London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202104577)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104577

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

23 September 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

1. This complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of back surging sewage in the property;
   2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident was an assured shorthold tenant when the tenancy began in 2011. The information seen suggests he became an assured non-shorthold tenant after 12 months. The property is a one-bedroom ground-floor flat in a block with shared drainage. The resident has vulnerabilities relating to his mental health.
3. The landlord’s relevant repairs policy document is available online. It shows the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property, and for maintaining communal facilities. It is obliged to attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. Mutually convenient appointments will be raised for all non-emergency repairs. Residents are responsible for clearing blockages to sanitaryware including sinks and toilets. They are also responsible for providing floor coverings such as carpets.
4. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy document confirms it will respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, the landlord will respond in 20 working days. Complaints should be acknowledged within two working days at both stages.
5. The landlord’s related compensation policy shows the landlord will refer customer claims for damaged personal belongings to its insurance team. It also shows the landlord will “partly or fully” offset compensation payments against customer debts including rent arrears.

Summary of events

6. On 19 May 2021 the resident called the landlord out of hours to report a plumbing issue. The landlord’s repair records show the property’s bath and toilet were back surging, and the toilet was on the verge of overflowing. Its corresponding repair notes said bubbling sounds were audible during the call. The resident’s later correspondence shows the landlord’s engineer attended within hours, but they were unable to remove the blockage.
7. Further records from 20 May 2021 said there was a communal stack issue and the block’s drains needed “descaling”. They show waste water was overflowing in the bath and toilet. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows it was unable to complete the works as an emergency repair. It confirms the landlord was concerned about the property’s lack of a functioning bathroom, along with the situation’s health and safety implications. The landlord decanted the resident and his family to temporary accommodation the same day. The decant was scheduled to last around one week.
8. The repair records show the drains were unblocked on 21 May 2021. They also show sewage had overflowed into the property’s hallway and bedroom. The information seen shows the repair was completed by a specialist drainage contractor. The resident asked the landlord to complete an urgent deep clean the same day. His subsequent correspondence suggests he made this request after discovering the property’s condition, having returned to collect some of the family’s belongings.
9. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord over two emails on 22 May 2021. His main points were:
   1. The landlord’s initial engineer was “useless”. They did not display identification and the questions they asked did not inspire confidence. They  incorrectly concluded the drains needed to be accessed through a neighbouring flat and the repair would take days. They also flooded the bathroom before leaving and it took the resident until around 1am to clear the flood water. The engineer’s promise that another operative would attend “first-thing” next morning did not materialise.
   2. The resident made several phone calls to the landlord the next day. A further promise that an engineer would attend by 12pm was broken. The toilet and bath were flooding with faeces and the resident’s young family were unable to use the bathroom. After expressing dissatisfaction, the resident was eventually offered a temporary decant. This was on the basis the repair was a “big job” that could take several days. This was not the resident’s preferred solution, but he was assured the bath and toilet would not overflow while the family was away.
   3. Having briefly returned to the property, the resident found sewage had damaged his carpet and a number of the property’s wooden fittings. He was concerned about the hygiene implications and the risk of further damage to his belongings. This was because the family did not have home insurance. The resident did not want to leave the property, so he raised another repair with the landlord.
   4. The situation impacted the resident’s ongoing anxiety and his children were “traumatised”. The damage was preventable and the repair should be completed urgently because the situation worsened every time other residents used their bathrooms. The resident refused to return to the property until the issue was “fully rectified”. He had missed two days of work and a £900 carpet was “ruined”. The resident wanted compensating for the situation which, he felt, was avoidable if the landlord had listened.
10. The landlord’s records show the following events took place on 24 May:
    1. During internal correspondence, the landlord confirmed all works to the property were complete. It said the resident should be made aware that wet wipes were the main cause of the blockage. It also confirmed its contractor had cleaned the property following the repair. It said further cleaning could be arranged if the resident was unhappy.
