London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202107703)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107703

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

15 February 2023

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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of blocked drains and sewage ingress.
The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord with the lease agreement beginning October 2015. The property is a ground floor maisonette. There was a history of reports relating to blocked drains between 2015 and 2020.
The resident has a disability of the joints which affects his ability to carry out day to day tasks.

Summary of events

The repair log shows works orders raised on 2, 3 and 10 November 2020 for blocked drains and water ingress from the kitchen sink.
On 2 November 2020 the resident contacted the out of hours service to report “wastewater flooding the kitchen” from the kitchen sink and a works order was raised and the blockage cleared, tested and was free flowing.
On 10 November 2020 the resident reported the same issue of “water flooding from the kitchen sink” and a works order was raised. It said it had cleared the sewage stack “via mechanical methods” but recommended a CCTV survey be carried out. A works order was raised for this.
On 11 November the resident emailed the landlord detailing the ongoing issues which were “becoming a daily encounter” and the long wait time for contractors to attend.
On 10 December 2020 the CCTV survey was carried out of the pipework, the findings of this were sent to the landlord on 5 January 2021. It’s not disputed that the CCTV survey showed tree roots had damaged the pipework causing it to collapse.
In March 2021 the landlord emailed its contractors to request a copy of the CCTV survey as the costing was on the system, but no report or recommendations of the works required.
On 29 June 2021 the resident:
1. Reported sewage flooding his property from the toilet to the out of hours service.
2. Called back at 9am and was advised someone would be with him within the hour.
3. Called back again at 12pm whereby it was advised the job had not been raised due to “technical difficulties” but would be raised again.
4. An operative arrived at 5pm but was unable to clear the blockage as the drain had collapsed and the jetting hose “kept getting stuck”.
On 30 June 2021 the operative advised nothing had been done following the CCTV survey and the drain would need to be excavated to clear the blockage and resolve the ongoing issue.
The resident contacted this service on 30 June 2021 advising that he had sewage back surging into his property from the sink. An issue that had been ongoing since November 2020.
The same day the resident raised a stage one complaint with his landlord, he said that:
1. On 2 November 2020 raw sewage was coming up from his sink. Someone attended and cleared the blockage down the sink but said it may happen again.
2. “A few days later it happened again” and was jetted from outside.
3. A CCTV survey was carried out and the contractor noticed “tree roots boring through the pipes”.
4. He contacted the landlord to request an update regarding the findings and was advised it would be investigated and contacted about the progress.
5. On 29 June 2021 he was awoken by “loud bubbling noises” from the downstairs toilet where there was “human waste pouring continuously out of the toilet”.
6. The same day he called his landlord numerous times and despite being advised someone was on their way no one arrived. He called again and was advised there was an error in raising the call and no order had been raised.
7. He said he was “upset and angry” about the delays as the waste was still continuing to flow out of the toilet.
8. Once the contractor arrived he confirmed there was a “collapsed drain under the building” and was unable to rectify the problem.
9. He said that he felt “extremely sick and faint” having to bail out the sewage from his property and received no assistance from the landlord.
10. He said that “having a disability”, the issue has “taken a toll on his health” and no one wanted to take ownership to resolve it.
On 7 July 2021the landlord responded saying that:
1. The drain pipe work was replaced on 2 July 2021.
2. The resident should contact its insurance department where any excess will be reimbursed.
3. The complaint was closed but if the resident was not satisfied and it was unable to help further it would escalate the matter.
4. It also directed the resident to this service for further advice.
On 8 July 2021, the resident contacted this service again and confirmed the repair works were complete but wanted to complain about the delays and inconvenience he had experienced. He said that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one response and wanted to escalate matters to stage two. The resident was advised to contact his landlord to raise a stage two complaint.
On 15 July 2021 the resident raised a stage two complaint. He expressed his concerns about:
1. The time it took to remedy the problem following his complaint in November 2020.
2. He had to make several calls in one day to the landlord for a contractor to visit him. He said he called on 29 June 2021 at 6am, 9am and several hours later as no one had arrived despite him being advised someone was on route to him.
3. A contractor arrive at his property at 5pm on 29 June 2021 but was unable to rectify the problem.
4. It was a further two days before the issue was finally resolved.
5. The resident explained that he had to clean all the sewage himself which was “extremely difficult” due to his disability.
6. He used several mops, buckets and pans to take the sewage outside as it could not go down the toilet. He said that he was not offered any assistance in the cleaning process despite this being offered to his neighbour.
The resident chased his stage two complaint on 10 September 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 September 2021 advising that it was carrying out a review and would respond by 20 October 2021. It then wrote again to the resident to advise a response would be provided by 27 October 2021.
The landlord sent is stage two response on 27 October 2021 saying that:
1. Following the resident’s stage one complaint of 29 June 2021 it responded on 7 July 2021 advising the works had been completed and the complaint closed.
2. It explained how it investigated the complaint following the residents dissatisfaction, noting that it reviewed case notes, spoke to those involved and reviewed the repair history.
3. The landlord summarised the repairs history as set out above in paragraphs 5 to 15.
4. On 2 July 2021 contractors attended site and rectified the problem by digging up the surrounding area and laying new pipes.
5. It confirmed it could not investigate complaints relating to the repairs of more than a year in history. However that did not excuse the delays the resident had experienced.
6. It said that due to covid it was acting in accordance with the Government guidelines and attended to critical and emergency appointments therefore there was a significant backlog of repairs it was working through.
7. It said that having reviewed the complaint it could see there was a “significant amount of correspondence” from the resident requesting updates to “no avail”.
8. It said that this was a “clear service failing” one that it would endeavour to learn from.
9. It said it understood the distress and inconvenience this issue caused the resident, especially being a vulnerable resident and could “only apologies for the below usual standard of service” he received.
10. Repairs and communication should have been managed more effectively and delivered more swiftly
11. It apologised that the service he received fell short of acceptable standards and said that feedback gave it the opportunity to consider these service areas and to implement changes to improve service delivery.
12. It offered the resident £390 in compensation made up of:
  1. Inconvenience – £150
  2. Distress – £150
  3. Service failing – £30
  4. Time and Effort- £30
  5. Delay in response – £30
The resident remained dissatisfied that the landlord made no form of contact with him to check he was ok and coping with the aftermath of the situation and with the level of compensation offered. He then contacted this service on 27 October 2021.

