Gloucester City Homes Limited (201916109)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201916109

Gloucester City Homes Limited

31 January 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 resident has complained that:
1. The landlord failed to respond to their initial reports of a fly infestation
2. The landlord took too long to respond to a leak and the resulting remedial works
3. The landlord took too long to remove an abandoned mattress by the property

Background

This complaint followed a leak into the resident’s kitchen from the flat above on 1 December 2019.
The landlord responded the safe day to arrange a repair to ‘make safe’ the property. The leak had came from the upstairs neighbour’s wet room. As such the neighbour had been advised not to use the wet room. The neighbour explained they were going on holiday and so any repair would need to wait for their return.
When the landlord visited on 13 December no ongoing leak was found. Therefore the contractor concluded with the wet room not in use during the neighbour’s holiday the leak would not return. It is reasonable for the landlord to follow the information it receives from appropriately qualified staff and contractors, including when a leak has been determined to have been made safe.
Prior to the leak however, the tenant had raised issues that would later feature in the complaint about the handling of leak:
1. The resident had reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) concerns about the upstairs neighbour in the past. The wider ASB case was dealt with separately to this complaint and so is not part of this assessment. However it did mean the resident had no confidence that the neighbour was necessarily way as reported or that they would refrain from using the wet room and provide access for repairs as requested.
2. The resident had reported some form of fly issue (later described as an infestation) in August and October 2019. This was found to be drain flies and a result of a hidden leak from the upstairs wet room until the large leak on 1 December.
The landlord arranged the follow up repairs on the neighbour’s return. The resident had thought this would be on 8 January. The landlord arranged an inspection for 21 January explaining that with no ongoing leak the repair did not need to be handled as an emergency repair.
The formal complaint was submitted (3 December) immediately after the leak was reported (1 December). There was a significant ongoing exchange of emails during December, including a letter summarising the landlord’s actions sent on 19 December. The actual stage 1 response was sent on 20 January 2020 and focused on the inspection due the next day. IT noted that the 2 visits by the pest control company in December had meant the resident had not seen any flies since.
On 3 February the resident reported toilet waste flowing from the upstairs flat on the outside of the pipe and leaking onto the resident’s bathroom floor. This occurred while contractors were in the resident’s property, however the resident then complained they refused to ‘go on record’ about the incident. Regardless, the landlord’s property care manage did not dispute the report from the resident about toilet waste entering their home from the property above.
The resident arranged hotel accommodation following the toilet waste leak. The landlord’s Head of Development explained on 5 February that:
1. The landlord took responsibility for the situation – that its work to the upstairs flat 4 years ago had been substandard and resulted in the leaks into their home
2. That the repairs were almost complete, but access was required to the resident flat. The resident had delayed access while they waited for an inspection by the Environmental Health Department.
3. In terms of the works: they could begin when the resident provided access, the landlord would deep clean the bathroom, restore it to full use, install temporary sink, and replace the kitchen ceiling. It offered use of a guest flat during the works. It confirmed all its repair staff were fully ‘vetted.’
The resident did not want the landlord to access the property without them. Equally however they did not want loud machinery to be used due to a health condition. The landlord had explained some heavy machinery would be used for removing the bathroom flooring. This created an impasse. The resident also refused access to the contractors on 8 February.
The resident raised in their escalated complaint (10 February):
1. That the tenant did not go on holiday until 4 December, and so the repairs could have been done 1-4 December, avoiding the 5 week wait for their return
2. That they accepted the landlord’s explanation of the leak and proposed repairs. But had concerns how wear and tear had caused the leak just 4 years after the installation. They felt the wet room should not be used without more water seals in a first floor property.
3. That the landlord had missed the opportunity to address the drain flies in August and October 2019 (and as such missed the opportunity to identify that there may be stagnant water nearby)
4. An mattress was left outside their home in August and seen by the landlord at the time. It was still in place at the end of October when the landlord agreed to have it removed after the tenant chased the matter. They felt this was evidence of the landlord’s standard of service.
On the 6 February the Environmental Health Department confirmed to the landlord it wouldn’t take any action as it was satisfied with the plan in place by the landlord.
In terms of the ongoing repairs:
1. The waste pipe was removed on 9 February
2. The resident continued to refused the use of the machinery for removing the concrete floor; and reported the contractors touch handles after handling the waste pipe; the resident continued to refuse access without their attendance;
3. The landlord raised the prospect of securing an injunction for the works with the resident on 11 February. It highlighted the offer of alternative accommodation, the need for the repairs, and the mitigations already offered
4. The resident agreed to allow access if the machinery was not used and shower facilities were provided elsewhere. They continued to raise the complaint that the lack of shower facilities, the time taken to complete repairs, and the contamination of their home by the leak and the contractors was the entirely the landlord’s fault
5. There was then a further dispute over the alternative accommodation. The landlord offered to pay for locks on the doors in the property where contractors did not need to access; provide access to a guest flat; and cover taxi costs. The resident also wanted the landlord to pay hotel accommodation for 3 days while dust settled. The landlord refused (unless the accommodation was funded by compensation already offered) as the property was to be sealed off and guest accommodation provide as respite from any noise.
The stage 2 response (17 February) explained:
1. That its response was as explained above at the end of the email exchanges about the repairs. It would provide the locks, dust sheets, sealed rooms, guest accommodation, taxi fares and compensation (£500). However hotel accommodation would only be funded from the compensation.
2. That the earlier visits in 2019 would not likely have resulted in a different outcome. The landlord felt without further evidence the housing service call back in October would likely have again explained pests are the resident’s responsibility.
3. In terms of the mattress it explained once it was notified that the mattress remained in place it had arranged its removal.
The stage 3 (final – 20 March) response followed a panel meeting with the resident and explained:
1. It was sorry for not being as responsive as it could have been, and the resident would have a single point of contact to help simplify the ongoing communication
2. The landlord had agreed a way to complete the works without the use of the heavy machinery, and s such it understood the resident had agreed with the repairs service for the works to be completed
3. That a guest flat was available with taxi costs covered by the landlord
4. That the bathroom floor, some of the wall, the tiling, and the pipes would be replaced; along with the kitchen ceiling
5. The compensation was increased to £1000, with no costs to be deducted
Following the final response there were however further complications:
1. The resident was not satisfied with the offer alternative accommodation as washing facilities, as it involved a taxi journey and by this time the first covid lockdown had come into effect. The resident therefore felt the landlord was putting their life at risk (due to their age) by suggesting they use a taxi
2. A re-assessment of the bathroom works identified that replacing the shower tray would not be sufficient as the level of the floor would likely cause it to fail. Therefore a gravity waste system was required, which needed more extensive work to the flooring.
3. The landlord also proposed the use of a traditional shower enclosure. It explained this was not ideal as if the resident’s mobility deteriorated they may have to move elsewhere, and it would in effect reduce the current wet room to a more standard bathroom.
4. The works began following an Occupational Therapist’s approval on 10 June. They included the installation of a portaloo and provision of an airbed for the resident to use so they did not then need to stay at alternative accommodation. The works were completed on 19 June after additional work was required to the shower screen and a new shower ordered

