Kingston upon Hull City Council (202105495)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202105495
Kingston upon Hull City Council
30 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
1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair reports about:
a. The kitchen sink getting backed up with toilet waste, a drain fly problem, and associated toilet repairs.
b. A leak in the property.
c. Damp and mould in the bedroom.
d. Fuses tripping and a burning smell in the property.
Background and summary of events
2. The resident is a secure tenant and the landlord is an ALMO (arms length management organisation) of the local authority.
3. The tenancy agreement commenced in August 2018. The property is a two bedroom house. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The resident lived with her one year old child at the start of the issues in 2019 and the landlord’s records state that the resident’s child suffered from asthma.
Policies and procedures
4. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the drains, gutters, installations inside the property for the supply of water, electricity and sanitation. The landlord’s website states that when repairs are reported, residents will be asked for a contact number so the landlord can provide appointment reminders. Emergency response will be the same day or 24 hours and non emergency repairs will be given an appointment slot when the repair is reported. There is no other information about timescale. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) the landlord must respond to repairs within a reasonable timescale.
5. Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 (‘the Homes Act’), the landlord must make sure that the property is safe, secure, warm and dry. Problems which come under the remit of this act include damp and mould, domestic hygiene and pests (inadequate provision of disposal of waste water), food safety, personal hygiene, sanitation, drainage and electrical hazards. Under the act, the landlord is expected to respond to reports within a reasonable timeframe, depending on what the problem is and how serious it is. The landlord is responsible for repairs needed to stop pest access and if there is an infestation that makes the home unsafe to live in.
Summary of events
6. The resident reported problems with the toilet and kitchen sink drainage, flies, a leak, electrics and mould and damp. The various reports and the landlord’s response to these from 2019 are summarised below.
7. There was a report of water coming through the electrics in the property on 16 November 2019. The out of hours repair service attended on the same day and recorded that it checked the light and socket in the kitchen and no further work was required.
8. There was a report of bath water coming up through the kitchen sink on 16 November 2019. On 18 November 2019 the landlord recorded that the drain outside needed flushing due to the waste from the bath coming back into the house. It included the resident’s contact number if needed to gain access. The landlord’s subsequent note states that the landlord needed to attend ‘again following attendance on 18 November 2019’.
9. On 19 November 2019 there were two further reports. A request was raised for the landlord to attend the site to jet the drains (as water was backing up). Toilet waste was reported to be backing up into the kitchen sink and overflowing.
10. There were three further visits (20, 25 and 26) to clear the blockage issue reported on 19 November 2019.
11. On 29 November 2019 the resident reported water leaking into the property (down the staircase) as an emergency. The landlord’s records state that it told the resident to turn off the stop tap and then rang the contractor to see if it could turn off the stop tap externally. The landlord’s record states that the resident had gone to work and so the plumber would try to turn off the water outside. There was however a problem with the external chamber that meant that the plumber/contractor could not access the tap.
12. The resident called the landlord on 2 December 2019 to ask about the leak which she had reported, as she was told someone would be out that morning.
13. The landlord attended on 2 December 2020 however it repaired the external stop tap and brickwork outside, it did not address the internal leak. The resident contacted the landlord again on 6 December 2019 and a job was duly raised and completed the same day (floorboards removed and corroded pipe replaced). This resolved the internal leak.
14. On 21 January 2020 the landlord received a new report about the toilet (‘fully blocked’). The out of hours team attended and cleared this.
15. On 9 February 2020 the toilet handle was reported as broken. The record states that the resident did not respond and proof of a visit by the contractor was also noted (ie description of the property). The next day the report was raised again about the toilet handle (no blockage; flush not working properly). There was no access recorded again and no response to a card that was left, according to the repair records. The landlord did not communicate further about this with the resident.
16. On 5 April 2020 the fuse box was reported by the resident to be constantly tripping and there was a burning smell around the house. The fire service, who the resident had called out, advised the landlord to attend as soon as possible. The contractor attended on 6 April 2020 and carried out some work to the connections. No issues were diagnosed, the contractor considered in its repair notes that there may have been a surge (due to all the circuits being on) and advised the resident to keep a diary.
