Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Slough Borough Council (202014280)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014280

Slough Borough Council

30 September 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 concerns:
    1. the landlord’s response to reports of a water leak from the overflow pipe.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a two-bedroom ground floor flat within a three-storey building. The lease started on 1 August 2005. The complaint has been brought to the Ombudsman by the leaseholder’s son (the resident) who also resides at the property.
  2. In his formal complaint to the Council (the landlord), the resident said that the leak to the communal water tank had been reported by other residents in 2018 and by his mother in 2019. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matter arising. The landlord’s repair records indicate there were reports of the leak to the landlord in May 2019, in December 2019 and then on 4 May 2020. The formal complaint was subsequently raised on 23 September 2020. Therefore, this report will investigate events from when the resident contacted the landlord on 4 May 2020. This constitutes a reasonable period as this was four months before the formal complaint and prior to the 4 May 2020 report, there was no contact from the resident for approximately five months.
  3. The landlord’s repair history shows that on 4 May 2020 the resident reported that the overflow pipe from the water tank was leaking and a works order was raised the same day for its plumbing contractor to attend. The outcome recorded also dated 4 May 2020 indicated work was completed and further work was required. The landlord’s repair history shows it raised another works order on 29 May 2020 for: “plumber to inspect asbestos tank for any leak or needs to be drained …”. This repair history indicates this work was completed on 4 June 2020 however no further details were given. A further work order was raised by the landlord on 17 September 2020 for the overflow from the water storage tank in the communal loft to be addressed. The outcome recorded on 11 November 2020 was that a new job order had been raised.
  4. On 23 September 2020, the resident sent a formal complaint to the landlord regarding the leak from the overflow pipe. He referenced his previous report of 4 May 2020 and said no action was taken. The resident also said he followed this up on social media on 5 June 2020 and that someone from the landlord visited the property building on 19 June 2020 regarding the leak. The resident said this contractor advised he would return to repair the leak however there was no follow up after this. Further, he followed this up on social media on 24 August 2020 however no action was taken. He said he then sent videos of the leak to the landlord on 8 September 2020. The resident’s complaints raised via social media have not been provided to the Ombudsman, however, the resident’s referenced video of the water leak sent on 8 September 2020 has been provided. This video shows heavy dripping on the ground external to the property building and that the resident had placed buckets on the ground to catch the dripping water which was coming from higher up the building.
  5. In his formal complaint the resident also said that the landlord’s repairs team attended on 9 September 2020 to carry out emergency repairs however as they did not provide advance notice to residents, he refused them entry. He said as the water tank is surrounding by asbestos, the landlord therefore had a responsibility to provide advance notice to residents so that they can ensure the contractor is properly trained and taking adequate precautions. The landlord’s repair history confirms that the outcome of a works order raised at this time to: “address the overflow from the water storage tank in the communal loft…” was that access was denied by the resident.
  6. On 23 September 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and advised that it had been logged under stage one of its complaints procedure and that the resident should receive a reply within 10 working days.
  7. On 24 September 2020, the landlord advised the resident that his complaint had been forwarded to the relevant team for investigation and an answer about when outstanding work would be completed. The landlord’s internal communication confirms that the landlord forwarded the resident’s communication to its service partner on 24 September 2020 who responded on the same day advising it would forward this request through to its complaints department.
  8. The landlord’s repair history shows that on 15 October 2020 it raised a work order for plumbing in relation to the overflow pipe from the water tank which noted that the overflow pipe needed to be replaced as soon as possible. However, the outcome was recorded as “no access”. The repair history shows that on 22 October 2020 the landlord raised a further work order for roofing to attend to take a sample of the asbestos from the water tank in the communal loft.
  9. On 23 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord asking to escalate his complaint to stage two. He said they had not received any feedback from the landlord or its service partners. The resident advised that the overflow pipe was “constantly dripping” requiring him to have to empty buckets several times a day. The resident said he received one phone call on 30 September 2020 from its repair team asking if the leak was fixed yet; he told them it had not been fixed however said he had not heard anything since. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s communication request on the same day advising that his complaint had been passed onto its complaints team with his request for it to be escalated. It said they would be in touch “in due course”.
  10. On 23 and 27 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord requesting escalation of his complaint to the Resident Complaints Panel (RCP) at stage three of its complaints process. He said he had not received any communication from the landlord or its service partners since his 23 October 2020 escalation request.  He reiterated that the overflow pipe was still dripping and that he had to empty buckets several times a day.
