Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202001369)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001369

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

19 April 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about low water pressure being supplied to her property.

Background and summary of events

2. The Ombudsman would expect that complaints are made within a reasonable time; this is normally within six months of the events occurring. Therefore, while some historical events may be included for context, this investigation focuses on events from December 2019 onwards as this is six months prior to the formal complaint being raised.
3. The resident holds a shared ownership lease with the landlord. The property is a two-bedroomed second floor flat.  
4. The resident had made historical reports of low water pressure at the property and the landlord’s investigations had found in March and July 2016 that the pressure had been correct. After further investigations of the pipework in October 2018, it concluded that the water company would need to be contacted as water pressure was found to be low in the evenings.
5. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 April 2020 concerning another complaint. In this she added that she had previously received an assurance from it that it would address an issue with low water pressure in her property which prevented her from being able to use the shower.
6. The landlord responded to the resident on 15 April 2020 to acknowledge her complaint about her water pressure and another issue, advising her that its response may be delayed by restrictions on normal working.
7. After speaking with the resident on 24 April 2020, the landlord emailed her two days later to confirm that her reports of low water pressure had been escalated by the water company, following a conference call between the landlord, the resident, and the water company. It explained that the water company was responsible for water pressure issues which should be reported directly to them. The landlord also confirmed that the water company was due to carry out an investigation of the water pressure within ten working days.
8. The landlord issued a complaint response to the resident’s other issue on 6 May 2020 which also confirmed that the water pressure matter was the responsibility of the water company and it would continue to liaise with her to support the progression of the matter. On 13 May 2020 it relayed to her that the water company had agreed to install water pressure monitoring equipment for two to three weeks and it would be doing so within the next two weeks.
9. On 20 May 2020, the resident requested an update and reported that the water pressure had deteriorated where it was now an issue in the evening, in addition to problems in the morning.  The landlord replied to her the next day to advise that the water company had assured her it was investigating, and it may take a few weeks to provide a response. It offered to update her within a week.
10. After approaching this Service, the resident contacted the landlord on 3 June 2020 to request an update on her complaint. It confirmed to her the next day that it had previously dealt with a complaint from her in 2016 concerning low hot water pressure, where it had found that this was working as intended. The landlord advised that her most recent concerns had been managed outside of its formal complaint process as these were the responsibility of the water company. It relayed that it had been liaising with them about their investigations but had “no power or influence over” them.
11. After interventions from this Service on 17 June 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident the next day that it had logged a formal complaint for her about her concerns about the water pressure. It advised her it would provide an update to her by 22 June 2020 about the water company’s progress in their investigation of the water pressure. The landlord cautioned that, due to the water company’s limited resources due to the corona virus pandemic, the complaint was likely to take longer to resolve and would update her as required.
12. After a telephone conversation with the resident earlier that day, the landlord emailed the resident on 19 June 2020 to acknowledge that she was “frustrated” that the landlord, her power supplier, and the water company appeared to blame each other for the low water pressure. It assured her that it would investigate why her block differed from other blocks in the vicinity.
13. The landlord updated the resident on 26 June 2020 when it responded to an enquiry from her earlier that week as to why the water pressure had been investigated as a separate complaint. It explained that the water pressure was not investigated as part of her previous formal complaint. The landlord also advised that it was yet to receive the findings from the water company’s investigation and would provide a further update by 3 July 2020. The resident replied that day to express frustration with the rate of progress, saying that she had already raised the matter as a complaint and wanted a resolution.
14. The landlord informed the resident on 3 July 2020 that the water company had advised it that their tests had been inconclusive. It said that it had requested their findings in writing to enable it to investigate further and would update her again by 13 July 2020.
15. The landlord called the resident on 13 July 2020 to report that it had received the report from the water company which provided information which was “insufficient”. It informed her that it would engage an independent body to investigate the cause of the water pressure issues as it was still uncertain how to resolve the matter and whose responsibility it was to do so. The landlord advised it would update her again by 24 July 2020 once it had received the results of this.
16. The landlord informed the resident on 24 July 2020 that it had not yet received the results of the independent testing which was still underway. It said it would contact her in three days to update her.
17. The landlord called the resident on 27 July 2020 to explain that the testing had found no evidence of problems with the water flow. She replied that the issues with water pressure were evident during the evenings and weekend. The landlord acknowledged this and relayed that it had enquired if the water pressure could be tested at the times which posed an issue. It added that the water company had not been forthcoming with the results of their testing. The landlord requested details of the times when the water pressure was low so that it could relay this back to the water company as evidence that the issue was not its responsibility, considering that supply of water was only an issue at busy times. It added that it would be raising a complaint with them due to its lack of response.
18. The landlord spoke to the resident on 11 August 2020 where she acknowledged that the source of the low water pressure issues were likely to be on the part of the water company who she believed was “not being honest with her”. It advised her that it had gained “some understanding” of the water company’s results from the testing and would now be sending a formal response to the resident within two weeks.
19. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 18 August 2020 in which it acknowledged that the resident was dissatisfied with the water company and landlord referring her to each other to resolve the intermittent loss of water pressure in her property. It confirmed that the water company was “not initially forthcoming” with information about the tests they had conducted on the water supply to the property which led to it instructing an independent contractor to carry out testing on its behalf.
20. The landlord relayed that the independent tests indicated that the problem with the flow and pressure of water entering the building were due to a lack of pressure from the mains water supply controlled by the water company. It explained that, if there had been a problem with the internal pipework of the building, this would have resulted in consistent water pressure issues.
21. The landlord enclosed the results of the water company’s tests which showed a significant drop in water pressure on two days during testing at approximately the same time. It also enclosed an update from them which stated that they were reducing their minimum statutory provision of water to a lower rate. The landlord relayed that the water company had been “transparent” about water pressure issues in the resident’s area, which was published on their website, and that they had confirmed to it that the drop in pressure was likely related to user demand. It inferred from this that the volume of water entering the building was inadequate.
22. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s building did not have a pumping system installed at the time of construction as it was not considered necessary at the time. However, it considered that the water company’s statement that it was reducing its statutory provision of water supply indicated that it did not intend to increase the pressure of water supplied to the property. The landlord therefore proposed to modify the pipework supplying the building, working in conjunction with the water company, to connect the property to adjacent boosted cold-water supply to improve the pressure of water entering the building. It detailed the forthcoming planned works to do this.
23. The landlord concluded that, as there had been no faults identified with its pipework and equipment supplying the building, and as it was reliant on the water company supplying water at an adequate pressure to the property, the resident’s complaint was not upheld.
24. After receiving contact from the resident expressing her continued dissatisfaction, this Service contacted the landlord on 10 November 2020 to request that her complaint be escalated to the next stage. This was because of her dissatisfaction with the length of time taken to resolve the issue and her request for compensation for the five years of distress and inconvenience she experienced.
25. The landlord spoke to the resident on 12 November 2020 to discuss the complaint and noted that the resident had reported the matter over the previous five years but “did not push it as she had other priorities”. She wanted compensation for the “wasted water” and her time and effort in resolving the matter.
26. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 2 December 2020, in which it noted that the modifications to her water supply had resolved the low water pressure issue, but she wanted compensation for the inconvenience and the extra water used. It noted that she was also dissatisfied with the lack of clarity over who was responsible for the water pressure issues and time taken to resolve this.
27. The landlord confirmed that its repair obligations extended to the installations in the dwelling for the supply of water and quoted case law which found that a landlord would not be held responsible for low water pressure so long as the pipework was sufficiently functional should the expected mains water pressure be available. It asserted that it met its obligations, but the water company was responsible for ensuring that the water pressure entering the building met statutory requirements.
28. The landlord stated that it had acted in excess of its obligations by arranging for the resident’s water supply to be connected to an adjacent cold water storage tank to resolve her water pressure issue. It acknowledged that, had it done this sooner, this would have reduced the inconvenience caused to her. However, it explained that it had a duty to manage its resources effectively, and in this instance, this had meant confirming that the water company had no intention to increase the water pressure to the property.
29. The landlord noted that the resident had said that she had need to use more water due to not being able to have shower and needing to run baths instead. It also noted that she had not provided details of how much excess water she believed she had used as a result and asked for her to provide a comparison of her metered water usage before and after the water pressure had been resolved. The landlord said this would help it to understand if it should have acted sooner. In the absence of this, the landlord stated that the resident had always had a supply of water to maintain adequate living facilities and, therefore, it was reasonable for it not to have acted sooner.
30. The landlord found that it had acted reasonably regarding the resident’s needs and had not failed in its statutory duty “or that of a responsible landlord”. Therefore, it did not offer compensation and signposted the resident to the water company’s own compensation scheme for customers affected by low water pressure. The landlord confirmed this was its final response.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