    2. The landlord notified the resident works were complete, along with the cause of the blockage. It said his hotel accommodation would end on 27 May 2021, but the resident could check out early if he wanted. It also asked the resident to confirm if the reported flood was resolved. The landlord subsequently told the resident the decant had been extended by one week.
    3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage one. It apologised for any inconvenience the family experienced. It said the property’s drains were unblocked and a specialist cleaning contractor would conduct a deep clean. Further, the contractor would contact the resident directly to arrange the appointment. The landlord also said it would raise the resident’s concerns about damaged items with its surveyor.
11. On 26 May 2021 the cleaning contractor wrote to the landlord. It said it had spoken to the resident that day to establish the scope of the required cleaning works. The letter included a schedule of works for the landlord’s information. The living room carpet was not included in this schedule. The letter shows the contractor was in direct contact with the resident. It is reasonable to conclude the contractor likely provided the resident some information about the cleaning process.
12. On 9 June 2021 the contractor notified the landlord that cleaning works were complete. However, the landlord’s internal correspondence shows the resident refused to return to the property unless its condition was approved by an inspection. The correspondence asked if the decant could be extended by a further day. It detailed several damaged items and noted both the resident and his wife wanted compensation for loss of earnings.
13. The landlord’s complaint records from the same day show the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint handling. This was broadly due to the landlord’s communication, the damaged items and the fact the complaint was unresolved. The records show the resident said the landlord’s complaint handler had approved a replacement bathtub. This was subsequently disputed by the complaint handler.
14. The resident updated the landlord by email around the same time. The email broadly restated his previous concerns but some additional information was provided. The resident’s key additional points were:
    1. The resident was being forced to return to the property on 11 June 2021 even though requested repairs (to the floor coverings and bathtub) were outstanding. This was unfair because the landlord was legally obliged to ensure the family’s health and safety. However, it unreasonably expected them to live in a “germs environment”. Overall, the situation was having a significant negative impact on the family. Both the resident and his wife were off work with stress and depression.
    2. The landlord’s communication was poor. For example, the resident had spoken to multiple representatives and he often had to wait between 30 and 50 minutes on the phone. He was also unable to reach his designated complaint handler between 1 and 7 June 2021 to obtain details of the landlord’s repair works. This was because they failed to notify him they were on annual leave. The property’s living room carpet was subsequently removed in error on 8 June 2021.
    3. The property’s flooring was stained because repair works were slow to commence. It also presented a safety hazard to the resident’s children because carpet grips were left exposed. Its condition was distressing because the complaint handler had assured the resident the property would be repaired before the family returned. Promised call backs were not completed on a number of occasions, and the complaint handler failed to provide information about the landlord’s insurance claim process.
    4. The landlord ultimately cleared the blockage around two hours after the resident raised another emergency repair. A different engineer attended and they confirmed no access to neighbouring flats was required. The decant was therefore unnecessary and the situation was avoidable if the landlord had listened to the resident’s concerns.
15. The resident spoke to the Ombudsman on 10 June 2021. The call records show he reported the landlord had not responded to his complaint. However, it had recently called him to advise it was working to resolve it. The Ombudsman subsequently asked the landlord to issue a formal response to the complaint.
16. The landlord issued a stage one response the same day. This was 19 working days after the resident’s formal complaint. The response included contact details for the landlord’s insurance department. The main points were:
    1. The landlord’s contractor had completed “a professional deep clean”. It included the: bathroom, bathtub, skirting boards, bedroom and bathroom doors and painted woodwork. The hallway carpets were removed and other carpets were cleaned.
    2. Since all works were complete, the resident could return to the property with his family. The property did not require a further inspection and the landlord would not replace the bathroom flooring or bathtub. Any new repairs should be raised using the landlord’s standard reporting process.
    3. The landlord was sorry for any distress and inconvenience caused. It would credit the resident’s rent account with £100 as a gesture of goodwill. The resident should raise a claim on the landlord’s insurance for the damaged hallway carpet.
17. The resident also asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 10 June 2021. He said he was being told only the hallway carpet had been removed but this information was incorrect. Further, there was no new bath or vinyl flooring and he had been advised to report the carpet grips as a new repair. He also said, during the deep clean, operatives had touched his furniture with contaminated gloves. Overall, he felt the property was unsafe and the flooring should be replaced along with the bathtub.