17. On 20 April 2020 the repair records state that there was possible damp reported by the resident; there had been a burst pipe months ago and there was now mould in the bedroom ‘little dots appeared bedroom is full of it’. The record also noted ‘2 year old asthma sufferer’.
18. The landlord attended two months later on 23 June 2020 and found no damage or further action needed as it considered that the cause of this had been resolved. The record states that the water pipe had been repaired and plaster work had dried out. There is no further evidence of the landlord’s actions in response to the damp and mould reports.
19. On 20 May 2020 the resident reported that the electrics in the kitchen (mainly cooker socket) was faulty and kept tripping. The contractor attended the next day (21 May 2020) to carry out tests. It did an insulation resistance test on the cooker and it recorded the results. It renewed the cooker isolator switch as one of the lights was not working and it checked the power rating of the appliance which the resident had reported as tripping out when in use (oven and hob). It said that the maximum wattage was too high for the circuit, which indicated that the problem was an overload. It is unclear from the repair notes whether this was identified as the cause of the faulty electrics which the contractor fixed or whether there is still an overload. The resident did not make further reports about the electrics.
20. On 29 May 2020 the resident reported that the kitchen sink kept backing up. The drain was blocked causing debris and a foul smell to enter the house through the kitchen sink. The out of hours contractor attended on the same day but did not successfully clear the drain. It noted that the bend was full of wipes. It returned 3 days later, on 1 June 2020. The notes state that this was to carry out the repair as part of a different order. It then cleared the drain. The resident had use of a portaloo which the contractor had provided.
21. On 30 July 2020 the resident raised a new report that the drain was blocked again, following the last repair of 1 June 2020. She reported that she was getting waste backing up into the kitchen sink and there was also a pest nuisance (flies). The target date for the repair to be addressed was 24 hours (31 July 2020).
22. On 6 August 2020 the landlord attended for the above raised job. It said that the kitchen sink was clear on arrival and the kitchen was full of drain flies. It recommended a CCTV survey. It returned on 9 August 2020 but said that there was no access and it left a card. The CCTV survey was not carried out and the job remained unfinished until the resident made a new report in September 2020.
23. On 16 September 2020 the resident reported that there had been a blocked drain before, this was unblocked but there remained flies and an extremely bad smell (from the drains). A new order was raised by the call centre. The contractor attended again and jetted clear the pipes and recommended a CCTV survey once more, as this had not been carried out following the last recommendation.
24. On 20 September 2020 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. This said that:
a. There were ongoing issues with the drainage.
b. There was an ongoing job with sewage entering the property, the resident had to use a portaloo.
c. There remained a smell of sewage and flies in the property.
d. Environmental Health was due to visit and the contractor was due to attend to carry out a CCTV survey (no date had been advised).
e. The resident wanted to move home due to the poor living conditions for her and her young child.
25. On 21 September 2020 Environmental Health received a service request from the landlord to visit the property. On 25 September 2020 Environmental Health visited the property and identified a list of works which it then sent to the landlord on the same day. In its report, Environmental Health stated that:
a. It was called because the resident was having a problem with sewer flies and drainage smells at the property. The resident had raw sewage coming into the kitchen sink and had to replace her washing machine due to sewage contamination.
b. It outlined its observations, diagnosis and recommendations to resolve the issue. It asked to be kept informed of how the orders were progressing. (It was not kept informed as it had requested).
26. On 29 September 2020 there was a list of repairs raised following the visit by Environmental Health. This had a target date for completion of 27 October 2020.
27. On 30 September 2020 the landlord called the resident in response to her complaint. This was its stage one response. According to the record note:
a. It apologised to the resident for the delays.
b. It explained that it raised an order on 29 September 2020 (to carry out repairs identified by the Environmental Health team). There was a repair booked for 7 October 2020.
c. It advised her that all works should be complete that day ‘barring no unforeseen problems’.
d. The resident was happy to close down the complaint.