Assessment

Drain-flies

The resident has explained they had struggled with flies in the home for all of 2019. This will have been distressing, however the landlord can only respond to the reports it receives from residents. Therefore while the resident would later complain that the landlord’s inadequate handling of the leak (and the inadequate standard of the plumbing installed in its property above) had resulted in the presence of the drain flies for all of 2019, the landlord cannot be held responsible for all of this period.
1. The landlord did not know there was an issue with the plumbing (including the presence of a slow, hidden leak causing stagnant water and the drain-flies) until it received reports of the leak in December 2019
2. The landlord was not aware of a (unspecified at that time) fly issue until the report in August 2019
The first report of the flies noted in the complaint by the resident was in August 2019. The resident raised the matter again in October 2019. The resident raised the flies again during the correspondence following the leak in December 2019. At this time the landlord agreed to arrange for an external pest control company to inspect the issue. It was following this company’s assessment that the flies were found top be drain-flies, and as such the issue became linked to the cause of the leak.
The resident confirmed in December that the fly issues appeared to have been resolved following two treatments by the pest control company. Therefore the landlord did use its complaint procedure for the reason it is in place – ie to address issues that have not been dealt with to the resident’s satisfaction.
Therefore the remaining issue is whether the landlord should have taken further action following either of the earlier reports in 2019 (August and October).
The tenancy agreement and Property Care Operations Manual are both silent on pest infestations. It is common practice for residents to be responsible for pest infestations in their home, and for the landlord to be responsible for a pest issue that affects a communal area. However this would also normally be specified in the occupancy agreement, a policy, or both.
The landlord advised the resident to contact the local environmental health department in August 2019 about the fly infestation. This was not unreasonable. As explained above a pest infestation is often considered the resident’s responsibility. Therefore seeking the support of the local authority is good advice. However the council then referred the resident back to their landlord on hearing it was a housing association.
Unfortunately the resident did not pursue the matter further at this time so the landlord was not able to clarify why the resident had been passed back an forth. If the tenant had returned to the landlord in August to say Environmental Health had said it was for the landlord to investigate, then we would expect the landlord to investigate further. However based on the information it had at the time the landlord had responded reasonably in August 2019.
The resident re-raised the issue during a call in October. They were advised that a member of the Housing Team would contact them, however no such contact was made. This was a failure by the landlord. It is not possible to say that the type of fly would have been diagnosed, and as such whether the failed plumbing for the property would have been identified earlier (and before the December leak). However, regardless of this, there was an ongoing issue that the landlord offered to investigate and failed to follow up with.

