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

Waverley Borough Council (202219548)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219548

Waverley Borough Council

28 September 2023


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:
    1. How the landlord handled a leak in the resident’s property.
    2. How it handled the repairs in the property following the leak.
    3. The conduct of its staff members who spoke to the resident about the leak.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a house.
  2. On 2 September 2022, the resident called the landlord to report that water was continually running through the kitchen taps even when turned off. The landlord raised an urgent repair and informed the resident that it would attend within 7 days. The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 September 2022 to report that a pipe had burst. The landlord raised an emergency repair and attended on 6 September 2022 to isolate the mains pipe. The landlord returned on 7 September 2022 to restore the water, supply a dehumidifier to the resident and wet vacuum the kitchen flooring.
  3. On 9 September 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to raise a formal complaint. She described the elements of the complaint as:
    1. She was dissatisfied that the landlord did not treat her original call on 2 September 2022 as an emergency repair, which caused the issue to worsen until the pipe burst. This resulted in damage to her oven.
    2. She received a poor level of service from the landlord’s contact centre when she chased up the status of the emergency repair on 6 September 2022. The resident particularly highlighted a call she made where she raised concerns that she would be without water for a second day and described the response from the landlord staff member as “rude and patronising”.
    3. As a resolution to the complaint the resident requested compensation to cover the costs of running the dehumidifier, 12 rolls kitchen towels used during the leak, takeaway food needed to be ordered due to the broken oven and the costs for the repair of the oven.
    4. The resident also requested a transcript or a recording of the telephone call she highlighted to the landlord.
  4. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 28 September 2022, then a stage 2 response on 19 October 2022. In its responses, the landlord:
    1. Accepted that there was a breakdown of communication during the repair of the leak and apologised to the resident.
    2. Confirmed that the leak was repaired on 7 September 2022 and a post-work inspection carried out on 10 October 2022 had recommended follow-on work to replace a kitchen unit, replace the stop valve and undertake work in the garden. The landlord confirmed that work orders had been raised and appointments would be arranged with the resident to complete the work.
    3. Apologised for not properly addressing the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its staff during her telephone calls in its stage 1 response. It explained that as it only held recordings for 30 days it was unable to listen to the call the resident had highlighted, but it had identified the staff member who spoke to her and had informed their manager of the resident’s concerns. It also informed the resident that it had changed its policy as a result of her complaint so that it now held call recordings for 60 days.
    4. Explained that, in line with the tenancy agreement, residents are advised to take out their own contents insurance to cover the costs of replacing damaged items. It had therefore declined the resident’s request to compensate her for the damage to her oven. The landlord offered £50 compensation towards the other costs raised by the resident and for the inconvenience caused in having to raise a complaint.
  5. On 29 November 2022, the resident called the landlord to express her dissatisfaction that the repairs to the garden remained outstanding. The resident also informed it that there was still some water dripping from the pipework and she had experienced difficulty in making a claim for a new oven on her insurance.
  6. The landlord sent a follow-up complaint response on 30 November 2022. It explained that an appointment was made for 28 October 2022 to complete the work but did not go ahead as it was cancelled by the contractor and rearranged for 18 November 2022, which also did not go ahead as the resident was not available. The landlord confirmed that a new appointment had been made for 6 December 2022 to complete the outstanding work. The landlord increased its compensation offer to the resident to £350 in recognition of the ongoing delays in completing the outstanding repairs.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. Section 8.1(b) of the tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance to installations supplying water, electricity, gas and sanitation. The tenancy agreement also gives tenants advice on insurance, stating that the landlord “is not responsible for insuring your furnishing and personal possessions. We advise you to have insurance cover or enough money to cover any loses, repairs or costs of replacing any items that you are responsible for”.
  2. In providing evidence for this case, the landlord stated that it does not have a repairs policy but refers to the tenancy agreement and relevant legislation. The repair logs and works orders provided by the landlord show that it categorises its repair types as “Emergency” (respond within 24 hours), “Urgent” (complete within 7 days) and “Routine” (complete within 28 days). These categories and timescales are in line with the industry standard.
  3. The landlord’s website provides further information on its repairs service and defines an emergency repair as “a repair that needs to be fixed quickly because it is a danger to health or safety”. Examples given by the landlord of what it considers an emergency repair include “severe leak or burst pipe”.