  11. On 27 November 2020, the landlord emailed the resident advising it would not be escalating his complaint to the RCP at stage three as the reason for his escalation request was because of a lack of repair provided and therefore the only option available to the RCP would be to chase the repair which it was already doing. The landlord said therefore it proposed to close his stage two complaint.
  12. The landlord’s repair history shows that on 25 November 2020, a works order was raised for an asbestos survey of the water tank/loft and that this was carried out on 27 November 2020. It also shows a works order was raised for plumbing to attend to fix “a temporary pipe” from the overflow pipe running down to the drain. This work was completed on 30 November 2020.
  13. On 27 November 2020 the resident emailed the landlord advising he did not wish to close his complaint at stage two because:
    1. He wanted the RCP to chase the repair and provide to him with a timescale and contact details for the person responsible for providing the repair.
    2. He had noticed a colour change and moss build up to the exterior wall. He wanted the RCP to check the condition of the exterior wall and clean or repair as applicable.
    3. He requested a review of why the repair had not been actioned and a review of why he had not received advice on the status of his complaint during complaints process.
  14. On 18 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord advising he was still awaiting a response to his request for escalation of his complaint to stage three. The landlord replied on the same day advising its Corporate Complaints process which included escalation to the RCP at stage three, did not apply to housing complaints. It referred to its Housing Service Complaints (HSC) policy which it said had a different process at stage three. It advised him he could refer his complaint to the Ombudsman. It provided a weblink to this HSC policy. It said in the meantime it had escalated the outstanding works to its service partner’s Operations Manager who would address this. It said it would let him know of their response and what action would be taken to address his concerns.
  15. The resident replied on 18 December 2020 advising the link provided did not work. He asked for the landlord to forward its HSC policy to him and for it to fix the weblink.
  16. The landlord’s internal communications indicate the landlord chased the outstanding work with its service partner and complaints department on 21 December 2020.
  17. The landlord’s repair history shows that a further works order was raised by its service partner on 12 January 2021 due to: “broken guttering and water everywhere”. This evidence indicates the landlord’s roofing contractors cleaned and repaired guttering at the resident’s block on 25 January 2021.
  18. The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 17 February 2021 chasing up the permanent repair to the water tank. He also said the lack of any complaint response received from the landlord was “disrespectful” towards residents. The landlord’s internal communications dated 17 February 2021 show a manager escalated the resident’s complaint to its service partner and complaint team asking them to urgently provide a response to the resident’s complaint and arrange the necessary works. They also noted that the resident’s stage one complaint was still showing as open and his stage two complaint was showing as closed. The manager also raised if the weblink on its website to its complaint policy had been fixed and in reply another manager said they had raised it with the relevant team. 
  19. On 17 February 2021, the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.
  20. On 18 May 2021, the resident sent an email to the landlord advising that despite its numerous promises, he had not had any feedback about his previous complaint. Also, he advised the landlord that the drainpipe installed as a temporary fix so that the overflow water was directed straight into a drain (as opposed to free falling to the ground) was now dripping at the joint near the ground. He sent a photo.
  21. On 19 May 2021, the landlord advised the resident that a job had been raised in respect of the leak to the drainage pipe and its service partner would attend that day. Regarding his complaint, it would get back to him tomorrow.
  22. The landlord’s repair history shows a works order was raised on 19 May 2021 to attend a “leaking elbow on the downpipe” located behind resident’s flat. The notes state a new quarter waste was fitted to the back of the resident’s flat to stop the leak which was completed on the same day.
  23. On 15 June 2021, the resident told the Ombudsman that the drainpipe installed as an interim measure so that the overflow water was directed straight into a drain, was still dripping at the joint near the ground. He also said the water tank was still leaking/overflowing due to no permanent fix provided. He wanted clarification from the landlord about the impact of the leak on his wastewater bill.
  24. On 6 September 2021, the resident reiterated to the Ombudsman that no permanent fix to the leak from the tank had been provided by the landlord. On 6 September 2021, the Ombudsman asked the landlord for confirmation of a permanent fix to which it confirmed that the repair required had been identified – repair/replacement of the ball valve in the loft. However, it said the issue would not be resolved until the asbestos removal in the loft space is complete; this in on its planned programme of works but a date had not been confirmed.

Lease

  1. Under clause 6.2. of the lease, the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing chimney stacks, gutters, rainwater and soil pipes, drains, sewers and water pipes.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of a water leak from the overflow pipe

  1. Part 7 of Schedule 9 of the landlord’s Scope of Services (repairs policy) states that priority three responsive or routine repairs includes dripping overflows. It further states that priority three repairs require an appointment and must be attended to and repaired within 20 business days of the date of the order.