28. On 7 October 2020 the landlord’s contractor did not attend as arranged to complete the repairs.
29. The resident then submitted a new complaint on 8 October 2020:
a. There had been many repair problems over two years, for example, human waste entering the kitchen sink from a toilet pipe, the resident could not use the toilet for three days and had to use a small portaloo, she could not wash dishes, there were constant leaks, floods and mould, as well as sewage flies (which she was told had no source) and the fire brigade had been out as she smelled burning due to tripped fuses.
b. There was a repair due on 7 October 2020 but this had not been attended to.
c. The outcome she sought was for the repairs to be fixed and to be moved, as soon as possible, with her three year old daughter.
30. The resident also chased the repairs which had been due on 7 October 2020 and a new appointment was made for 8 October 2020.
31. On 11 – 12 October 2020 and 5 November 2020 the landlord’s records state that some repairs were carried out in connection with the kitchen and the toilet repairs. A CCTV was on site for a dig but some of the work needed approval and an alternative repair was therefore authorised. Some repair works were carried out to the toilet and the drainage. At one point, on 29 October 2020, there was a further blockage despite new components being fitted. The landlord attended and cleared this.
32. It has not been clearly confirmed or evidenced that the entirety of the repairs as identified by Environmental Health were completed.
33. On 5 November 2020 the landlord issued its stage two response.
a. It acknowledged the resident’s report of dissatisfaction about repairs over a number of years (including human waste coming into the kitchen sink from a toilet pipe, not being able to use the toilet or bath and being given a tiny portaloo during this time, not being able to wash dishes due to the human waste, mould, flood, a visit from the fire brigade due to reports of fuse tripping and a missed appointment). It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
b. It said that the first indication of an issue was in November 2019; the contractor identified a blockage in the drain due to a collapsed drain outside the property and the damaged parts were rectified and tested on completion.
c. Its contractors subsequently attended each time that the resident made a report about the toilet and drain.
d. There was a clerical error on 7 October 2020 causing a missed appointment. The resident chased this, which was unacceptable, this had been raised with the contractor and a new appointment was booked on 8 October 2020.
e. This was to take out the internal soil and vent pipe and replace it with an external system; this was completed on 12 October 2020 but the contractor needed to access the property to finish and make good where the old system was removed.
f. The remaining work included fitting a new bath panel, boxing to the rear of the toilet and wash hand basin.
g. The contractor wrote to the resident on 4 November 2020 to agree an appointment for this and the landlord asked the resident to contact them as soon as possible.
h. The contractor advised that the resident had use of gas, heating and hot water but no use of the toilet. A portaloo was provided and this was intended for short term use, it was smaller than a standard toilet but deemed acceptable for a limited period.
i. The landlord agreed that this should have been resolved earlier for the resident and it should not have needed to be raised several times.
j. The landlord identified that when the resident made reports these should have been identified as a call back to the contractor rather than raised as a new order each time. This would have alerted the contractor that there was a repeat repair issue and the landlord said it would raise this with the call centre and carry out refresher training.
k. The contractor should also recognise when they are attending multiple times for the same issue and ‘accept that they need to improve processes to allow for early intervention when repeat visits are encountered for drainage problems…(the contractor) will look to resolve this internally’.
l. It offered £100 as redress.
m. Regarding the electric concerns, it said ‘you reported on 5 April 2020 that ‘electrics in the kitchen, mainly on the cooker socket, are faulty, keeps tripping needs repair’. The contractor attended on 6 April 2020 and tested the cooker circuit. They renewed the cooker isolation switch.
n. Regarding the flood report, it said that on 5 December 2019 the resident reported ‘leak running down the staircase in the hall way and damaging carpet’. It said that it the contractor attended on 6 December 2020 where they removed 5 floorboards and replaced 1 metre of corroded pipework.
o. On 20 April 2020 the resident reported signs of mould growth in the bedroom following the leak. It said that due to the pandemic its contractor was unable to attend until 23 June 2020 and determined that ‘no further work was required’.