18. The landlord summarised its position during internal correspondence on 11 June 2021. It said its contractor completed a “professional chemical deep clean” of the property. Further, no inspection was necessary because a post works report, with supporting images of the repairs, was provided.  While the resident was advised to raise an insurance claim for the damaged carpets, the existing bath was clean and undamaged. It said the carpet grips would be raised as an urgent repair, but the resident must return to the property and report the issue.
19. The same day, the contractor told the landlord its operatives replaced their gloves at different stages of the deep clean. Its email implied there was no cross contamination of the resident’s belongings.
20. The landlord’s records from 14 June 2021 show the resident disputed that the bath had been cleaned. They also show he was advised to cover the carpet grippers if he had safety concerns.
21. The parties exchanged emails on 18 June 2021. The landlord relayed details of the contractor’s cleaning process, along with the items cleaned. The email shows the living room carpet was removed. However, no information was seen to show why it was removed. The landlord said it was unable to access the property on 14 June 2021 to make the carpet grips safe. It asked if the resident wanted to arrange another appointment to resolve the issue. Its email included a contact email address for the landlord’s insurance department.
22. The resident subsequently said the contractor’s operatives had only changed gloves once. This was on the basis he was present for the deep clean so he knew what had happened. Further, the bathroom had not been cleaned and a foul smell was “embedded”. The resident confirmed he declined the landlord’s offer of an urgent repair on 11 June 2021, to address the carpet grips, because it was inconvenient. He said he should not have been forced to return to the property and he was taking anti-depressants due to the stress of the situation.
23. On 25 June 2021 the resident told the Ombudsman the landlord had not responded to his stage two complaint. This was eleven working days after his escalation request. Though the landlord was still within its relevant response timescale, no information was seen to show the resident was notified that the landlord’s stage one and stage two response timescales were different. The Ombudsman again asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint.
24. On 5 July 2021 the Ombudsman issued the landlord a final chaser saying that it should respond to the resident’s complaint within five working days to avoid a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO). No information was seen to show the landlord replied. The Ombudsman was therefore unaware the landlord was still within its relevant timescale at this point.
25. On 9 July 2021 the landlord issued a stage two response. This was 21 working days after the resident’s escalation request. The timeline confirms there was a short delay of around one working day. The main points were:
    1. The landlord’s specialist drainage contractor attended the property on 20 May 2021 to identify the issue. It returned the following day to clear the blockage. The resident was decanted for three weeks between 20 May and 10 June 2021.
    2. A specialist environmental contractor attended the property on 8 June 2021 to clean all affected areas. This included a “biocide” clean of the bathroom and bath. Affected carpets were removed from the hallway, living-room and bedroom, along with some towels.
    3. Ultimately, the landlord’s senior maintenance manager confirmed there were no outstanding repairs to prevent the resident from returning. It was also confirmed that replacing the bath and bathroom flooring was unnecessary following the chemical clean. Damaged carpets were subject to an ongoing insurance claim the landlord’s relevant department would liaise with the resident directly.
    4. Since becoming aware of the carpet grips on 10 June 2021, the landlord had been unable to address the situation. It noted it was unable to access the property on 14 June 2021 and, despite being contacted on two occasions, the resident had not subsequently rearranged the appointment.
    5. The level of service the resident received was in line with the landlord’s processes. However, the situation could have been managed more effectively and a better standard of communication could have been achieved.
    6. To put things right, the resident was awarded £600 in compensation. This figure represented the landlord’s maximum possible award. It recognised delays to repairs and the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time and effort. The award would be credited to the resident’s rent account once he confirmed his acceptance.
26. The resident responded in detail on 12 July 2021. He raised a number of additional concerns at this point. For example, he said, the property should have been inspected by an environmental health officer before the family returned. Further, staff at the temporary accommodation were instructed to call the police if the family refused to leave when their scheduled decant ended. Additionally, the Ombudsman intervened on a number of occasions to progress the complaint. Further, it was unfair for the landlord to offset his rent arrears with any compensation payment.
27. On 6 August 2021 the resident updated the Ombudsman by email. He said he was seeking around £2000 in compensation given: the time and effort he spent trying to resolve the situation, his lost earnings, the medical impact and his poor treatment by the landlord. He also said the landlord failed to respond to a formal request for information under Freedom of Information legislation. Further, a repayment plan was in place to address his rent arrears, so any compensation should be paid to him directly.

