Havering Council (201909000)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909000

Havering Council

25 January 2022

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident about:
1. Repairs reports for a communal kitchen stack pipe in 2019.
2. Reimbursement for repairs to a communal bathroom stack pipe in 2020.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, a local authority. The resident sub-lets the property.
The lease agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible to maintain, repair and renew the main structure of the property which includes stacks, gutters and water pipes; while the resident is responsible to permit the landlord to view and carry out repairs for which it is liable, and to pay estimated and actual service charges. The landlord’s website adds that the landlord is responsible for “communal parts of the soil stacks,” while a leaseholder is responsible for “any pipe work that relates solely to your property.” The landlord insures the structure but this does not include the internal property, furniture and belongings.
The landlord’s repair policy confirms that it is responsible for repairs to communal areas “as documented within individual leases” and is silent on the frequency of communal repairs. The policy confirms that works that are not likely to cause serious inconvenience if they are not immediately done are completed in 28 working days, or carried out under planned works, where a timeframe is not specified.
The landlord operates a three stage complaints procedure. At stage one, it aims to respond within ten working days; at stage two, within 25 working days; and at stage three, within 30 working days. Certain types of complaints fall outside the procedure, such as the merits of an insurance claim, or matters that would be more appropriately considered by an insurer, and if the landlord receives a complaint and decides not to accept such a complaint it will inform a customer and suggest an alternative route where possible.