How the landlord handled the leak in the resident’s property

  1. On receiving the reports from the resident about the leak, the landlord had a duty to respond to the matter in line with its obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures.
  2. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately to the resident’s reports. It is noted that the resident has stated her dissatisfaction that her original report was not considered an emergency. The landlord notes of the call state that the resident described the issue as water leaking through the kitchen taps. This type of repair would be considered a contained leak and would not be considered an emergency. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord, based on the resident’s description of the issue, to categorise the repair as urgent. However, once the landlord was informed by the resident on 5 September 2022 of the burst pipe, it acted appropriately by raising an emergency repair and responding within 24 hours. The landlord isolated the water during the emergency repair, provided the resident with bottled water and then returned the next day to restore the water to the property, clear the leaked water from the kitchen and provided the resident with a dehumidifier.
  3. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord in how it responded to the leak as it raised work orders using the appropriate categories based on the information it received from the resident and responded within it’s published timescales.
  4. The resident has requested compensation for the damage caused by the leak and the costs she incurred in cleaning up the water, the purchasing of takeaway food and to replace the oven damaged by the water.
  5. This request was declined by the landlord on the grounds that it was not liable for the leak and therefore it would be an insurance matter. The landlord also referred to the advice in the tenancy agreement on insurance detailed above. The landlord’s position is in line with the evidence from the repair logs and post-work inspection. These show no evidence of any reports of a leak prior to 2 September 2022 and that the cause of the leak was due to general wear and tear rather than any action or inaction on the part of the landlord or its contractors.
  6. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline the resident’s request for it to pay further compensation to reimburse her for the costs associated in repairing the damage caused by the leak as it would be an insurance matter. Although the upset caused to the resident by the damage caused to her property is wholly understandable, the landlord does not need to do anything further regarding this element of the complaint.

How the landlord handled repairs following the leak

  1. It is not in dispute that there were delays in completing the follow-on work in the property once the leak had been resolved. Following a post-work inspection held on 10 October 2022, an internal landlord email recommended work to overhaul the stop valve, overhaul the sink base unit, replace the drawer unit and reseal the kitchen work top. This work was raised by the landlord on 19 October 2002 and appointments booked for 7 and 20 November 2022. A further work order was also raised at this time to reinstate the paving in the back garden.
  2. The resident informed the landlord on 29 November 2022 that several repairs remained outstanding. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 30 November 2022. It arranged an appointment for 6 December 2022 to complete the remaining working and increased its compensation offer to £350 in recognition of the delays and inconvenience caused to the resident.  This position is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord acted fairly by apologising to the resident. It put things right by completing the repairs and offering £350 compensation for the delays.
  3. The £350 compensation offered by the landlord is broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £100 to £600 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration by a landlord. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. Therefore, a payment of £350 that recognised the delays between September and December 2022 in completing the follow-on work in the kitchen and garden of the property and the inconvenience that this caused to the resident was reasonable in the circumstances. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
  4. However, in referring the case to this Service, the resident stated that the work to the garden remained outstanding. In providing evidence for this case, the landlord informed this Service that it had undertaken an inspection of the garden on 2 May 2023. The landlord provided a copy of the inspection report and photographs taken during the inspection. This noted that there was no evidence of a hole in the garden or any outstanding issues with the paving slabs, but there was a dip in the ground close to a downpipe. The landlord raised a work order with its contractor to make good the ground.
  5. Therefore, there has been service failure by the landlord as not all of the follow-on work was completed in December 2022 and further compensation is warranted to recognise the five-month delay experienced by the resident waiting for the garden to be levelled. In line with the remedies guidance above, it would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to pay an additional £200 compensation to take the total amount for this element of the complaint to £550.,

Staff Conduct

  1. In raising her complaint, the resident described the poor level of service she experienced when calling the landlord’s contact centre to report the leak and highlighted the conduct of a staff member during a call made on 6 September 2022.
  2. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord accept that it did not properly investigate this aspect of the resident’s complaint at stage 1. It apologised and informed the resident that it had identified the staff member who took the 6 September 2022 call and had asked their manager to raise the residents concerns with them. It also informed the resident it was unable to listen to the call as it only held recording for 30 days, but as a result of her complaint it had increased this to 60 days.
  3. The landlord’s response at stage 2 was appropriate in the circumstances. It took the resident’s concerns seriously and ensured that the customer service manager spoke with the staff member. Due to data protection issues, it would not be expected to tell the resident what specific details regarding what, if any, action it took regarding the member of staff. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to investigate employment matters and therefore we would not assess any specific action which the landlord may have taken regarding the staff member concerned. The landlord also demonstrated that it had learned from the complaint by increasing the length of time it kept call recordings.
  4. However, the stage 1 investigation took place within the 30-day window where the 6 September 2022 call recording was available. In not properly addressing this element of the complaint at stage 1, the landlord missed an opportunity to listen to the recording, address this element of the complaint in more detail to the resident in its complaint response, and consider making changes to improve its service based on what information the recording provided.
  5. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends a payment of £50 to £100 in cases of service failure of a short duration that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. Therefore, a payment of £50 that recognised the landlord’s failure to properly investigate this issue at stage 1, missing the opportunity to listen to the call recording, and the inconvenience that this caused the resident would be appropriate in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled the leak in the resident’s property. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of:
    1. How it handled the repairs in the property following the leak.
    2. How it responded to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff members who spoke to the resident about the leak.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay to the resident a total amount of £600 in compensation, comprised of:
    1. £550 for the delays in completing follow-on work in the property.
    2. £50 for its failure to investigate the conduct of its staff at stage 1 of the complaints process.
  2. This payment should be made within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made. This compensation award is inclusive of the £350 offered by the landlord in its complaint process. This can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.
  3. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against any arrears.