Peabody Trust (202015071)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015071

Peabody Trust

31 August 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 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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property following his reports of sewage leaks and the level of compensation offered by it to him for this.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord.
The property is a flat, situated in a building comprised of similar properties.

Summary of events

The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 August 2020 to advise that, on 15 August 2021, his property was flooded because of water seeping out of the bath and toilet, which led to him contacting an independent plumber as the landlord had provided him with a response time of four hours for this. The resident noted that:
1. the water coming into his property was dirty;
2. the independent plumber advised that the water was coming from a blocked communal pipe, which needed to be drained with specialised equipment;
3. he had to report the issue to the landlord multiple times;
4. the costs for the plumber and the damage to his property needed to be covered.
On 18 August 2020, the resident wrote to his local MP to advise that he had been experiencing a leak of foul water into his property since 15 August 2020. Additionally, the resident noted that: the basement of the building was flooded; his property was contaminated, which posed risks for his and his partner’s health; he had contacted the landlord on 15 August 2020, but it did not attend the property until the next day, when it had assessed the issue; the landlord was yet to carry out any remedial works.
On 19 August 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to lodge a stage one complaint. He advised that:
1. He had contacted the landlord multiple times on 15, 16 and 17 August 2020.
2. On 17 August 2020, a plumber had attended the property and had informed him that, due to the extent of the works needed, they could not complete these.
3. The landlord had emailed him to advise that the issue stemmed from a blocked communal pipe and that it would attend the property with specialised equipment. However, that job was subsequently cancelled due to a lack of authorisation, which led to the resident and his partner spending the night attempting to contain the foul water leak.
4. The landlord had attended the property on 18 August 2020 again, but the repair issue had remained outstanding until the morning of 19 August 2020.
5. As a result, the resident advised that he wished for the landlord to assist with cleaning and disinfecting the property’s bathroom, repair the damage caused by the foul water leak, and pay compensation for the inconvenience caused.
The landlord responded on 20 August 2020, asking the resident to confirm whether the issue had been fixed, and to advise him that, in order to obtain compensation for the damage, he would need to submit an insurance claim.
Subsequently, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint on 21 August 2020. On the same day, it advised him that it would carry out a “deep clean” of the “external area”. However, because of the resident being a leaseholder, the landlord would not take any action regarding the interior of his property. Furthermore, it advised that it had raised a work order for his carpet to be inspected and cleaned as an emergency but that, if this needed to be replaced, this would not be done on the same day.
The resident wrote to his local MP again on 2 September 2020, to advise that the landlord had not taken any action since 19 August 2020, and that he was experiencing a foul water leak again.
The resident wrote to the media on 3 September 2020 to advise of the repair issues occurring since 15 August 2020, and that, following the foul water leak of 2 September 2020, he was admitted to hospital, which led to a loss of income due to him being unable to work for six days.
On 7 September 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that, following the repair issues on 2 September 2020, it had carried out a “deep clean” on 4 September 2020, and that it would be attending again on 8 September 2020 “to carry out a CCTV survey of the affected pipes” to identify the cause of the repeated blockages.
The landlord attended the property on 8 and 23 September 2020 to survey the pipework and to identify the repair works required. However, there were some issues with it gaining access to all of the areas that needed to be inspected.
On 28 September 2020, the resident informed the landlord that the insurance company asked for him to cover the insurance excess prior to them commencing the repair works required to his property. He asked the landlord if it could assist him with this, to which it responded by advising that it would soon be escalating his complaint to the correct department that would be able to review his request.
The landlord’s records state that, during its inspections of the building, it had identified that the pumps found on the premises were faulty, which may have contributed to the floods that had occurred there. On 2 October 2020, it informed the resident that it would repair/replace these between 14 and 16 October 2020. Furthermore, on 6 October 2020, the landlord confirmed that it had gained access to the areas that were due to be inspected, but that it could not assess any repair issue because it was “unable to trace the pipework”. Its records state that it required plans of the pipework of the building, and a new survey was scheduled for 13 October 2020.
On 14 October 2020, the landlord informed the resident that works to the pumps would not commence as scheduled, as it was waiting for parts to be delivered.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 October 2020 to confirm that it would begin repair works to the pumps on that day, and on 20 October 2020 to advise that it was “still chasing for the [latest] survey”.
Between 21 October 2020 and 11 January 2021, the landlord’s records show that it attended the premises on multiple occasions, and that it discussed the matter extensively both internally and with the resident.
On 12 January 2021, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response, in which it:
1. Thanked the resident for discussing the issues that he had experienced over the telephone.
2. Advised that it had reviewed the communication and repair records.
3. Confirmed that the resident’s complaint concerned the “delays in undertaking repairs to deal with the sewage leak”, and that he was seeking compensation of £5,000 to cover the inconvenience caused by the delays and “having to deal with the same problem twice”.
4. Confirmed that the repairs were finalised on 19 November 2020 and acknowledged the delays. However, in respect of the delays experienced by the resident, the landlord advised that it did not find these unreasonable because of the extent of the specialist works involved.
5. Offered the resident compensation of £150 to cover the insurance excess and inconvenience caused. Furthermore, the landlord addressed his concerns that it “was responsible for the problems occurred”, and advised that “liability and negligence” would usually be resolved via insurance or legal proceedings.
On 18 January 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to make a final stage complaint to reiterate the events that had occurred in August and September 2020, and that he was unhappy with the amount of time taken by it to act on his complaint. Additionally, he noted that he “suffered” the following:
1. he had to take five days’ “unpaid leave from work”;
2. he was “admitted to hospital” because of “toxic inhalation”, which was caused by attempting to deal with the sewage leaking from other flats into his property;
3. “exhaustion and stress” caused by having to deal with the issues, including from having to carry buckets of sewage from his property to the garden throughout the day and night;
4. his property was damaged, smelled of sewage, and certain works were still outstanding five months after the incidents, which he attributed to the landlord’s “lack of preventative maintenance” to his block that he regarded its offer of £150 compensation to be “completely insufficient” for, together with his above difficulties.
On 22 January 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that his complaint was escalated to the final stage of its complaints process.
On 28 February 2021, the landlord issued the final stage complaint response to the resident, in which it:
1. Advised that its compensation policy did not cover loss of earnings or health issues, it had offered compensation for “exhaustion and stress” caused by dealing with the sewage leak, and it was not responsible for internal repairs because the resident was a leaseholder.
2. Advised that it could not find any evidence that the leaks could have been prevented, and that, considering the extent of works and the equipment required, the length of time that it had taken to complete the remedial works was reasonable.
3. Confirmed that it had decided to increase its offer of compensation from £150 to a total of £320 to cover the insurance excess, inconvenience and stress, and complaint handling, as it had exceeded its response timeframe by a few days. Additionally, the landlord apologised to the resident for the inconvenience caused.
This case was brought to the attention of this Service on 26 April 2021, and the resident emailed us on the next day to express his dissatisfaction with the level of compensation that he was offered by the landlord, and the fact that there were still outstanding repair issues to his property.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s lease

