You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
Ombudsman issues failure orders to landlord over complaint about leak and flooding
The Housing Ombudsman has issued two separate failure orders to a London landlord after it failed to adequately respond to a leak which a resident says led to damagaing flooding in their flat.
Following an investigation, the ombudsman found two counts of severe maladministration against Spitalfields Housing Association (SHA) in Tower Hamlets.
It also took the unusual step of issuing two complaint-handling failure orders, one relating to the original complaint and the second to the ombudsman’s repeated requests for information as part of its investigation.
The ombudsman said it received “multiple unsatisfactory responses” from SHA during its probe.
The findings relate to complaints about how SHA responded to the resident raising concerns about a leak in their flat in August 2020.
READ MORE
The resident told the watchdog that the leak caused repeated flooding between August and October which resulted in damage to walls, ceilings, carpets and personal belongings, as well as causing a lightbulb to explode.
The resident said that the leak and consequent damp led to inconvenience and overcrowding, as items had to be moved into cramped bedrooms, which impacted their mental and physical health.
The ombudsman’s lengthy report sets out a litany of failures by SHA to respond to complaints in a timely or appropriate fashion over a number of months in late 2020 and early 2021.
However, the association, which has only nine permanent members of staff and manages just under 700 affordable homes in east London, responded with a lengthy ‘learning statement’ (below) that said the issues were limited to a single 30cm airing cupboard.
The statement included criticism of the ombudsman for being “unable to act as an effective dispute resolution agent to [allow] SHA to obtain access to the property”.
The landlord failed to respond to repeated requests from the resident for a plan of action or details of the builder’s warranty provider. It only responded to the ombudsman on a third attempt at contact.
The ombudsman found that details of repairs carried out at the flat in question “were vague and inconclusive”. It found that the landlord did not take the opportunity to appropriately review the claim that there had been a failure in its service, and that it did not handle the matter in compliance with the principles set out in the ombudsman’s complaint-handling code.
The ombudsman ordered SHA to pay the resident £1,000 in compensation and to review its complaint-handling procedure.
Richard Blakeway, housing ombudsman, said: “The landlord has not demonstrated that it acknowledges any failings or intends to take any steps to improve future service for its residents when dealing with repairs or complaints.
“Regardless of an organisation’s size, there is a reasonable expectation that the landlord should be able to demonstrate an evidence-based position in respect to issues raised. It is also essential for the complaints process to put things right if they have gone wrong and learn from outcomes.
“The landlord does not demonstrate that it sought to appropriately investigate and respond to the concerns at any point, and it inappropriately redefined the complaint as being about reported repairs that contractors were being denied access for, and ‘falsely claimed’ health and safety issues.
“The landlord’s failure to demonstrate that it appropriately addressed all issues raised by its resident significantly undermines whether it investigated the complaint and arrived at an appropriate conclusion and resolution.”
In full: Spitalfields Housing Association’s learning statement
This complaint and decision of “severe maladministration” has arisen following the lack of access to an airing cupboard. For the avoidance of doubt, an airing cupboard is a cupboard that houses damp towels to be dried.
The subject matter of this complaint and subsequent investigation by the Housing Ombudsman is with respect to the airing cupboard (damage approximately 30cm wide), related boxing and the ceiling below that; which we believe, had no impact on the physical living conditions of the residents or the dry-ability of these towels.
The airing cupboard/boxing required partial painting on one side which is approximately 30cm wide. It is our firm understanding that the ability to dry towels in this airing cupboard would not have been compromised following the fix of the leak.
Access to painting the airing cupboard was not provided following the resident’s request and our refusal to re-model her bathroom.
Spitalfields HA had acted to address the cause of the leak to the airing cupboard and allowed the airing cupboard to dry, prior to then expecting to paint the 30cm wide bit of damage inside the airing cupboard/boxing.
The painting of the 30cm wide area in the airing cupboard/boxing could not take place due to lack of access for our contractors, and this was halted after our refusal to re-model the resident’s bathroom.
Compensation under the Right to Repair could not be calculated as the repair was not completed due to the lack of access to this airing cupboard.
At no time, throughout this complaint period, did Spitalfields HA refuse to undertake the paint work on the airing cupboard/boxing and we are of the firm understanding that throughout the period of no access, the resident would have retained the ability to dry the towels in this cupboard.
The painting of the approximately 30cm wide airing cupboard/boxing was finally completed on 23 August 2022 at a cost of an immaterial amount after access to the airing cupboard for damp towels was finally provided; this was only after the determination of “severe maladministration” from the Housing Ombudsman Service.
We are unclear why the Housing Ombudsman Service, on this occasion, was unable to act as an effective dispute resolution agent to SHA to obtain access to the property.
Prior to the Housing Ombudsman Service’s decision of severe maladministration, no access was provided to the airing cupboard to enable us to paint the 30cm wide boxing in the airing cupboard. It is our understanding that no towels were compromised throughout this complaint and investigation period.
Spitalfields HA notified the Housing Ombudsman on 27 May 2021 that access had not been provided and therefore work could not take place. This would ordinarily be considered a simple matter for dispute resolution for an independent agency such as the Housing Ombudsman Service.
We are aware that the resident had contacted Citizen Advice Bureau and other legal advice, however, those agencies, acting independently, did not progress correspondence with Spitalfields HA. It is our assumption that these independent agencies were aware that lack of access meant that we could not paint the airing cupboard/boxing or calculate compensation.
The main/principle learning from this case for SHA is that request for insurance claims need to be separated from matters related to no-access, staff are now aware that the two points are not linked and need to be responded to separately to insurance claims requests.
SHA has discussed its complaints handling process with frontline staff and confirmed they understand the process fully. Any suggestions of dissatisfaction raised by tenants are to be logged as a formal complaint.
Response to complaints following the investigation [are] to be sent to the tenants in accordance with the SHA’s complaints handling policy. The responses [are] to clearly state what stage the complaint was heard and what the next steps are for tenants if they do not agree with the decision.
Sign up for our regulation and legal newsletter
Already have an account? Click here to manage your newsletters