  2. The landlord’s repair history confirms that on 4 May 2020 the resident reported that the overflow pipe to the water tank was leaking. The water tank is located in the loft of the property building and that asbestos surrounds the water tank.
  3. The landlord’s repairs history shows the landlord raised a works order for its plumbing contractor to attend in response to the resident’s report on 4 May 2020. This was appropriate however it is unclear from the available evidence what, if any work was completed on this date. The landlord raised another works order on 29 May 2020 for the asbestos tank to be inspected and its repairs history recorded this as “completed” on 4 June 2020, however, no details of the findings are provided in the repairs history or elsewhere. The repairs history confirms that the resident made a further report in September 2020 regarding the same issue when he also sent a video of the leak. Following this the landlord raised a works order for its repair contractors to address the overflow from the water tank. When the repair contractors attempted to investigate the tank on this occasion, the resident denied access on the basis the landlord had not provided advance notice of the visit or any details to show the contractors were properly trained in dealing with asbestos and taking adequate precautions. Due to the health and safety dangers posed by disturbing asbestos, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to ensure that repair contractors are aware of its presence. Whilst it was understandable for the resident to raise concerns, given that the same contractor had attended on previous occasions, it is likely they were aware of the asbestos and by not allowing assess on this occasion, the contractor was not given the chance to inspect and decide what was required. This would have contributed to a delay in resolving the problem.
  4. The landlord raised a further work order on 15 October 2020 for the overflow from the water tank to be replaced however the outcome in its repairs history says this was cancelled by its repair contractors due to no access. It is unclear from the available evidence if “no access” was in reference to the contractors’ previous visit or if it had tried to visit the property again to effect a repair. However, the landlord provided a temporary resolution to the leak in late November 2020 by way of fitting a pipe to the leaking overflow pipe which ran down the side of the building to the drain. This meant the water from the overflow pipe ran down the additional pipe which ran directly into the drain.
  5. Therefore, it took the landlord more than six months to provide this temporary fix after the resident’s May 2020 report. Following the landlord’s attendances in May and June 2020 there is no evidence of the resident chasing the matter up with the landlord again until early September 2020. As such the landlord may not have been aware that the problem had persisted during this timeframe. Further, the lack of access provided to contractors in September 2020 would have caused a delay which the landlord was not responsible for. Nonetheless, even after taking these issues into account, the overall length of time taken to provide the temporary resolution was unreasonable as it exceeded the 20-working day timescale given in the landlord’s repair policy for repairs to dripping overflows.
  6. In regards to a permanent fix, following the asbestos survey carried out on 27 November 2020, evidence of the parties’ communications on 18 December 2020 demonstrate that the leak from the overflow pipe from the water tank had not been addressed by this date.  It is noted that the resident contacted the landlord again about this in February 2021 at which point he brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident contacted the landlord again about redress of the leak in May 2021 when he also advised there was a leak from the temporary pipe that had been affixed to the overflow pipe. On 6 September 2021, the resident told the Ombudsman that a permanent fix to the leak had still not been provided and the temporary pipe was also leaking again.   On 6 September 2021, the Ombudsman also asked the landlord for confirmation of a permanent fix to the overflow pipe to which it confirmed that the repair required had been identified – repair/replacement of the ball valve in the loft. However, it said the issue would not be resolved until the asbestos removal in the loft space is complete; this in on its planned programme of works but a date had not been confirmed.
  7. Therefore, whilst the landlord raised numerous work orders in order to resolve the leak from the overflow pipe from the water tank, these attempts did not result in a permanent fix either by way of replacing the overflow pipe as referenced in the landlord’s repair history or by other means. Due to the presence of asbestos surrounding the water tank, it is reasonable to expect the resolution to take slightly longer because of the precautions the landlord needed to take for example an asbestos survey. However, this repair has remained outstanding since at least 4 May 2020 which far exceeds the maximum timescale given in the landlord’s repair policy. Therefore, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports appropriately. The landlord did not acknowledge its failure to follow its repair policy during complaint process. Neither did it explain the lack of the permanent solution provided or offer redress to the resident.