The lease for the property states that it is the leaseholder’s, i.e. the resident’s, responsibility to keep the interior of the premises in good and substantial repair.

The compensation policy

The landlord’s compensation policy states that it would not offer compensation in instances where:
1. the issue was caused by a third party or is something that it is not responsible for;
2. a claim could be made on insurance;
3. the resident claims for lost earnings.
The compensation policy states that the landlord would assess compensation claims and make awards by considering:
1. The time, trouble and inconvenience suffered.
2. Any costs that were reasonably incurred.
As per its compensation policy, the landlord would award compensation:
1. for time, trouble and inconvenience, based on the impact that an issue had on the resident, of up to £400.
2. for complaint handling of up to £100.
In instances where a leaseholder is involved, the landlord’s compensation policy states that it would consider refunding an insurance excess as a goodwill gesture.

The repairs policy

The landlord’s repairs policy divides repairs into four categories, based on type and urgency, as per below:
1. Emergency repairs – these are instances where a repair is needed to avoid danger to personal health or serious damage to property, and the landlord commits to attending and carrying out making safe works within 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs – these are standard repairs, and the landlord commits to completing these within 35 days.
3. Fast response repairs – this category is used in instances where the resident is registered as vulnerable, the repair is an emergency, and a contractor is needed within two to four hours.
4. Communal repairs – these are repairs to the communal areas, and there is no set response timescale.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property following his reports of sewage leaks and the level of compensation offered by it to him for this

