Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202114715)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114715

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

28 March 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 response to the resident’s reports of blockages to her sinks and bath.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has a legal obligation to “keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, … and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences”. The landlord’s Repairs Handbook confirms its responsibility to carry out repairs to baths/hand basins and sanitary fixtures and fittings, whilst stating that residents are responsible for waste blockages within baths, kitchen and bathroom sinks.
The landlord had a two stage complaints procedure. At Stage 1 it should respond within 15 working days. At Stage 2 it should respond within 20 working days.

Summary of Events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Her property is a flat in a block.
A previous contractor for the landlord carried out major works under the Decent Homes Scheme at the resident’s property and block over 10 years ago. The resident has advised that she has experienced drainage problems since. The landlord’s repair records show:
1. In December 2011, the resident reported blockages to the bath, wash hand basin and sink. In response, the landlord ordered that jetters be used to clear back surges.
2. On 9 November 2015, the resident reported a blocked toilet which the landlord attended to as an emergency repair.
3. In May 2016, the resident reported blockages and back surges in the kitchen and bathroom. She reported that when the kitchen sink was blocked it backed up into the wash hand basin and vice versa. The landlord raised an order to check the pipework in the property and report back.
4. On 9 November 2015, the resident reported a blocked toilet.
5. On 17 November 2017, the landlord raised an order to investigate and resolve historic leaks from the flat above. (The resident has stated that other properties in the block have experienced similar issues from faulty plumbing works carried out under the major works programme).
6. Also, on 17 November 2017, the landlord raised another order for a CCTV survey of the “drains [for the resident’s property] causing historic problems with sewage blockages and [a] persistent smell in [the] property when the heating is switched on”, noting that some pipes run underneath the floor.
On 20 October 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint stating that:
1. She had an historic issue with drainage since modernisation works were completed approximately ten years prior. Every few months the pipes became blocked throughout the property which led to no water. Numerous contractors had visited her home since. The pipes were currently blocked.
2. The major works contractor temporarily ran plastic pipes through her property which led outside, and these pipes were never changed. She wanted the plastic pipes to be replaced with the correct pipes so this issue would not arise again.
On 10 November 2020 the landlord raised an order in respect of an “on-going blockage due to faulty pipework back surging and overflowing”. Its contractor cleared the blockage but reported that the issue may re-occur and that it recommended a de-scale. The landlord raised an order for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s property on 23 November 2020; however, a plumber attended according to correspondence sent by the resident to the landlord at the time.
The landlord raised another order to unblock the toilet and shower on 10 December 2020. On 15 January 2021, it raised an order for a CCTV survey of the pipe work to the stack, but this order was cancelled. However, the landlord raised an order for a surveyor to visit on 20 January 2021. The landlord has not provided a record of the surveyor visit.
On 1 March 2021, the landlord sent the Stage 1 response dated 22 February 2021. It noted that a surveyor had visited the resident’s home in January and had advised on a “package of works” to the resident’s bathroom. It stated there were works that needed to be done to the pipework first to ensure that there was a long-term solution and that it had asked its contractor who was responsible for all its communal repairs for its expert advice on the drainage pipes. The landlord also advised that it was liaising with the Council’s building control department to see if it could access the original drawings of the pipework. It notified the resident of her point of contact and assured her of her involvement until the issues were resolved.
Also on 1 March 2021, the landlord raised an order for staff to meet on site to discuss connecting pipes to their initial connections prior to the major works. A proposed appointment for 15 March 2021 was cancelled as the resident was unavailable and it is not evident that the inspection was rearranged, or if it was, what the outcome was. On 6 and 16 April 2021, the resident chased up works to her property stating that her bath was not working, and her wash hand basin was now blocked again. She noted that a surveyor had taken a set of her keys about three weeks prior but had not made contact since.
On 4 June 2021 the resident again queried when works would be carried out to her property noting that the contractor had attended but she was still unable to use her bathroom. The landlord’s records indicate that its surveyor was to call the resident that day, although there is no record of the outcome.
On 26 June 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that after one year, her complaint about the bathroom plumbing had not been resolved and she wished to escalate it to Stage 2. However, she had phoned the landlord that day and was informed her complaint was closed.
On 28 June 2021 the landlord asked its surveyor to update the resident. The surveyor called the resident advising that the landlord intended to raise the bath to resolve the issues raised; however, the resident declined the works.
On 28 June 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s Stage 2 complaint and asked her for further comments. The resident subsequently wrote to the landlord on the following day to state that:
1. It was disruptive for her to have her bath and sink blocked every few months and expensive for the landlord. Both the bath and bathroom sink were not running properly. She usually showered at her gym but could not do so during lockdown.
2. Plumbers had advised her that the problem lay in the plastic temporary pipes being overground and that the original pipes under the floor needed to be reinstated for there to be normal drop for water flow. She therefore did not want “yet another botch up job of raising my bath”.
3. English Heritage had complained about plastic pipes being on the outside of a listed building.
4. She had requested the conversion of her bathroom into a walk-in shower.
5. She had experienced floods from the flat above which also had faulty plumbing from the major works.
The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates it then decided not to accept the resident’s Stage 2 complaint as she had refused the works it intended to carry out and had not escalated the complaint within 20 days. On 30 June 2021, the landlord spoke to resident again then wrote to her to close her complaint. It noted that the resident did not agree with its assessment that the blockages could best be resolved by raising the bath to allow the water to flow; she wanted copper pipes to be re-laid under the flooring to replace the existing rubber pipes. However, the landlord advised that there was nothing further it could do.
On 21 October 2021 the resident referred her complaint to this Service stating that her bath was not working, her sink was still blocked and there was flood damage, caused by blockages in the pipework. On 24 March 2022, the resident advised this Service that her bath was blocked again and mould on her bathroom ceiling from a leak from the flat above was getting worse.

