Stockport Homes Limited (202117341)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117341

Stockport Homes Limited

9 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

1. The complaint concerns the level of compensation offered by the landlord following a burst pipe in the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a maisonette in a communal building. Both the resident and her daughter corresponded with the landlord during the period of the complaint. For reasons of clarity, the resident and her daughter have been jointly referred as “the resident” within this report.
3. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repair types as “Urgent” (attend within four hours of the issue being reported) and “Non-Urgent” (attend within 20 days of the issue being reported, or at a time suitable to the resident). The repairs policy does not give a definition of what the landlord considers to be an urgent repair.
4. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one of its internal process within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. An appeals panel will then undertake a review of the complaint and a stage two response should be provided within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
5. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will cover quantifiable financial loss in circumstances where “there has been an actual, evidenced financial loss incurred as a direct result of a service failure”.
6. The compensation policy also states that the landlord will consider financial redress in circumstances where “there has been avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment, or unfair effects resulting from a service failure. This covers payments made instead of or alongside quantifiable financial loss as well as practical actions and gestures of goodwill”.

Summary of events

7. On 13 May 2021 a water pipe burst in the resident’s property, causing flooding to the rooms below. The landlord’s repair logs and system notes describe the events of the day as follows:
   1. It received a call from the resident at around 9:55am, who informed it that the water tank had burst and water was flooding through the ceiling. A further call was made by the resident at around 10:50am asking for an update and informing the landlord that water had flooded through the ceiling into the lounge and kitchen.
   2. The landlord called the resident at 10:57am and advised her to locate the stop tap in the property and turn it off, but she was unable to do this as a panel prevented her from accessing the tap.
   3. A plumber arrived at the property at 11am. The fire service was already in attendance and had contained the leak by crimping the water pipe. The plumber added a note to the repair log at 11:56am stating that the heating pipes had been isolated and the contractor was on site to replace the burst pipe. A work order was raised for a contractor to remove the water from the property.
   4. A housing manager attended the property at around 1pm to offer support and discuss temporary accommodation with the resident. Work orders were raised to make safe the light fitting in the lounge and to make safe the ceiling in the lounge.
   5. The work to make safe the light fitting was marked as completed at 1:23pm. The work to make safe the ceiling was marked as completed at 2:02pm. Follow-on works were then raised to check the electrics in the property and to replaster the lounge ceiling.
   6. The work to remove the water in the property was marked as completed at 4:48pm
8. On 14 May 2021 the resident called the landlord to discuss compensation. The landlord’s notes of the call state that it informed her that there was no evidence of service failure in how it had maintained the pipework in the property and advised the resident to make a claim under her own contents insurance policy for damage to her personal possessions. The landlord then informed the resident that as a goodwill gesture it would be willing to pay £400 towards the replacement of the carpet and £150 in decorating vouchers towards the cost of repairing the damage to the décor in the property. The landlord’s notes go on to state that this offer was rejected by the resident who held the landlord liable for the leak. The resident also highlighted her dissatisfaction with how long it took for a plumber to arrive which resulted in her having to call the fire service to contain the leak.
9. Following further discussions over the matter, a formal complaint was opened on 17 May 2021 and a stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 1 June 2021. The landlord informed the resident that:
   1. The communal heating system in the building was subject to a preliminary inspection in early 2021 with a full survey planned for late 2021. The preliminary inspection found the internal pipework to be in good condition. Reports of leaks in the system had been rare and the repair history for the resident’s property did not show any evidence of recurring or historic leaks.
   2. It was therefore satisfied that a catastrophic burst could not have been reasonably foreseen and that there was no evidence that the landlord was responsible for causing for the leak.
   3. The landlord also wanted to make clear it did not consider the resident responsible for the burst pipe and apologised that their conversations on 14 May 2021 had left her with that impression.
   4. It also apologised for the stress and concern caused to the resident for the time it took to be connected to its customer service team on 13 May 2021 and for the length of time it took for the plumber to arrive. The landlord noted that although its operatives attended within a reasonable timeframe, it should have done more to reassure the resident that the operatives had been dispatched and were on route.
   5. It confirmed that it was willing to offer the resident £150 in decorating vouchers and £400 towards replacing the carpet as a goodwill gesture. It also provided the resident with information on how she could purse a claim against its insurer if she believed the landlord was liable for the damage to her possessions.
10. The resident called the landlord on 9 June 2021. The landlord notes of the call state that the resident disputed the stage one complaint response as she said the landlord had not adequately maintained the communal heating system, that there had been previous issues with leaks, and that she had not been given sufficient support by the landlord.
11. On 21 June 2021 the resident’s local councillor wrote to the landlord on her behalf to express dissatisfaction with how the matter had been handled and that the work to replaster the lounge ceiling would not start until September 2021.
12. The landlord replied on 21 June 2021 and restated its position as set out in the stage one complaint response. It informed the local councillor that it had received photographs from the resident which showed the damage caused to the ceiling and that it would look at whether it could book the work in sooner. The landlord also stated that it would be talking to the resident later that day to discuss the complaint.
13. The local councillor wrote again on 21 June 2021 following the resident’s telephone conversation with the landlord. He noted that the resident was pleased that the landlord was able to arrange an earlier starting date for the replastering work to commence and confirmed that she had requested an escalation of the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s internal complaints process.
14. Due to the availability of the resident and the panel members, there was a delay in holding the stage two panel review. The landlord wrote to the local councillor on 2 August 2021 to confirm that the hearing would be held on 12 August 2021.
15. On 5 August 2021 the landlord called the resident to discuss the outstanding issues of the complaint. The landlord’s notes of the call described the resident’s desired outcome to the complaint as:
    1. The carpet to be replaced like-for-like at £830. To replace the sideboard (£65) and stereo unit (£89.99).
    2. The two-seater sofa in the lounge to be professionally cleaned.
    3. Two days of loss of earnings to be reimbursed by the landlord (the resident did not provide a figure for this).
    4. £700 in rent rebate from when the leak occurred to when the ceiling was replastered, as the property was not in a habitable condition during this time.
    5. Rent refunded for the five days she was unable to stay in the property while it was drying out.
    6. Compensation for clothes, bedding and miscellaneous items damaged by the leak.
16. The stage two panel hearing went ahead on 12 August 2021 and a final response to the complaint was sent to the resident on 19 August 2021. The landlord informed her that:
    1. The panel agreed there had been no overall service failure by the landlord in respect of the burst pipe. This decision was made on the basis that the incident could not have been reasonably foreseen.
    2. The landlord was therefore not liable for the damage to the resident’s personal items and an insurance claim would be the most appropriate means of pursing these costs. The panel noted that the landlord advises all its residents to take out home insurance.
    3. The panel recognised the significant impact that this incident had on the resident and accepted that the landlord’s repairs team should have communicated more effectively with the resident during the incident and when arranging follow-on works. The landlord apologised to the resident and awarded £100 compensation. The landlord also offered:
       1. To have the sofa professionally cleaned.
       2. For a decorator to undertake the redecoration of the rooms affected by the leak as well as £150 in decorating vouchers.
       3. £400 towards a replacement carpet for the lounge.
    4. The panel had declined the resident’s request for the rent to be reimbursed and noted that the property had been deemed habitable and usable throughout this period.