Summary of events

Repairs to a communal kitchen stack pipe in 2019

Around 23 July 2019, the property was affected by a leak which came up through and damaged kitchen flooring. The resident’s tenant reported the leak to a private plumber, whose report detailed that due to damage to the communal kitchen stack pipe below floor level, water from household appliances and the sink flowed to a certain point, backed up when it hit a gulley blockage and leaked through the kitchen floor. The private plumber took some steps to clear the blockage through the use of jets and iron rods; detailed some suggested works; and recommended for the landlord to inspect and make its own conclusions.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 July 2019 and its contractor attended the property the following day, when his tenant was in and the leak was not present, for a repair to “clear and rectify blocked stack.” The contractor was provided video of the leak and a copy of the private plumber’s report and was asked to take steps to unblock the pipe and prevent the issue reoccurring. Following this, an inspection was carried out where the landlord’s surveyor discussed matters with the resident’s tenant, after which a CCTV survey was scheduled to identify if there were any faults with the pipe.
The resident complained on 29 July 2019 about the landlord’s response to his and his tenant’s desire for the issue not to reoccur. He stated that a similar leak occurred four years prior, and his insurance company would ask if the issue had been fixed before covering floor damage. He was unhappy that the landlord’s surveyor disagreed with the private plumber’s recommendations; indicated it was acceptable for intermittent leaks and blockages to occur; and suggested claiming via insurance every time the issue occurred. The resident said he was only reassured when another surveyor scheduled a CCTV survey.
The landlord discussed matters with the contractor, which noted that:
1. the contractor was not asked to attend before the incident; the pipe was unblocked by a private plumber; and the blockage was believed to be due to fat that had put pressure on joints and resulted in a leak.
2. the issue could not be guaranteed to never reoccur as there was no control over what was put down the pipes.
3. the contractor was not responsible for the upgrade of the pipe.
4. there would have been leaks at the inspection if the pipe had breaks, however this would be reviewed on receipt of the scheduled CCTV survey.
On 6 August 2019, subcontractors attended to carry out the CCTV survey and their report advises that they carried out a high-pressure water jetting which removed fat; abandoned the CCTV survey because a camera was unable to pass through the scale and fat; and recommended a full descale of the pipe. The contractor informed the landlord of the recommendation but advised they had no reason to suggest further works were required at that stage, as the pipe had been cleared and there were no ongoing reports, a normal trigger to consider a descale or further clearance. The subcontractor’s jetting supported this assumption as this did not cause flooding to the property when done. The contractor noted the resident was under the impression pipes were cleared regularly under a maintenance programme and was informed this was unlikely, but the landlord would decide if further works were required.
On 13 August 2019, the landlord issued a stage one response to the complaint. This said:
1. It apologised if customer service was below standards expected.
2. The CCTV survey report on 6 August 2019 advised that fat deposits were removed; the investigation was abandoned due to extensive household waste in the stack pipe; and a full descale of the stack pipe and gully was recommended to resolve issues.
3. The waste residents deposited could not be controlled, but it would write to ask residents not to congest the drainage system with household waste.
4. It would be happy to accommodate requests from the resident’s insurance company.
5. It would investigate matters further if evidence was provided of failures to deliver a satisfactory service.
The resident subsequently emailed dissatisfaction with the response and requested escalation of the complaint. He was unhappy with having to ‘push’ the landlord to acknowledge that the pipe required a full unblock; being referred between the landlord and its contactor for updates; and the slow progress of the works. He queried if letters had been sent to residents about congestion to the communal pipe.
On 15 August 2019, the contractor updated the landlord that they spoke to the resident and informed him they carried out responsive repairs and, as there were no blockages, further preventative works would be considered by the landlord. The contractor restated to the landlord that further works were not required and would likely incur an unnecessary cost to leasehold properties. The landlord was asked to contact the resident to inform him of next steps.
On 21 August 2019, the resident raised concern to the contractor and landlord about the CCTV survey not being done and the investigation being abandoned. He stated there was meant to be periodic maintenance of the pipe and the contractor had informed him they were waiting on the landlord for a date for works. The contractor informed the resident that they had not said they were waiting to set a date, and no further works were required or planned.
On 22 August 2019, residents at the block were sent a letter which requested for matter likely to cause blockages not to be put down drains or sinks.
On 6 September 2019, the resident emailed the landlord and restated events and his concerns. On 19 September 2019, the resident was informed there had been attempts to call him to arrange a joint visit, and 23 September 2019 was proposed for a visit. On 4 October 2019, the resident was informed that steps were being taken to investigate the issues raised and that he would be written to about the outcome. On 8 October 2019, the landlord’s contractors completed a CCTV survey that identified a defective ‘rest bend,’ which was replaced on 10 October 2019. On 24 October 2019, the landlord issued its stage two response. This said:
1. A leak under the kitchen floor was investigated by a private plumber on 23 July 2019. Its contractor attended to find wastewater flowed freely and no evidence of a leak, and the pipe was jetted and further elements of the blockage were removed.
2. Its contractor disagreed with works the private plumber believed were required. There was discussion of further preventative work, however its contractor did not believe there was evidence some scale to pipework was likely to cause further issues, as the pipe was left running clear.
3. It was possible to CCTV survey the entire pipe on 8 October 2019, a misalignment was identified as the point at which fat and scale accumulated, and repairs were completed two days later.
4. It would have been inappropriate to proceed on the basis of a third-party report which conflicted with information from its own contractor, however it could have been more proactive and taken action earlier, which led to inconvenience and delay in an adequate repair.
5. It advised that individual staff positions were based on the outcome of visits and contractor recommendations; it had sent a letter to residents on 22 August 2019; and its obligations under the lease was to repair and would not normally include works such as regular pipe jetting.
6. Its staff had done their best to provide timely responses when there had been information or responses to provide, but resolution of leak problems took longer than hoped. It offered a goodwill payment of £110 and it would also waive costs for the stack pipe repairs when the annual service and maintenance fee was calculated.
The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 1 December 2019. He was unhappy with communication and delays and a surveyor having been adamant the pipe was not damaged. He stated he had lost his tenant due to the landlord’s negligence, and he requested compensation for rent loss and cost of finding a new tenant. The landlord issued a response on 17 December 2019 in which it confirmed its previous response was its final response to the complaint. The landlord subsequently paid the £110 compensation to the resident on 14 December 2020, after discussing a later complaint with him in November 2020.

