All Case Studies

Leaks (June 2024)

Ms N was dissatisfied with the way in which we handled her reports of leak in her home.

Summary

Ms N, a leaseholder, initially expressed dissatisfaction with our handling of a leak in Sep 2022. This was not treated as a complaint. Ms N made a further complaint in April 2023 outlining the time it has taken to repair the leak and the ongoing disruption her, her health and her family.

We responded to the complaint in April 2023 and accepted the delays following the initial leak, and poor communication. This was due to the time taken to source the leak. We offered £250 compensation. We also explained that we are not responsible for the time it takes for insurance claims to be made. Ms N escalated the complaint.

In our stage 2 response in May 2023, we outlined that contractors were sent out  quickly and in line with our policy when issues were reported, however we should have taken ownership of the leak, rather than passing it back to the resident citing leaseholder responsibility. We offered compensation for the time taken to fix the leak and for the time Ms N could not enjoy her home. A further £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience was awarded including £10 for missed appointment. We also offered to reimburse any additional costs.

The resident then referred the case to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman concluded that the nature and level of the failings by the landlord in this case would usually amount to a finding of maladministration, however it felt that Poplar HARCA offered reasonable redress for the following reasons:

  1. Contractors were sent out the next day after the repair was reported
  2. Poplar HARCA acknowledged delays, poor communication and lack of ownership and offered compensation
  3. Leaks can be highly complex in nature and finding the source can take time. It was only when the leak got worse in Nov 2022 were the contractor able to find the source of the leak and repair it
  4. It did not dispute that Ms N had to put a significant amount of time and trouble in dealing with the aftermath of the leak and the repairs were extensive. It also noted the significant disruption to Ms N’s daily life. However, it concluded that as a leaseholder the repairs obligation within the home falls under Ms N’s responsibility
  5. In the absence of evidence demonstrating that delays caused by failings on Poplar HARCA’s part, rather than the leak itself led to the damage to Ms N’s property, it could not reasonably conclude that Poplar HARCA was responsible for the impact on the resident after the leak was resolved, including the time it took for the insurance claim

In relation to complaint handling, the Ombudsman found Poplar HARCA failed to log the residents initial concerns as a complaint.

 

Outcome

The Housing Ombudsman made the following determinations.

  • We had offered reasonable redress prior to the Ombudsman’s investigation which, resolved the complaint about our handling of the leak satisfactorily.
  • That there was service failure with regard to our handling of the complaint.

 

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman made the following orders and recommendations.

  1. We write an apology to the resident for our service failure in complaint handling.
  2. Pay the initial compensation offer at stage 2 of the complaints process