One Housing Group Limited (202004807)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004807

One Housing Group

29 June 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

1. The resident has complained about the time taken to investigate and resolve their reports of inadequate water pressure in their home.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When assessing a complaint in an investigation we must ensure that we only determine issues that are without jurisdiction.
3. The role of the Housing Ombudsman is to investigate how a landlord has responded to a formal complaint about its service. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we cannot investigate complaints that have not completed the landlord’s complaint procedure.
4. This means that the time period that a case can consider is the period up to the final response, plus whether any specific actions to address the complaint included in the final response were completed or not.
5. It is clear from the correspondence provided by both parties that the investigation and response to the water pressure issue continued for a significant period beyond the final response (June 2020). Unfortunately any issues or incidents (including any complaints about the way the investigation or resulting repairs were handled) from after the final response cannot be included in this assessment. This is because it is an assessment of the landlord’s formal responses to the complaint, and there are no formal complaint responses to the issues and events after the final response on file.
6. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions from July 2020 onwards then they would first need to raise these as a formal complaint with the landlord. If the landlord and resident are not then able to resolve that complaint through the complaint procedure it could then be brought to our service for a separate investigation.

Background and summary of events

7. The resident complained in March 2020 that they had intermittent water pressure issues at their property. It affected all taps in the property and sometimes prevented the resident from washing. They explained it had started in December 2019, and 2 previous visits from the landlord’s plumber had not resolved the issue.
8. The resident chased the issue on 9 April as the local water company had visited that day and confirmed the water pressure to the building was as required. The resident also raised the urgency given the increasing advice at the time to regularly wash hands due to the Covid epidemic.
9. The landlord explained it had forwarded the issue to a plumbing supervisor, however the resident then had to chase twice more in April. The landlord then sent an informal complaint response on 28 April following a conversation with the resident. It explained:
   1. That the resident had refused the landlord’s offer of a further plumber visit. They only wanted a visit if the landlord agreed to replace the stopcock. This was a reported by the resident as a suggestion from the water company’s engineer.
   2. The resident had stated they did not have a written report or recommendation from the water company.
   3. The landlord had spoken to the water company. It did not have a report of its visit but did have a note from the engineer. It quoted the note in the complaint response to the resident. The landlord explained it did not refer to the stopcock and that the water company had advised the landlord its conclusion was that the issue was internal and so the landlord needed to arrange a plumber for a further investigation.
   4. That a repair for a replacement stopcock would be considered a routine (not emergency) as the resident did have a water supply. As such the landlord could not book this repair as its current approach to repairs was to only book emergency repairs to limit visits during the covid epidemic.
   5. The landlord re-offered an emergency visit from a plumber to inspect the water pressure and to try and confirm the cause.
10. The resident escalated their complaint the same day. They explained:
    1. They needed improved water pressure due to wash due to medical issues.
    2. The landlord was putting them at risk of Covid as they could not wash their hands sufficiently.
    3. The landlord’s response had not provided any new information, and only offered a further visit after 2 past visits had not helped. They had not refused a further visit.
    4. The landlord had not contacted the water company when the resident first reported its conclusion to the landlord (9 April) and only did so after the resident chased the issue.
    5. The resident was happy for a plumber to visit, but they felt this would be a waste of time as the issue was intermittent and they had already provided video evidence to the landlord.
11. The plumber visited on 30 April. They found no issue with the water pressure or any taps.
12. The resident followed the issue up on 12 June. They reported the water pressure problem was ongoing and asked for compensation.
13. The landlord responded at the formal (final) stage of its complaint process on 29 June. It explained:
    1. No issue was found at the 30 April visit.
    2. The resident declined a further visit after they chased the matter in June. The landlord stated that this was over a month from the previous visit. Highlighting the time taken implies the landlord had been waiting for the resident to follow up before taking further action. The resident also stated they had been told this when chasing the matter in June.
    3. It could arrange for a visit by a specialist contractor for a second opinion.
14. The resident disputed the landlord’s final response on 11 July. They explained:
    1. The final response did not mention the earlier visits by the landlord’s plumbers.
    2. The final response states that the specialist contractor could ascertain whether the issue was with the building of the mains water, but the local water company had already attended. This was not mentioned by the landlord.
    3. The final response did not mention the photos or videos of the slow water sent by the resident.
    4. The final response offered a specialist contractor. The resident had asked for this on 15 June, as the plumber on 30 April had said if nothing could be found a specialist would be needed. However the landlord tried to send another plumber in June, which the resident declined.
    5. The final response refers to an immersion heater. However the resident reported their immersion tank had been removed years ago.
15. A specialist contractor attended on 24 July 2020. It was not the contractor named in the final response.

Assessment and findings

16. There were delays in the landlord’s response to the water pressure.
17. The resident has explained that the issue with the water pressure has been ongoing since before Christmas 2019. However neither party has provided any correspondence or records from before March 2020.
18. The resident’s initial March complaint referred to two previous visits by the landlord’s plumbers. However there are no records of these visits in the information provided by the landlord. The landlord did not dispute that there had been these visits in its informal response. However the fact they were not referred to, or used by the later plumber to focus their investigation, demonstrates the impact of the landlord’s inadequate record keeping / information sharing.
19. The resident had to chase the issue from 20 March until 29 April. This was an unreasonable inconvenience.
20. The resident reported on 15 June that the plumber that visited on 30 April had said if they could not find the cause a specialist would be needed. There is no record of this advice (or the outcome the visit) in the information provided by the landlord. The landlord then offered a specialist visit in its final (29 June) response. As above, the landlord has provided limited information about the investigations it undertook at the time. The resident reported that the informal conversations they had with different plumbers were at times contradictory. Therefore it would have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure there were records of each visit/investigation to then help any follow up investigation.
21. The landlord’s final response implies that the resident had not provided any feedback from April until June and as such it had not taken any further action.
22. Intermittent repair issues are challenging for both residents and landlords. Landlords must base their actions on appropriate evidence to ensure their services are fair and use appropriate resources. Therefore it is not unreasonable for the landlord to need appropriately qualified contractors to witness and diagnose an issue before arranging a repair.
23. Equally however intermittent repair issues are also frustrating for residents as they experience the inconvenience without necessarily being able to show the problem to the landlord.
24. Therefore by the time of the final response there was insufficient information for the landlord to have arranged a repair.
25. However, it is also reasonable to expect that the landlord would follow up with the resident following the 30 April plumber visit given there had been repeated reports, repeated visits, and the intermittent nature of the issue specifically highlighted. The landlord did not follow up with the resident however.

Determination (decision)

26. I can confirm in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Service there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the complaint about the time taken to investigate and resolve the reports of inadequate water pressure.

Reasons

27. There was insufficient information available to the landlord for it to arrange a repair by the time of the final response (June 2020). However the resident experienced inconvenience during the investigation that was not acknowledged in the landlord’s response.

Orders

28. As a result of the determination above I have ordered that the landlord will, within 4 weeks:
    1. Pay the resident £150 to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by the handling of the investigation of the water pressure between March and June 2020.