Repairs to a communal bathroom stack pipe in 2020

In Summer 2020, the resident arranged works to refurbish the bathroom, during which it was identified that a bathroom stack pipe had deteriorated and led to water ingress issues in the bathroom. The resident paid his contractor to carry out the repair and on 16 August 2020 he was invoiced £350 for works to “cut out and repair perished stack pipe from bath and basin waste.” On 20 August 2020, the resident’s insurance emailed the invoice to the landlord and asked it to reimburse the resident, as the bathroom stack pipe was a communal pipe and its responsibility to maintain. The resident emailed on 26 August 2020, apparently to object to a position he had been advised, and was informed its leasehold team would respond after hearing from another team. On 18 September 2020, the resident complained about a lack of response after sending two chasers, and on 2 October 2020, the landlord issued a stage one response. This said:
1. It apologised that emails from the resident had not been picked up due to staff absence and lack of oversight.
2. A ‘stack pipe’ repair had been rescheduled from 30 September 2020 to 7 October 2020, after an operative was unable to attend.
The resident responded that the complaint concerned reimbursement for repairs to a communal stack pipe, and the response mixed up the issue with a current stopcock repair, for which the landlord apologised in a follow up email on 19 November 2020. It advised that the previous complaint about the stack pipe had been answered via its complaints process. It advised that its understanding was that it would waive the cost of the repair as part of the resident’s leasehold charges, and so the works would not appear on future statements. It advised that it was happy to discuss the recent complaint and a telephone call was subsequently scheduled on 26 November 2020. The notes are not provided for this call, but this investigation understands that the resident agreed to accept the £110 compensation previously offered for the separate communal kitchen stack pipe repair, and this was paid to him on 14 December 2020.
In February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord that £350 had not been removed from charges in a recent service charges statement, as agreed in complaint correspondence; and he then queried a lack of response in March 2021. In response to a query from this Service, the landlord advised that it responded to the complaint in October 2020. It noted the resident had contacted about a deduction of a charge for remedial work to the stack pipe, which did not appear to have been applied to the estimated service charge. It explained that this was an ongoing issue which it would respond to as soon as possible.
In April 2021, the landlord suggested that the resident detail his dissatisfaction so it could review his concerns again at stage one of its complaints procedure, given the length of time elapsed. The resident raised dissatisfaction with this and referred to previous correspondence, after which the landlord asked if they could arrange a call, which the resident declined. On 9 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it agreed it would be more beneficial to have the complaint investigated by this Service.
The resident and landlord exchanged further emails on the matter from September to October 2021. He stated that the landlord had ignored an agreement to waive £350, and referred to its response to the separate complaint at paragraph 17f of this report. The landlord acknowledged there was confusion on the matter and clarified that, for the separate complaint, it had agreed to waive the cost of drainage works due to delays. It explained that the resident’s proportion for these, £250, had not been charged to his account, so there was no amount to ‘rescind.’ It noted that the resident had accepted a compensation offer of £110 (for the separate complaint) following a telephone call in November 2020. It advised that the £350 referred to was money the resident had paid to his own plumber, which there was no record it had agreed to waive.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response about repairs reports for a communal kitchen stack pipe in 2019