Assessment and findings

17. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had experienced poor communication from its staff on the day the pipe burst and this caused additional distress. It apologised and offered £100 compensation for its service failures. It also offered a total of £550 as a goodwill gesture towards the replacement of the carpet and decorating vouchers.
18. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
19. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes. It put things right by apologising to the resident and awarding appropriate compensation. It looked to learn from its errors by raising internally how it responded to the resident. The landlord’s internal correspondence showed it contacted the staff members who spoke with the resident on 13 and 14 May 2021 and provided feedback in order to improve its service.
20. The resident has disputed the landlord’s position that there was no evidence of service failure in how it had maintained the communal heating system and the heating pipework in the property, and therefore it should be liable to pay compensation for all damage in the property and to her personal items. The resident highlighted reported leaks in the heating system in 2017.
21. As referenced in the stage one complaint response, the communal heating system had been recently inspected with a more thorough inspection due to be undertaken at the time of the burst pipe. The landlord’s contractor did not highlight any issues with the heating system during the initial inspection. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of appropriately qualified contractors that the heating system was in good working order. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was at fault for causing the pipe to burst or that it could have taken any action to stop the leak sooner and prevent damage to the resident’s possessions. It was also acknowledged that the resident was not at fault for the leak.
22. Although there is insufficient evidence to show the landlord was at fault for causing the leak, it was reasonable for it to advise the resident to contact its liability insurer if she considered that it was responsible for this. Landlords are entitled to have insurance policies to cover the cost of liability claims and the landlord would not be expected to consider a claim for damage to the resident’s possessions outside the insurance process. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the landlord’s insurer and therefore we cannot comment further or the insurance process or the outcome of any insurance claim.
23. In line with the tenancy agreement, residents are advised to take out their own contents insurance to cover any damage to their personal possessions due to unforeseen events such as leaks. This is because the landlord is not responsible for the cost of repairing or replacing residents’ personal possessions in this type of situation.
24. The resident also requested a £700 refund in rent from the time the leak occurred until the lounge ceiling was replastered as she said the property was not habitable during this time period. While there was outstanding work to be completed after the leak was contained on 13 May 2021, there is no evidence to confirm that the property was uninhabitable during this period. Moreover, the repair records provided by the landlord do not show that any of the operatives who attended the property described it as being uninhabitable. Given the lack of evidence and the reports from its staff members and contractors, it was reasonable for the landlord not to consider waiving rent payments for the period requested by the resident.
25. The landlord’s overall compensation payment (£650) was made in line with its compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £250 to £750 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration, but where there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests, a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant. Or, a complainant being repeatedly passed between staff and / or teams, with no one officer or department taking overall responsibility, or a landlord not taking responsibility for sub-contracted services
26. In this case, the landlord recognised that there was a delay in the resident being connected to its customer service team and incomplete information provided relating to the arrival of operatives and the arranging of follow-on works. This caused additional stress and worry to an already stressful situation for the resident. As well as the £100 compensation for is service failure, the landlord also offered a goodwill gesture towards the costs in replacing damaged items and decorating the room.
27. The landlord also offered to arrange to have a sofa professionally cleaned (at an estimated cost of £53) and offered the free use of a decorator to complete work to the affected rooms (an estimated cost of £1,408 based on 32 hours of work at an hourly rate of £44). This would give a total compensation value of £2,111, which is well above the range of up to £750 suggested in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is therefore in excess of the amount of compensation the Ombudsman would have ordered if the landlord had not already made an offer.
28. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily. The measures it took to address what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

29. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of the level of compensation offered following a burst pipe in the property which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Reasons

30. The landlord recognised the poor communication from its staff members during correspondence with the resident on the day the pipe burst, and the distress that this had caused to her. It apologised and awarded compensation proportionate to the effect of its failures on the resident.
31. As there was no evidence that the pipe burst was a result of service failure by the landlord, it was under no obligation to compensate the resident for the damage to her personal items. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that she could make a claim to its liability insurer if she considered it was liable for these costs.