Assessment and findings

The facts of this case have not been disputed and the landlord has accepted that it failed in its service delivery to the resident. Therefore, this report will concentrate on whether the landlord has offered fair compensation to the resident. 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. Our remedies are never intended to be punitive, more in recognition of the distress and inconvenience that a resident has experienced.
The complaint handling code says that stage two responses should be sent within 20 working days from the date of the escalation request. If this is not possible the resident should be advised of this with a further date the stage two response will be received. This should not exceed a further ten working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that:
1. The aim of its policy is to ensure that it has been fair and consistent when offering redress and awarding compensation.
2. When things go wrong it will put things right as quickly as possible.
3. It outlines the circumstances where it might pay compensation to a tenant, leaseholder or shared owner.

The landlord handling of the residents reports of blocked drains and sewage ingress.

The landlord has accepted that it had failed the resident when responding to his reports of blocked drains and sewage ingress and not followed its policy to put things right as soon as possible. Having had a CCTV survey carried out in December 2020 which identified damaged pipes and possible collapsed drain, it did not action any works until the resident complained again about the same issue in June 2021. This was nearly seven months after the resident made his initial complaint in November 2020. Although the issue of blocked drains and sewage ingress was not continuous over the seven month period, the landlord was aware of the broken pipe and that it would most likely get worse over time.
It was therefore not appropriate that the landlord did not carry out the works sooner, nor investigate the lack of report provided from its contractors. It is reasonable to conclude that had the works been carried out sooner, the issue of sewage ingress from the toilet in June 2021 may not have occurred.
In his stage one complaint of 30 June 2021 the resident advised the landlord of his vulnerabilities and the effect the issue was having on his poor health. As a result of the continuing sewage ingress he reported on 29 June 2021 he was having to clear the sewage himself which made him feel sick and faint. The landlord accepted that the situation would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience, especially given his vulnerabilities. Nevertheless, the level of compensation offered to the resident does not recognise this nor the significant inconvenience he would have experienced for nearly three days, and the days that followed whilst cleaning his property.
Under this Service’s remedies guidance, consideration is given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a particular service failure, taking into account the severity of the situation and the length of time involved as well as other relevant factors, such as vulnerabilities. This service’s remedies guidance does not set out minimum or maximum compensation levels, rather it provides some guidance on the suggested ranges of compensation levels.
The issue was ongoing over a considerable period of time, there was a failure to escalate the matter and failure to act upon the CCTV report. Again, it is reasonable to conclude that the issue of sewage ingress from the toilet in June 2021 was avoidable. The sewage ingress would have had a severe impact on the resident despite being over a short period of time. Therefore in recognition of the distress and frustration experienced by the resident for the delay in resolving the matter, the stress and worry experienced as a result of the sewage ingress and the inconvenience experienced as a result of the clean-up operation he undertook, additional compensation of £500 is ordered.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s stage two response was thorough and investigated all the issues. However, it was sent 104 days after receiving his request for it to be escalated. In between this time the resident chased the matter. This was not appropriate given the considerable delay and was significantly outside of this services complaints handling code timescale. Although the landlord apologised and offered compensation, the £60 was not proportionate to the frustration and uncertainty the resident experience in repeatedly chasing the issue.
Under this Service’s remedies guidance, consideration is given for time and trouble in pursuing a complaint. Compensation may be appropriate if it is found that the time and trouble incurred by the resident in seeking to resolve their complaint was significantly more than would be reasonably expected due to the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
The landlord offered the resident £60 for its failure in its complaint handling. It acknowledged “a significant amount of correspondence” from the resident requesting updates “to which many had no avail”. As previously stated, this service’s remedies guidance does not set out minimum or maximum compensation levels. Instead it provides some guidance on the suggested ranges of compensation levels when deciding if compensation should be made in recognition of a particular adverse effect and impact on a resident.
Therefore in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident for the delay and the complaint handling failure, additional compensation of £150 has been ordered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of blocked drains.
In accordance with paragraph 52 there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord was not proactive in its approach to dealing with the issue of the blocked drains. It was aware of the damaged pipes in January 2021 after receiving the findings of the CCTV survey. It says it chased the contractors in March 2021 but still took no action to replace the pipes until the resident reported the issue again in June 2021. Although the landlord demonstrated a resolution focused approached by taking responsibility for its service failings, it did not provide reasonable redress.
It is accepted that the resident chased the landlord for updates following his stage two complaint but received no real response. It is unreasonable the resident had to wait over three month for an update.

Orders

Within four weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation totalling £1040:
1. £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the failures in its handling of the blocked drains.
2. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to him by its complaint handling failures.
3. £390 already offered, if not previously paid.