34. After the complaint process, the landlord and resident continued to engage in the repairs. The landlord carried out some of these, but some were outstanding until mid-2021. The resident reported that she still had issues.
Assessment and findings
The kitchen sink getting backed up with toilet waste, the drain fly problem and toilet repairs.
35. Following the resident’s report 16 November 2019 (bath water backing into the kitchen sink) the landlord resolved the blockage 10 days later on 26 November 2019. This timescale was longer than an emergency response, however, the landlord attended frequently during that period of 10 days in attempts to resolve the repair and offered £100 redress in its final response which was reasonable.
36. However, once further reports were raised to the landlord about the same kind of issues (but with sewage) the landlord did not respond reasonably. The landlord attended to attempt to clear the sink and drains or to carry out the toilet repair, sometimes successfully, each time. However, given the ongoing and persistent reports, it would have been reasonable for it to conduct a more thorough investigation or co-ordinated assessment of the cause of the problem. Instead, it raised new repair jobs each time and therefore offered a fragmented approach in response to the evidently larger issue. Once it escalated the issue to Environmental Health and received a recommended list of repairs, there was an unreasonable delay in completing the repairs. It has not evidenced further inspections or diagnostic work to determine if the repairs were sufficient at the time. It remains unclear if all of the repairs identified by Environmental Health were completed.
37. The resident experienced human waste backing up into the kitchen sink, problems using the toilet (and bath) and an unreasonably protracted period of severe disruption. The repairs were urgent due to the health and safety risks for both the resident and her child, as well as the food preparation areas and washing machine/kitchen appliances all being periodically exposed to raw sewage. The resident was exposed to unsanitary living conditions as well as continued disruption and protracted repair works. The resident experienced significant distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. Accordingly, the landlord’s response was inappropriate because it failed to recognise the severe impact of the ongoing drainage issue on the resident or to prioritise its response as a result.
38. The landlord identified failures in how it handled the resident’s reports in its complaint investigation, such as not recognising repeat reports or arranging new work orders for the same problem instead of call backs with the contractors. Its assessment of the failures in the stage two response was appropriate and in line with the dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes. It said that it took steps to remedy these failures with its contractors. However, evidence of this has not been seen, and the redress which it went on to offer (£100) was not proportional to the impact on the resident from the entirety of the landlord’s service failures.
39. The landlord also identified delays caused by failed appointments. It attributed one of these to an error (7 October 2020) and others to missed appointments. It appropriately apologised to the resident for the error and said that it rearranged the appointment, however, these were not then completed accordingly. The landlord noted access issues in respect of the toilet flush repair (February 2020) and the CCTV (August 2020). The resident disputed that she was not in while the landlord evidenced its attendance by describing the property in its repair records.
40. The Ombudsman cannot say either way what happened without further definitive evidence, but it can assess if the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances of the case. In this case, although the landlord reported that the resident was not home, it was nonetheless aware of the outstanding repair. It would have therefore been resolution focused to have taken further steps to arrange outstanding remedial works, such as by communicating with the resident by email, letter or telephone following missed appointments. There is no evidence that the landlord took this step. Instead, the resident chased the repair with the landlord (eg in September 2020, following a missed appointment in August 2020).
41. The landlord has not disputed its repairing obligations and those in respect of keeping the property free from problems with domestic hygiene, pest and refuse (including adequate provision for disposal of waste water), food safety, sanitation and drainage (as per the Homes Act). However, it did not respond within a reasonable timescale to the resident’s reports; there was a lack of co-ordination and proactive management to the repeated reports. It did not offer reasonable redress for the entirety of its service failures. Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to this repair.
