Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202005376)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005376

The Guinness Partnership Limited

15 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 complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report that a leak from her toilet in 2020 had caused her water bill to increase.
    2. The resident’s concerns about her increased water usage between 2016 and 2020, which she says was caused by leaks in her property.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The resident’s concerns about her increased water usage between 2016 and 2020, which she says was caused by leaks in her property.

  1. Paragraph 39(e) states that:
    1. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
  2. The resident has expressed concern that her water usage began to increase in 2016 leading to higher water bills. However, there is no evidence of a formal complaint being raised about this issue until 23 July 2020. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from February 2020 onward, which is roughly six months prior to the formal complaint being made in July 2020.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a mid-terraced house.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident called on 4 March 2020 to report that a repair was needed to her toilet as the toilet flush had a crack which was causing a small leak now and again. The landlord raised a repair on this date; however, this was cancelled by the resident as she was not happy with the date and time offered and said she would call back the following day.
  3. The landlord raised a new repair request on 10 March 2020 to address the resident’s concerns about her toilet cistern. The record states that the plastic cistern was cracked but still working and needed replacing. The landlord contacted the resident on 24 March 2020 to confirm that this repair work had been cancelled due to the restrictions put in place because of Covid-19.
  4. The landlord’s records show that a repair was raised on 26 May 2020 as the resident’s water supplier had advised that there was a potential leak from one of the toilets in the property, using 18 litres of water per night. The record notes that there the contractors were unable to access the property on 8 June 2020 but that an appointment was arranged for 12 June 2020 where the side entry valve for the toilet was renewed and the overflow pipe was refixed.
  5. On 26 June 2020, the landlord raised the repair for the resident’s toilet flush and plastic cistern, an appointment was booked for 26 July 2020. It is unclear from the evidence provided exactly when this issue was resolved, however, the landlord gained confirmation from the contractor on 13 August 2020 that the issues with the toilet and cistern had been fixed. A note from the landlord’s systems shows that the contractor did not feel that the part in the cistern that could have been the source of the leak needed replacing, although this was completed anyway.
  6. On 23 July 2020 the resident raised a complaint about an increase in her water bill since 2016. She said that a leak had been identified from her downstairs toilet which had now been rectified and said that her water bill was now down to £234 a year from roughly £600 a year. She expressed dissatisfaction that this issue had not been identified on repair visits in November 2016, November 2017 and January 2018. She then raised this issue again in late 2019 and was advised on 21 January 2020 that this was a different issue which had since been resolved. The resident said that she felt the landlord could have been more proactive regarding the leak and believed that the toilet, installed eight years ago, was not fit for purpose.
  7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident over the phone on 4 August 2020 and discussed the following:
    1. It explained that it was only able to investigate matters which occurred in the last six months, in line with its policies. It had reviewed all repair requests dating back to 2017 and it had not found any evidence that the resident had reported a leak and advised that she had received a higher water bill.
    2. The landlord advised that since it had not been made aware of a leak or a high-water bill, it did not need to investigate this matter previously. It confirmed that other than a report in May 2020, there were no other records of repairs raised for a leak. The landlord confirmed that the resident could wait until she received her next water statement and forward it to the landlord for review later that year.
    3. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and said that she had not reported this matter sooner as she could not see or hear a leak and it was only when she spoke to her water company that she was told that she was using too much water for the size of her household. She then said that she did not feel that she should have to pay excess water bills for an issue she did not cause and asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s process.
  8. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 14 August 2020, but this was not received by the resident until 2 September 2020. It explained the following:
    1. It confirmed that it would not uphold the resident’s complaint as there was a lack of evidence to confirm that the downstairs toilet cistern was the cause of any increased water usage. It was confident that it had responded accordingly to each repair request concerning the toilet in her property and due to the minor action needed to remedy a defective flushing mechanism and the expertise of its contractors, it believed that a satisfactory repair was carried out.
    2. It confirmed that between January 2018 and December 2019 it had received no contact from the resident regarding any toilet issues which led it to believe that no issue existed between these dates. It had not found any service failure on its part. It confirmed that the responsibility for paying utility bills sat with the resident and it could not be held accountable for how water is used in the resident’s property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report that a leak from her toilet in 2020 had caused her water bill to increase.

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states that the landlord would have an obligation to keep basins, sinks, baths, flushing systems and waste pipes in repair and proper working order. It confirms that residents are responsible for telling it promptly about any repair or breakdown of which are the landlord’s responsibility to remedy.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation may be paid to recompense residents for actual evidenced loss or expenses incurred because of its actions or inactions. It would not pay compensation if something has gone wrong but it was not its fault. A compensation payment would not be more than the evidenced amount of the loss or expense. The landlord’s complaints policy states that unless there are exceptional circumstances, it would only accept and respond to complaints that are made within six months of the event to which the complaint relates.
  3. There has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report that a leak from her toilet in 2020 had caused her water bill to increase.  It was reasonable for the landlord not to investigate any events prior to the six months before the complaint was raised, in line with its complaints policy. As explained above, the Ombudsman is also unable to investigate historic issues for similar reasons.  In this case, there is no evidence to show that the resident had pursued any concerns about an ongoing leak or her increased water bill with the landlord before the complaint was raised on 23 July 2020. The landlord would not be expected to investigate any repair issues within the property unless they had been reported by the resident. The landlord’s records show that some reports of issues with the toilet in the property were raised in January 2018 and December 2019 but it appears from the records that repairs were carried out and all parties believed these issues were resolved at the time. There is no evidence that would indicate concerns about an ongoing water issue since 2016.
  4. Water consumption is not the same for every household and the fact the resident has been told that she is using a higher-than-average amount for the number of occupants does not in itself show that the leak was causing a significant loss of water. The repair to the toilet was not definitively identified as the cause of the increased water bill since 2016 following the contractors’ investigation and repair. The landlord was entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, who deemed that the repair they completed was relatively minor and that the part which could have been the cause of the leak did not require replacement.
  5. The landlord acted appropriately by investigating the issues reported and completing required repairs in line with its repair obligations, as set out in its repair policy. There was some delay to the repair work between March and July 2020 due to the impact of Covid-19, which was outside of the landlord’s control and therefore reasonable.
  6. It was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to provide an up-to-date water bill statement on 4 August 2020 so that this could be reviewed following the repair to the water cistern. The landlord would need to see a bill for the period after the repair was completed to check if the repair made a difference to the water usage as it would not be possible to tell how much extra usage there was because of the leak by any other means.
  7. The resident has provided her water bill statements from 5 August 2014 to 15 February 2019 but it is not clear from the evidence provided as to whether the resident has provided an up-to-date water bill statement to the landlord to cover the period after the repair was completed. It is therefore recommended that the landlord reviews the most recent water bill when it is provided and confirms whether it will pay compensation based on this evidence. If the resident disputes the landlord’s decision at this stage, she can raise a new complaint about the assessment of the water bill through the landlord’s complaints process. She can approach the Ombudsman about the new complaint if she remains dissatisfied once it has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report that a leak from her toilet in 2020 had caused her water bill to increase.

Reasons

  1. There is currently no evidence to confirm whether the leak attributed to the resident’s toilet cistern was the cause of any increased water usage in this case. The landlord responded to the resident’s repair requests within a reasonable timeframe. It has acted appropriately by asking the resident to provide up-to-date water statements for review before considering whether any compensation should be paid for increased water costs.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the resident’s up-to-date water statement when it is provided and confirms whether it will pay compensation based on the evidence received.