It is noted that the resident has stated that he considers that the sewage leak issue has exacerbated his medical conditions. However, it is beyond the authority and expertise of this Service to determine whether there was a link between its handling of repairs and his medical condition in the way that a court or insurer might, as we are unable to make the decisions on liability necessary to do so. The resident’s claim that his health was been affected by any actions or omissions by the landlord in relation to the sewage leak is therefore outside of the scope of this investigation.
The resident first experienced foul water backing up into his toilet and bath on 15 August 2020. He reported this to the landlord on the same day, however the issue remained outstanding until 19 August 2020. Therefore, for the period of four days, the resident needed to attempt to contain the foul water leak to avoid sewage flooding his property. In this instance, the landlord failed to adhere to its repairs policy’s requirements for emergency repairs above at paragraph 28, which state that, in instances where there is a danger to personal health or serious damage to a property, it would attend and make this safe within 24 hours.
It has been taken into account that the landlord attended the property on 17 and 18 August 2020, however this did not change the fact that no making safe works were carried out by it, and that the resident had to contain the foul water back up himself for several days.
The same foul water leak issue occurred again on 2 September 2020, but it was not confirmed to this Service whether the landlord attended this within the repairs policy’s 24–hour emergency repair timeframe. However, it was confirmed that a deep clean of the resident’s property was carried out on 4 September 2020, which was reasonable and indicated that the area was made safe, and that the sewage flooding issue was dealt with by it at that time.
Furthermore, due to the recurring nature of the foul water leak into the resident’s property, and the subsequent flooding of the basement of the building, the landlord decided to complete a CCTV survey of the pipework there, in order to determine the root cause of the issue. As per the information provided to this Service, the landlord proceeded to attend the property on numerous occasions between 8 September and 19 November 2020, to carry out surveys and repairs to pipework and pumps found at the premises to ensure that the foul water back up/flooding would not occur again.
This Service acknowledges the amount of time taken by the landlord to complete the above repairs, however considering that these works were carried out to communal areas, its repairs policy requirements for communal repairs above at paragraph 28 did not dictate a set completion time for them. Furthermore, as it had advised the resident, the amount of time taken to complete the works was not unreasonable, considering the extent of the works and the specialist equipment needed, along with the amount of communication on the matter.
This Service acknowledges the resident’s dissatisfaction with the damage caused to the interior of his property, however as per the terms of his lease for the property above at paragraph 23, it is his responsibility to keep the interior of his property in a good state of repair. Therefore, the landlord was permitted to not undertake any remedial works within his property, and to advise him to submit an insurance claim for the damage there instead. Furthermore, it was not responsible for any works left outstanding that fell under the resident’s responsibility.
To conclude, as per the information provided to this Service, the landlord failed to adhere to its repairs policy by not completing making safe works at the property within 24 hours following the resident’s initial report of the sewage leak there on 15 August 2020. However, it then offered reasonable redress by apologising, completing the works, and offering to cover his insurance excess of £100 and further compensation for the inconvenience caused, as detailed below.
In its stage one complaint response of 12 January 2021, the landlord acknowledged but declined the resident’s request for £5,000 compensation. It is noted that he requested the above amount to cover his loss of earnings, the damage to his property, the impact on his and his partner’s health, and their time and inconvenience. In respect of the above, by declining the resident’s request the landlord acted in line with its compensation policy, detailed above at paragraph 24, which states that it would not pay compensation for lost earnings or costs that would normally be covered by insurance, including damage to leaseholders’ properties and ill-health.
In its final stage complaint response to the resident of 28 February 2020, the landlord offered him total compensation of £320. This amount was divided as per below:
1. £100 to cover the insurance excess paid by the resident when making his claim. As he is a leaseholder, this was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, detailed above at paragraph 27, which permitted it to refund him for this as a goodwill gesture.
2. £150 for time, inconvenience and stress. This complied with the landlord’s compensation policy, detailed above at paragraph 26. This is because the immediate inconvenience experienced by the resident from the sewage leak was high, but this was for four days from 15 to 19 August 2020, and it had discretion as to the level of compensation that it awarded him for this, so that it was not obliged to increase this.
3. £50 for the fact that the resident had to deal with containing the foul water coming into his property himself, and £20 for the landlord’s delay in issuing its stage two complaint response. This was reasonable because its compensation policy above at paragraph 26 gave it discretion as to whether to offer this compensation to him, and so did not require for such payments to be increased by it.
To conclude, this Service appreciates that the level of compensation offered by the landlord did not match the amount in the resident’s compensation request. However, based on the information provided to us, its above offer was proportionate to recognise the difficulties that he and his partner experienced, as this was in line with its compensation policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of repairs to his property following his reports of sewage leaks and the level of compensation offered by it to him for this satisfactorily.

Reasons

After an initial delay of four days, the landlord carried out the necessary works to make safe the sewage leaks at the resident’s property and to subsequently ensure that the issue did not recur following the second leak there. It also offered to cover his insurance excess for the damage to the property, as it was not its responsibility to undertake works to the interior of his leasehold property.
The amount of compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord pay the £320 compensation that it previously offered the resident, if it has not already done so.
The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendation.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.