A leak in the property
42. The resident first reported the leak down the staircase on 29 November 2019. This was due to a corroded pipe which the landlord diagnosed and repaired on 6 December 2019. In between, the landlord engaged in a separate repair to an external stop tap. Although it was resolution focused, it did not resolve the leak inside of the property, which remained active until 6 December 2019. The landlord incorrectly considered the leak to have been reported on 5 December 2019 in the final response. There was a service failure in the landlord’s response to this repair.
Damp and mould in the bedroom.
43. The resident reported damp on 20 April 2020 following the burst pipe. The landlord noted the resident’s 2 year old daughter had asthma. It attended two months after the report on 23 June 2020 and it considered that there was no damage and no further action needed. This timescale was not reasonable, as the landlord was aware of the resident’s child’s circumstances and the potential implication to her health of having mould and damp in the bedroom.
44. The repair records do not indicate that the landlord arranged for the mould and damp to be cleared or treated as necessary; it only said that there was no further work required as this was due to a leak and the plasterwork was dry. Given the resident’s subsequent complaint about this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to revisit the report and clarify with the resident if she was still experiencing issues with mould and damp. The resident raised the report again to the Ombudsman so it is unclear what the status of this repair is. There was a service failure in the landlord’s response to this repair.
Fuse tripping
45. The resident first reported concerns with the electrics on 16 November 2019 when water was coming through the electrics. The out of hours repair records attended and checked this and stated that no further work was required. This was reasonable.
46. Subsequently, on 5 April 2020, the resident reported that the fuse box was constantly tripping and called the fire brigade to check this, they in turn told the landlord to attend as soon as possible. The landlord’s contractor attended on 6 April 2020 and did not identify any repairs, he considered that it could have been a surge. It told the resident to keep record of when she noticed the burning smell. The landlord’s response was reasonable.
47. A month later on 20 May 2020 the resident reported that the electrics in the kitchen were faulty and kept tripping. There was a focus on the cooking appliance. The landlord’s contractor attended on 21 May 2020 and carried out some repairs. He said that the maximum wattage was too high for the circuit, which indicated that the problem was an overload. The landlord responded within a reasonable timescale, however, it is unclear from the repair records if the landlord’s contractor considered that this was an outstanding problem or if it was the cause of the problem which he had resolved. The resident did not report the burning smell again.
48. The landlord responded each time within a 24 hour timescale and it relied on the feedback of its contractor, which was reasonable. When the resident reported the issue again, it responded within a reasonable timescale and completed the further identified repairs. Therefore, there was no maladministration in respect of this complaint.
Determination (decision)
49. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
a. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about the kitchen sink getting backed up with toilet waste, a drain fly problem, and associated toilet repairs.
b. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about a leak in the property.
c. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about damp and mould in the bedroom.
d. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about fuses tripping and a burning smell in the property.
Reasons
50. There was an unreasonable delay and a lack of proactive management and co-ordination in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about the kitchen sink backing up and the associated repairs. Although the landlord identified some failure in how it logged and managed the repairs, it did not evidence to the Ombudsman the remedial action which it had taken (with its contractors), nor did it offer reasonable redress for the entirety of its failures.
51. There was a delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of the leak.
52. The landlord did not evidence the entirety of its response to the report of damp and mould, such as whether it cleared this up or whether it assessed if this had returned.
53. The landlord’s repair records indicate that its contractor attended within a reasonable timescale each time that the resident reported concerns about the electrics. The evidence shows that it carried out a repair to one of the appliances and there were no further reports after that about the electrics.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
54. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
a. Write to the Ombudsman and the resident to confirm that it has carried out all the repairs which were identified by Environmental Health in September 2020.
b. Arrange an inspection with the resident to establish if there are outstanding issues.
c. Pay the resident a total of £650 in compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble that she has experienced, comprising:
i. £100 which was its original offer (if not already paid).
ii. £350 for the handling of repairs to the kitchen sink drainage and £200 for the handling of associated repairs to the toilet, the drain fly issue, mould and damp and the leak.
Recommendation
55. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is recommended to write to the resident to clarify the status of the cooker appliance wattage and electrics as per its repair record when it last visited.