Leak and resulting repairs

The leak has been found to result from the inadequate installation of a wet room in the flat above (around 4 years prior to this complaint). However landlords are reliant on the reports it receives from residents to identify any potential repair issues. It is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of appropriately qualified contractors and staff. Therefore until there were any reports to the contrary) it was reasonable for the landlord to assume the wet room was completed appropriately. As such the landlord can only be reasonably expected to take action about the upstairs wet room, the plumbing or the leak after the report of the leak on 1 December.
The repairs were not completed until June 2020.
There was an initial delay while the landlord waited for the return of the upstairs neighbour. This was a reasonable approach as the landlord had determined that the leak was caused by the use of the upstairs wet room. Therefore as there was no ongoing risk of a leak it would not have been appropriate or effective to try and complete the repairs earlier (for example by pursuing legal action against the neighbour to force entry).
There was then a further leak of toilet waste in February. The landlord completed the immediate repairs in February, however there was then an extensive delay in the landlord completing the final works to the resident’s home.
The resident consistently refused to stay at alternative accommodation. It is understandable any the resident had concerns about the landlord’s contractors , as the landlord had agreed poor workmanship 4 years earlier had resulted in the leaks. However the landlord must be given the opportunity to rectify any errors, and it made clear its housing and repairs service managers would be inspecting the works. Therefore these repairs were subject to more quality control then normal.
The resident also consistently raised concerns about the use of heavy machinery due to their health issues; and about the resulting dust affecting their belongings.
This created a difficult situation for the landlord. It had to complete the repairs, and the resident regularly complained about wanting the repairs, but the resident’s restrictions stopped the landlord from completing the works they had complained they wanted.
To help the landlord made a number of suggestions:
1. Alternative accommodation to stay in or wash in with taxi costs covered
2. Installing a temporary sink, sealing all rooms not affected by the works, installing locks on the rooms to those doors
3. Specific periods when the heavy machinery would be used so the resident did not need to be in the property, but when the landlord’s staff would accompany the contractors
The Covid lockdown also created complications that were outside the landlord’s control. It was an unprecedented time for how to manage repairs. There had been the opportunity to complete the repairs prior to the lockdown, and the landlord had made reasonable suggestions in how to do so. However the tenant’s restrictions made the completion of the repairs extremely difficult. Despite this the landlord continued to work with the resident on how to complete the repairs.
Ultimately the landlord has completed the works. There have not been any sigificnat delays that were the result of the landlord for example forgetting to arrange appointments, missed appointments, missing parts etc). Instead the time taken for the works has been so that the ongoing dispute about how to complete the works could be negotiated.
The Housing Ombudsman Redress Guide explains

“Awards of £700 and above – Remedies in the range of these amounts are used in recognition of maladministration / severe maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant. Remedies in this range will be appropriate when there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both”

Therefore the landlord has made a significant offer of compensation (£1000) that reflects the long term and distressing nature of the leak. This is in addition to having made efforts to accommodate the resident’s requests. Therefore the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in response to this complaint.

Mattress

The landlord inspected after the first report in August 2019. At this time the neighbour had stated they were cleaning the mattress. In the absence of alternative information, and based on the condition of the mattress at the time, it was reasonable for not further action to be taken.
Landlords are reliant on the reports they receive from residents. The resident did not report that the mattress remained outside the property until the end of October. The landlord agreed to remove the mattress by the end of the month. This was a reasonable response as the landlord had taken action when it received a report from a resident. If a resident had reported the mattress was still outside earlier in October, we would have expected an earlier response from the landlord. In this case the landlord responded

Determination (decision)

I can confirm in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
1. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the reports about the mattress
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Service Scheme there has been an offer of redress that satisfactorily resolves the disputes about:
1. The leak and resulting repairs
2. The reports of flies