or the landlord that corroborates whether the resident wanted the previous resident’s laminate flooring cover, or any evidence of a request to remove the flooring prior to moving in and/or immediately after the resident moved in.
The landlord’s Empty Homes policy states that “all floors will be level and free from trip hazards” and regarding the kitchen floor, if laminate flooring cover is fitted and is fit for purpose that this may be left. It also states that the “laminate flooring will be left; if it’s in a good and safe condition, gifted to the new customer.” The fact that the laminate flooring was left in the property was therefore not unreasonable in itself. Consequently, neither was the view that the flooring was the resident’s responsibility as it was not the landlord’s flooring cover and it was gifted to the resident, making it the resident’s responsibility and not the landlord’s obligation. However, the landlord did not complete the relevant ‘Gifting Form’ it was meant to complete and did not apologise to the resident for this mistake.
On 11 November 2020, the resident reported that the laminate flooring was lifting, and it caused a trip hazard. However, this was reported nearly two months after the resident started her tenancy, and based on the Void inspection, there is no evidence that the landlord would have been able to predict or would have reasonably known before the resident moved in that the laminate flooring cover would lift.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 16 November 2020 to inspect the laminate flooring and the landlord concluded that this wasn’t the landlord’s responsibility to repair. From the evidence provided by the landlord, there aren’t any notes or reports from the contractor who attended this appointment, to understand the quality and condition of the laminate flooring cover at the time. However, at the point of the Void Inspection on 23 September 2020, the kitchen floor was concluded to be level and clean.
Furthermore, a substantial amount of time had passed since the resident moved in to suggest that it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the responsibility for the condition of the laminate flooring wasn’t the landlord’s. The resident had occupied the property since the Void Inspection, did not evidently reject the laminate flooring cover as a gift and did not raise concerns about the flooring immediately after moving in. Therefore, even if the flooring was found to be in the condition which the resident reported, it remains reasonable that the landlord declined to repair or replace it. Nevertheless, the landlord followed its Repairing and Maintaining policy and attended the property for an appointed repair.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water damage to the laminate flooring in the kitchen of the property.

It is not disputed that the damage to the laminate flooring occurred due to the water that was first reported on the weekend of the 12 and 13 of June 2021. The landlord followed its repair appointment procedure from the Repairing and Maintaining policy as an engineer attended the property on 13 June 2021 as an out-of-hours attendance.
On 15 June 2021, the resident made a formal complaint about the lack of communication regarding the water leak that was causing further damage to the resident’s laminate flooring cover.
As the water was still present on 13 June 2021, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have contacted the resident on Monday 14 June 2021, following the appointment of 13 June 2021 where the engineer had been unable to trace the leak and in line with the engineer’s assurance that this would happen. However, it is evident from the repair history report that the landlord logged the water leak on Monday 14 June 2021. While the engineer’s report detailed that the water was not free-flowing, pumping water, the landlord’s contractor then attended the following day, on 15 June 2021, to inspect the area.
The landlord therefore escalated and completed the inspection within a reasonable time, according to the Repairing and Maintaining policy as this repair posed a reduced risk and/or inconvenience to the resident, if it was left unattended for more than two days, when the water was not free-flowing or propelling out. The landlord also could not find any water leak and concluded from the engineer’s appointment on 13 June 2021, that the likely cause of the water was from the washing machine and that it was not an ongoing leak.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 June 2021 and complained that the landlord did not update her or make further arrangements after the appointment from 15 June 2021. However, the landlord put this right by replying to the resident that same day.
The landlord removed the resident’s laminate flooring cover, fitted a new vinyl floor covering and sealed the kitchen floor prior to 21 July 2021. From the repair history, the landlord’s contractor last attended the property on 25 June 2021. The landlord reasonably relied on the evidence of its contractors to conclude that the water damage to the flooring was not caused by anything which it was responsible for repairing under the Tenancy Agreement or Repairing and Maintaining policy, but that the damage had been caused by the resident’s washing machine. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord declined to reimburse the resident for the cost of the laminate flooring that she had installed, and it was reasonable that it replaced the flooring with new vinyl flooring.
From emails between the landlord’s staff, the landlord noted that the resident said that she lifted the old laminate flooring cover, observed mould underneath it, and fit new laminate flooring cover on top of the flooring cover underneath. From this email, it is apparent that the resident did not inform the landlord immediately of the presence of mould at this time and did not request for the previous resident’s flooring to be cleaned, removed, or replaced at the time. Therefore, the landlord ruled out its responsibility and concluded that the resident did not follow their Tenancy Agreement as she did not notify the landlord of any signs of water damage such as mould, which she mentioned in her stage one complaint response.
Within these emails, the landlord said it would not have been able to foresee or prevent the resident’s new laminate flooring cover from being damaged as the landlord did not know and/or had any reasons to investigate underneath the flooring cover.
However, as there was a dispute regarding the causation of the water damage to the resident’s laminate flooring cover, the landlord appropriately inspected all aspects of where the water could have originated from when it was made aware of reports of water damage.
It was undisputed that there was mould under the previous tenant’s laminate flooring by the landlord and the landlord did not comment on the photographs the resident provided after the stage one response. However, prior to the water damage, it would not have been able to respond to the reports of mould under the flooring as the resident had not made it aware or put it ‘on notice’ of any potential repairing obligations.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to not remove the previous resident’s laminate flooring cover before the resident moved in.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the resident’s laminate flooring cover in the kitchen caused by water damage.

Reasons

The landlord’s decision to not remove the laminate flooring cover in the kitchen prior to the resident moving in.

The landlord confirmed the previous resident’s laminate flooring cover was not the responsibility of the landlord as there was no evidence to suggest that it was not fit for purpose prior to the resident moving in, as per its Empty Homes policy, and it was of the view that the resident had accepted the flooring, although it acknowledged that it hadn’t completed a “Gifting Form”. The resident has said that she did not want to keep the flooring, but reluctantly accepted it. There is no evidence that the resident made clear that she did not want the flooring, either prior to moving in or shortly after, and it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that it became her responsibility once she moved into the property.
It was also reasonable for the landlord to conclude that it did not have any reason to remove or replace the flooring cover before the resident moved in because its void inspection found the flooring cover to meet the appropriate standard.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water damage to the laminate flooring in the kitchen of the property.

Reasonable action was taken by the landlord in the way it investigated and responded to report of water damage to the laminate flooring.
The minor delay in the landlord’s response was due to not initially identifying the source of the water damage, which had been reported as a leak. This delay was not unreasonable.
It was reasonable for the landlord to decline the resident’s request for £450 compensation. The landlord’s conclusion that it was unable to find that the water damage was caused by a repair it was responsible for was based on the outcome of inspection of the affected areas and was reasonable given the evidence it held at the time. That the landlord fitted a new vinyl floor covering was reasonable.