Assessment and findings

28. It is recognised the situation was distressing and inconvenient for the resident and his family. Its adverse impact on the family’s welfare is also acknowledged. It may help to explain that, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence. On that basis, the resident’s concerns around loss of earnings and any damage to his family’s health are beyond the scope of this assessment. The Ombudsman can assess whether a landlord offered sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience it caused.
29. Typically, the Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have completed a landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As a result, the resident should raise a new complaint with the landlord if he wants to pursue any of the additional issues he raised on 12 July 2021. This is because no information was seen to show the landlord was made aware of these concerns within a reasonable period before its final response. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the correct body to assess a landlord’s compliance with information requests made under Freedom of Information legislation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of back surging sewage in the property

30. In its stage two response, the landlord said the service the resident received was in line with its processes. The information seen shows its assessment was broadly correct. For example, the timeline shows an engineer attended the resident’s initial report within hours. No evidence was seen to show the blockage could have been cleared during this visit. This suggests the eventual sewage overflow was beyond the landlord’s control.
31. The landlord subsequently arranged to clear the block’s communal drains based on the engineer’s assessment. Its internal correspondence shows these works could not be completed as an emergency repair. Later correspondence indicates the property’s pipework was blocked with wet wipes. The information seen shows the blockage was ultimately cleared by a specialist drainage contractor.
32. The timeline also shows the landlord, having recognised the situation’s health and safety implications, decanted the resident and his family within a reasonable period. Ultimately, it appears to have accepted, with better management and communication, that the duration of the decant could have been reduced. This was reasonable given the blockage was cleared within days.
33. In relation to the resident’s damage items, the landlord correctly referred him to its insurance department with a view to raising a claim. The information seen indicates a claim was raised and the situation is ongoing. The landlord could have advised the resident to include the bathroom flooring in this claim. This is because he said the smell was “embedded” following the deep clean. However, no information was seen to show deep cleaning was insufficient for this type of flooring. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s specialist contractor would have highlighted any problems to the resident.
34. No information was seen to show that: the deep clean failed to appropriately address the condition of the property, cross-contamination occurred, the living room carpet was removed in error, or that the property’s bath was damaged and needed replacing. While the landlord could have proactively offered deep cleaning given the circumstances, the timeline suggests it was happy to comply with the resident’s request. The information seen suggests the drainage contractor did also conduct its own cleaning after clearing the blockage.
35. The above information shows the landlord handled the key aspects of its  response appropriately. The timeline shows it also engaged appropriately with the resident’s concerns. For example, it referred to relevant specialists to establish whether a new bath was needed, and whether it was safe to return to the property. Further, it accepted responsibility for delays and communication failures which impacted the resident. It therefore awarded him substantial compensation to recognise what went wrong. This was also appropriate action from the landlord given the circumstances.
36. In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
37. It is accepted the back surging sewage was an unpleasant situation. However, the information seen shows the landlord awarded proportionate compensation given both what went wrong, and the impact to the resident. No evidence was seen to show it could have repaired the blockage during its initial visit, so the landlord cannot fairly be held responsible for the overflow itself. As a result, it was not obliged to compensate the resident for the impact of the overflow. Instead, the landlord’s compensation award was correctly based on issues it was responsible for.
38. Overall, the Ombudsman was unable to identify any significant issues, in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of back surging sewage, that were overlooked by the landlord’s offer of redress. The timeline shows the landlord’s communications were poor on a number of occasions, particularly with regards to broken promises. It was therefore appropriate that its award reflected the distress the resident was caused.
39. Given the above, the landlord took sufficient steps to put things right for the resident. This represents reasonable redress on the landlord’s part.

The landlord’s complaint handling

40. In relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, the timeline points to delays of around ten working days in total. However, the wording of the landlord’s final response letter shows it failed to acknowledge, and therefore redress, these delays. Further, the timeline shows the resident was prompted to contact the Ombudsman on a number of occasions as a result of delays or perceived delays. It is reasonable to conclude this situation caused him some unnecessary inconvenience.
41. For example, the landlord’s complaints policy shows it will acknowledge complaints at both stages of its complaints procedure. However, the timeline suggests the resident was unaware the landlord had a longer stage two response timescale. This information should have reasonably been included in a stage two acknowledgment, which typically provides landlords an opportunity to set a complainant’s expectations around response timescales.
42. The evidence therefore suggests, contrary to its relevant policy, that the landlord failed to issue a stage two acknowledgment and the resident was inconvenienced as a result. Ideally, the landlord would have recognised its above identified delays/failures and attempted to put things right for the resident. The fact they were overlooked represents service failure on the landlord’s part. The Ombudsman will therefore order additional compensation to put things right for the resident given the information seen.
43. The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s payment method are acknowledged. However, its compensation policy shows the landlord is entitled to decide whether to use its compensation awards, either wholly or partially, to offset a resident’s rent arrears. In this case, no information was seen to show the landlord’s decision was inappropriate.

Determination (decision)

44. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of back surging sewage in the property.
45. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

46. In relation to the landlord’s response, the landlord awarded proportionate compensation given what went wrong and the impact to the resident. No information was seen to show it could have cleared the blockage during its initial visit. The Ombudsman was unable to identify any significant issues that were overlooked by the landlord’s offer of redress.
47. The evidence points to unacknowledged complaint handling delays of around ten working days in total. It also suggests, contrary to its complaints policy, that the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint at stage two. The information seen shows these issues were inconvenient for the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

48. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £100 in additional compensation to redress any distress and inconvenience he was caused by the above identified delays and failures in respect of its complaint handling.
49. The landlord to share the report’s key findings with its relevant complaint handlers. This is with a view to ensuring complaints are acknowledged and any complaint handling delays are assessed as part of future investigations.

Recommendations

50. The landlord, if it has not done so already, to pay the resident the £600 compensation it awarded in its stage two response on 9 July 2021.
51. The landlord to review its processes for responding to sewage leaks and consider arranging deep cleaning as part of its standard response.
52. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions regarding the recommendations within four weeks.