Assessment and findings

In investigating this complaint, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to carry out a technical assessment of disputed repair issues and determine what works should be carried out. Rather, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s actions taking into account its legal obligations, policies and procedures and good practice.
Whilst the Repairs Handbook states that residents are responsible for waste blockages within baths, kitchen and bathroom sinks, the landlord has not stated this applies to the resident’s case, and it has responded to her reports. It has therefore accepted that the blockages reported are indicative of repair issues and/or defects that it is responsible for remedying.
The landlord’s repair records show that it has responded to blockages to the resident’s bath, sinks and toilet reported by her. However, at the time the resident made her complaint, it had not identified a general, ongoing issue with the pipework / drainage despite carrying out orders to investigate. It is not always possible for an issue to be identified and resolved at first inspection; sometimes there needs to be further investigation of the issues, particularly where there is complexity, or an expert opinion is needed. Nonetheless, at no point did the landlord reassure the resident that the matter would be resolved or inform her of any findings reached, inappropriately leaving her in a place of uncertainty, for a protracted period of time, prior to her complaint.
The resident’s formal complaint of 20 October 2020 provided an opportunity for the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns about repeated blockages and identify a solution. It was appropriate that the landlord arranged for a surveyor to inspect as it is the role and responsibility of surveyors to make assessments of technical issues for the landlord. However, there was an unreasonable delay in the inspection in that it did not take place until two months later, in January 2021.
There is, also, no record of the inspection of January 2021. The absence of this record taken together with the lack of evidence of previous investigations carried out is concerning and a serious failing on the part of the landlord. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents.
There was a further delay by the landlord in communicating the outcome of the inspection of January 2021 to the resident insofar as it only did so when sending the Stage 1 response on 1 March 2021, over a month after the inspection. The response itself was not specific insofar as the landlord advised that there was a “package of works” needed to the resident’s bathroom including works to the pipes, but that it first needed to make enquiries and seek information from its contractor and building works department. Making further enquiries in itself was not unreasonable because, as noted above, complex matters such as the routing of pipes through a building can require further investigation. However, the landlord then is responsible for updating the resident so as to manage expectations. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out the further enquiries stated in its response of 1 March 2021 or, if it did, that it updated the resident on the outcome and the works identified, despite nominating a point of contact for the case. These failures are inconsistent with Part 4.4 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which sets out that “A complaint should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity, having assessed what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues”, and exacerbated the delay in dealing the resident’s case and the distress caused.
The landlord only advised the resident of the action it intended to take – to elevate her bath – after she sought to escalate her complaint on 26 June 2021. Ultimately, the landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its suitably qualified staff. However, the resident then raised a further query in her email of 29 June 2021 about the landlord’s decision, reiterating her understanding that the drainage problems were caused by the installation of plastic temporary pipes which should not be external to the building in any case. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s query or explain why it did not prefer her proposal to install copper pipes instead, nor did it make clear whether it would explore other options if elevating the bath did not have the anticipated results. It thereby did not take adequate steps to reassure her about its proposed solution. This was particularly unreasonable as the resident had refused the works, therefore the impasse needed to be broken.
With regards to the landlord’s complaints handling, the Stage 1 response was sent outside the timeframe set out in its Complaints Procedure. Whilst this was in part due to ongoing investigations, the landlord did not consistently update the resident about the status and progress of her complaint, indicating a failure in the oversight and management of the complaint. There were further failings insofar as the full and substantive Stage 1 response was contingent of further investigations being made then communicated to the resident, but the landlord did not provide a full and final complaint response. In fact, the resident’s phone call of 26 June 2021 indicates that the landlord had closed the complaint without informing the resident.
Landlords are expected to follow this Service Dispute Resolution Principles which are for landlords to Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes. The landlord changed its decision to accept the resident’s Stage 2 complaint, simply closing the case on the basis that the resident did not agree with its proposed works. By doing so, it omitted to respond to other issues the resident had raised related to her main complaint about blockages such as whether there should be pipes outside her property in the first instance, what action it would take in respect of leaks and resultant damage to her property and the process by which she could have a walk-in shower. As such, the landlord did not demonstrate fairness or an intention to put all matters of the complaint right which is not in line with the principles or Part 5.6 of the Complaint Handling Code which sets out that “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions”. The complaint procedure also allows a landlord to hear a resident and possibly improve the landlord – tenant relationship. In this case, by not acknowledging the inconvenience to the resident, in particular during lockdown, the landlord missed an opportunity to show empathy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of blockages to her sink and bath.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