  8. Due to the unreasonable delay by the landlord in providing a temporary resolution to the leaking overflow pipe, this caused significant inconvenience to the resident, including having to empty buckets placed under the water drips when they were full which the resident says was sometimes several times a day. There was also no evidence of the landlord or its service partners providing updates or likely timeframes for the repairs. Due to these issues and the landlord’s failure to address the source of the leak from the overflow pipe for over a year, it is reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident a measure of compensation.
  9. The landlord has provided this service with its compensation policy however as this does not apply to complaints related to repairs, compensation has been calculated based on the Ombudsman’s own Remedies Guidance. In the circumstances, the landlord shall pay the resident compensation of £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused. This amount falls into the medium bracket £250 to £700 which is for instances of considerable service failure or maladministration. An example given is a failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy for instance to address repairs.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s HSC policy states it will acknowledge a stage one complaint within two working days and provide a reply within ten working days. This policy also requires that a stage two complaint is in writing and states which aspects of the previous reply the resident is not happy with and what more they think it should do. It states this must be received no later than one calendar month from the date of the stage one reply. Further, the landlord’s policy states that it will acknowledge a stage two complaint within two working days and provide a reply within 10 working days. If a resident is unhappy with the stage two response, they can refer the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman under stage three.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint within two working days, in accordance with stage one of its complaints policy. It then confirmed to the resident that it had logged his complaint and that he would receive a reply within ten working days. However, the landlord did not provide any complaint response within ten days. This prompted the resident to contact the landlord on 23 October 2020 advising that he had not received a response or any feedback from it or its service partners. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage two and the landlord confirmed to the resident that both his complaint and his stage two escalation request had been passed onto the complaints team. It said they would be in touch “in due course”. Whilst landlord forwarded the resident’s complaints to the relevant teams internally, there is no evidence of the landlord or any other team providing a complaint response to the resident over the next 10 working days.
  3. The lack of any complaint response provided to either the resident’s formal complaint or to his subsequent complaint sent a month later demonstrates that the landlord did not follow its complaints procedure when handling the resident’s complaint. Therefore, it did not act appropriately in this regard.
  4. When the resident requested to escalate his complaint to its RCP under stage three of the landlord’s Corporate Complaint process on 23 November 2020, the landlord refused on the basis that the only option its RCP would have would be to chase the repair which it was already doing. It proposed instead to close his stage two complaint. When the resident disputed this on 18 December 2020, it then pointed out that escalation to its RCP was only available at stage three under its Corporate Complaints process which did not apply to housing complaints. It told the resident that in accordance with its HSC process, he was able to refer his complaint to the Ombudsman. The landlord’s responses to close his stage two complaint and escalate it to the Ombudsman when no formal complaint response had been provided was inappropriate.
  5. It is noted that the resident continued to chase the landlord for a response to his complaint on at least two further occasions in 2021 and despite promises to provide one, there is no evidence to show the resident received any formal complaint response.  
  6. Therefore, the landlord’s repeated failure to provide any formal response, either under stage one or two of its HSC process, was a serious significant failing in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  7. By not responding to the complaint, the landlord has failed to comply with its own complaints policy and missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint at an earlier stage.
  8. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. Put things right and;
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  9. As the landlord has not provided a formal response to the complaint, the landlord has also missed the opportunity to identify its shortcomings and take action to put things right in accordance with the Ombudsman’s principles. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires that landlords provide complaint responses within ten working days under stage one and within 20 working days at stage two. Therefore, the lack any formal response from the landlord is also evidence that the landlord’s complaint handling did not meet these standards set out in the Code (published in July 2020).

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord when responding to the resident’s reports of a water leak from the overflow pipe.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports of a leak from the overflow pipe from the water tank in a timely or appropriate manner. It did not keep the resident informed about anticipated timescales for the repair. It delayed with providing a temporary fix which caused inconvenience to the resident. It also failed to provide a permanent solution to address the source of the leak and did not explain to the resident the reasons for this.
  2. The landlord logged the resident’s complaints but failed to provide any formal complaint responses to his complaints at any stage of its complaint process. This was contrary to what it said it would do and demonstrates it failed to follow its complaint policy and the Code when handling the resident’s complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays to the repairs.
    2. Pay the resident £250 for the failures in its complaint handling.
    3. In regards to complaint handling, the landlord shall provide the Ombudsman with a plan confirming the measures it will take to ensure it formerly responds to complaints in accordance with its own timescales and in accordance with the Code.
    4. Comply with the above order within four weeks.
    5. Provide a permanent repair to the overflow pipe from the water tank in the communal loft within 12 weeks -this timeframe takes into account the need for the asbestos removal.