31. The resident’s lease agreement with the landlord confirms that it is to keep in repair the cisterns, tanks, water apparatus and interconnecting pipework in the building, except those that belong to a utility supply company.
32. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy further confirms that it is its responsible for repairing the “Service installations including drains, inspection chambers, waste and water pipes, electrical installations, gas pipes and central heating.” where they are an “existing element of the property or block”.
33. The landlord’s complaints and compliments policy confirms that it does not regard a matter to be complaint where it is not responsible for delivering the service. This policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure where it aims to provide a resolution to a complaint requiring investigation within an average of 15 working days, although it provides for a timeframe of up to 25 working days for complaints which are “very complex”. No timeframe is provided for complaints escalated to the final stage; however, it is to liaise with the resident and provide updates on progress until the matter is resolved.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her water pressure

34. The landlord’s lease agreement with the resident, above at point 32, and its responsive repairs policy, above at point 33, both confirm that it is only responsible for the installations within the building for the supply of water to the property. As its historical investigations in 2016 and 2018 confirmed that there was no repair issue within the property or building, it was reasonable for it to conclude that the problem affecting the resident’s water pressure was the responsibility of the water supply company.
35. As confirmed by the landlord’s complaints and compliments policy, above at point 34, it was reasonable, therefore, for it to not originally consider the resident’s reports of low water pressure as a complaint as it was not responsible for delivering this service. This is further reinforced by its historical findings that its installations for the supply of water within the building containing her property was in good repair.
36. It was a reasonable response for the landlord to propose to liaise with the water company in attempts to resolve the resident’s report of low water pressure. It is evident that that the landlord maintained regular contact with her to provide updates on the progress of this.
37. It is noted that the landlord acted in excess of its obligations in appointing an independent contractor to carry independent testing, relayed to the resident on 13 July 2020. This demonstrated its commitment to resolving the issues she reported. The landlord also acted in excess of its obligations by carrying out works to connect her building’s pipework to the adjacent cold water storage tank; it is not disputed that this resolved the water pressure issue. As this was not part of the original construction of the property, and no fault had been identified with its installations within the building, this was an improvement to the property, and the landlord was under no obligation to complete this. 
38. The above action demonstrated that the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns, which were not its responsibility to resolve. As such, it was also reasonable that it did not offer compensation to the resident, as there is evidence that the source of the low water pressure issue lay with the water company. Therefore, there is no evidence of any failing on the part of the landlord and the actions it took were in excess of its obligation to the resident, and therefore reasonable.

Determination (decision)

39. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about low water pressure being supplied to her property.

Reasons

40. The landlord took reasonable actions, in excess of its obligations, to resolve the low water pressure issue for the resident.