Prior to the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord did not inform the resident of the findings it reached when investigating the blockages reported or provide reassurance that the matter would be resolved. After the resident made a formal complaint, the landlord delayed in carrying out an inspection, then delayed in communicating the outcome. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out the further investigations it considered necessary that were stated in its response of 1 March 2021 or, if it did, that it updated the resident, despite nominating a point of contact for the case.
After outlining its proposed solution, the lifting of the bath, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s contention that drainage problems were due to the installation of temporary plastic pipes or explain why it did not prefer her proposal that it install copper pipes instead. Nor did it make clear whether it would explore other options if elevating the bath did not have the anticipated results. It thereby failed to reassure her about its proposed solution.
With regards to the landlord’s complaints handling, the Stage 1 response was sent outside the timeframe set out in its Complaints Procedure and it did not consistently update the resident on the status and progress of the complaint in the interim. In its final complaint response, the landlord omitted to respond to other issues the resident had raised related to her main complaint about blockages, such as whether there should be pipes outside her property in the first instance, what action it would take in respect of leaks to her property and the process by which she could have a walk-in shower. As such, the landlord did not demonstrate fairness or an intention to put all matters of complaint right which is not in line with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles or Complaint Handling Code.

Orders

Within the next four weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. pay the resident £350 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of blockages.
2. pay the resident £150 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its complaint handling.
3. if works are currently outstanding, advise the resident of the works it intends to take and make an appointment for the works. It should also make clear in writing whether it considers there are problems caused by the plastic temporary pipes referred to by the resident and whether it is necessary to replace them as requested by the resident, giving reasons.
Within the next six weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. review the failings in complaint handling identified in this case including why the complaint was not investigated with consideration given to relevant records and why not all points of complaint were addressed.
2. confirm to the Ombudsman whether action has already been taken to ensure these failings are not repeated.
3. If not, confirm to the Ombudsman what further action will be taken to reduce the risk of these failings happening again. This may include training staff in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
4. review why appropriate repair records could not be provided in this case. The landlord should consider whether improvements in its repairs record keeping and/or record retrieval are required and, if so, how these will be achieved. The outcome of the landlord’s consideration should be shared with the Ombudsman.