In this case the Ombudsman notes that in its final response, the landlord acknowledged issues with its management of the case. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint. This further assessment considers whether the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, which are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
In accordance with the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property. The landlord mainly meets these obligations through a reactive repairs service and its policies are silent on the frequency of communal repairs.
It is not in this Service’s expertise or jurisdiction to determine the frequency of proactive maintenance, or to definitively decide whether the landlord breached its lease obligations in respect to these. This Service’s main consideration when assessing a complaint is whether the landlord has responded appropriately to any repairs reports, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. While the Ombudsman can take a view on the position by reference to law, the lease and policies, if this is disputed, only an insurance or court procedure can offer a definitive and legally binding decision.
Taking the above into account, this Service therefore expects the landlord to investigate reports it receives about communal drains and to take appropriate steps to resolve issues it identifies.
Following a report of a leak due to a blocked drain, the landlord’s contractor attended the next day to find limited evidence of the leak and blockage, due in part to actions of a private plumber arranged by the resident’s tenant. The private plumber’s recommendations, along with concerns raised by the resident and his tenant, were considered in a further inspection within a week of the original report, and a CCTV survey was arranged that took place within two weeks of the original report. The landlord’s contractor considered the subcontractor’s recommendations when the drain inspection was not completed, and concluded further action was unnecessary as the drain was clear and there were no ongoing reports to trigger further action.
In its stage one response, the landlord detailed that the CCTV survey was abandoned and recommendations had been made; confirmed it would write to residents at the block to try to deter congestion of the drainage system; and confirmed it would accommodate requests from the resident’s insurer. The landlord subsequently wrote to residents about the congestion within ten days.
When the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord made attempts to arrange a visit with the resident the following month. It then completed works it identified at a successful CCTV survey, and provided a stage two response, around two months after the escalation.
In its final response, the landlord detailed steps it took to ensure the pipe was unblocked, and it confirmed repairs were carried out after a further CCTV survey identified a misalignment to be a point at which fat and scale accumulated. The landlord explained that its lease obligations were to repair and not to take action such as regular pipe jetting. It set out that it would have been inappropriate to proceed on the basis of a third-party report which its own contractor disagreed with. It acknowledged and apologised for resolution of the issues being delayed and offered £110 compensation and to waive the stack pipe repairs costs when calculating the resident’s service charge. The resident was subsequently paid the compensation and the landlord has confirmed that the resident’s proportion of the works, £250, has not been added to the service charge.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response was overall reasonable.
This investigation understands the resident’s desire for action to be taken to avoid issues occurring, and dissatisfaction with staff’s handling of matters. The landlord’s advice to submit an insurance claim when issues arise appears in line with the normal approach for such matters, and the landlord was reasonable not to immediately action all the recommendations in the private plumber’s report. The landlord should certainly consider third–party recommendations, however as freeholder it is not obligated to follow them. The inspection, arranged CCTV survey and jetting demonstrates that the landlord promptly inspected, considered voiced concerns and investigated the issue. This demonstrates that the landlord took appropriate steps to respond to the issue, and also fulfilled the private report’s recommendation for the landlord to carry out its own inspection and make its own conclusions. In addition, the landlord met a commitment to write to residents to try to deter future blockages.
The decision that works were unnecessary after an unsuccessful CCTV survey appears reasonable. It is understandable that the survey being abandoned due to extensive household waste in the pipe may have been concerning, and this investigation makes a recommendation in relation to this. However, the evidence shows that the abandoned CCTV survey and the recommendation to descale the pipe was considered, along with information such as lack of ongoing reports and the pipe being unblocked, as part of the decision that works were unnecessary.
The decisions in respect of the issue therefore appeared to consider all the issues and were based on the professional opinion of the landlord staff and contractors, on whose opinion the landlord is entitled to rely. This means that the landlord reached conclusions in an appropriate way and in accordance with what the Ombudsman would expect to see.
The subsequent action to carry out a further CCTV survey, and swiftly complete identified works, shows the landlord considered the resident’s concern for the issue not to recur, and completed a further repair within forty days of his complaint escalation. This timeframe does not appear overly excessive. The works appear to come under repair priorities that require them to be completed within 28 working days (which was exceeded by 12 working days), or within a wider timeframe. The landlord’s prior actions ensured the immediate blockage issue was addressed, and there is no evidence that the delay in rectifying a misalignment led to recurrence of the issue and damage to the property.
This investigation understands however that the handling of matters caused frustration to the resident, and communication and consideration in respect of the matter was delayed and unhelpful at points.
The stage one response detailed the abandoned CCTV survey and stated that recommendations had been made to carry out a descale. This did not reflect the contractor’s views around that time that further works were unnecessary, and the response’s lack of clarity may have created the expectancy that the recommended action would be taken. This Service expects landlords to use complaints as an opportunity to help manage expectations and to give details and timescales for any actions it plans to take, which this response failed to do in respect of the repair.
There was delay in communication between the landlord and the resident in certain periods. The contractor informed the resident that further works would have to be considered by the landlord and asked the landlord to inform the resident of next steps, which the landlord did not appear to do until one to two months later. The resident being informed positions by contractors which were not clarified by the landlord for some time will have been frustrating for him and led to ongoing uncertainty. This was unreasonable considering the landlord was the ultimate decisionmaker in respect of the issues the resident was raising.
It was therefore appropriate that the landlord’s final response acknowledged that the repairs identified and completed after a successful CCTV survey represented a delayed resolution to the matter; apologised; and offered compensation. This was reasonably in accordance with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles, and the waive of service charges for the repairs was a positive step on the part of the landlord to exercise discretion beyond its obligations (since it is entitled to recharge for such repairs).
In its Remedies Guidance the Housing Ombudsman Service sets out three compensation ranges which this Service takes into account when determining cases. The financial remedy provided by the landlord totalling £360 falls in the second highest range, where there has been service failure or maladministration and issues such as having to chase responses and being passed between teams, which appear applicable to this case.
Accordingly, the financial remedy provided by the landlord was in accordance with this Service’s Remedies Guidance and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, considering all of the circumstances of the case the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s response about reimbursement for repairs to a communal bathroom stack pipe in 2020

This Service understands the resident’s general dissatisfaction and desire not to be out of pocket for repairs he considers to be the landlord’s responsibility.
It is not in this Service’s expertise or jurisdiction to determine the frequency of proactive maintenance, or to definitively decide whether the landlord breached its lease obligations in respect to these. This Service’s main consideration when assessing a complaint is whether the landlord has responded appropriately to any repairs reports, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. While the Ombudsman can take a view on the position by reference to law, the lease and policies, if this is disputed, only an insurance or court procedure can offer a definitive and legally binding decision.
The lease, the main contract between the parties, sets out that the landlord is obligated to maintain the main structure of the property which includes pipes, while its website adds that it is responsible for “communal parts of the soil stacks” and a leaseholder is responsible for “any pipe work that relates solely to your property.” A main way that the landlord meets its repairs obligations is through reactive maintenance in response to repairs reports, and the lease obligates a leaseholder to give the landlord the opportunity to carry out repairs for which it is liable. There appears no evidence that the lease, or any other policy, obligates the landlord to reimburse the resident for works he carries out, although he must pay a service charge for works the landlord carries out.
In this case, as the resident informed the landlord about works required to the bathroom stack pipe after he arranged these to be done, there is no evidence of a failure in respect to the pipe repair, such as a delay in the landlord responding to a repair report. The landlord’s website specifies that the landlord is responsible for communal parts of soil stacks, which suggests the resident may be expected to arrange and pay for repair of ‘non-communal’ parts of a stack pipe located in his property. The issue of reimbursement therefore appears to be at the landlord’s discretion or for an insurance or court procedure to decide, as there is limited evidence that the landlord failed in its obligations or delayed responding to a repair report, that led to the works costs being unreasonably incurred.
The landlord’s most recent responses advised that information the resident refers to does not evidence it agreed to reimburse him £350. This appears accurate, as the information the resident refers to relates to the landlord’s commitment to waive service charges for the separate kitchen stack pipe complaint.
However, in order to conclude that the landlord responded reasonably to this complaint, this investigation would expect to see evidence that the landlord set out its position on the reimbursement request; signposted the resident to its insurer if he continued to feel it was liable for the costs he incurred; and adequately responded to the matter in the complaint procedure.
This investigation sees limited evidence for this. There is no evidence that the landlord met a commitment to respond to the resident’s email on 26 August 2020, and its complaint response failed to address the substance of the issue and set out its position. The landlord discussed matters with the resident by telephone and later invited him to restate his complaint, however a lack of a clear written update to the complaint appears to have led to confusion about what was agreed, and it is not entirely reasonable to expect a complainant to take a complaint multiple times through a complaints procedure.
The evidence overall shows that the landlord has not responded reasonably to the resident’s request for reimbursement or engaged with the substance of the complaint. This has led to the issue becoming unnecessarily protracted; and it is understandable that this may have led to some frustration for the resident and an ongoing perception that he may not have been treated fairly.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its response to the resident about repairs reports for a communal kitchen stack pipe in 2019.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident about reimbursement for repairs to a communal bathroom stack pipe in 2020.

Reasons

While there were some issues and delays in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen stack pipe repair and complaint, the landlord’s response provides, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, an appropriate level of redress.
While there is no evidence the landlord is obligated to reimburse the resident for works he carried out, it has not adequately responded to his request and complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £100 for its failure to adequately reply to his request and complaint about reimbursement for repairs to a communal bathroom stack pipe in 2020.
The landlord to set out its position to the resident in respect of reimbursement for the repairs to the communal bathroom stack pipe. If the landlord declines to reimburse the resident for the communal bathroom stack pipe, it should take steps to ensure the resident’s claim is assessed by its insurer, and that he is not disadvantaged by any delay in being informed of its insurer’s details.
The landlord should provide evidence of the above to this Service within four weeks of the decision.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its service and complaints handling to ensure that it:
1. considers and sets out its position on repairs enquiries and complaints in a timely way.
2. provides meaningful responses to issues which reflect current internal discussions.
The landlord to review whether in future, an unsuccessful CCTV survey in similar circumstances should prompt further proactive action, such as further pipe clearance and a further attempt to complete the CCTV survey.