London Borough of Ealing (202203016)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203016

Ealing Council

22 March 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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s home following repeated floods.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord that commenced in 2004. The property is a two-bedroom first floor flat.
Vulnerabilities of depression and agoraphobia are noted by the landlord affecting the resident’s daughter.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (section 11) sets out the landlord’s obligations. In addition, the tenancy agreement outlines the tenant and landlord responsibilities. In relation to repairs, section three of the agreement states:
1. The council will keep the structure and outside of the property in good repair.
2. The council will repair and maintain installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity, and sanitation, and for space and water heating in the property, except as provided in Section 5.3 of the agreement which refers to instances where the tenant has caused damage.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedures for responsive repairs outlines how it deals with repairs and includes its service standards response times as:
1. Emergency repairs – within the same working day.
2. Urgent repairs – three working days.
3. Routine repairs – fifteen working days; and
4. Planned –sixty working days.
It does not give specific examples of the types of repairs categorised in each response time but does give an element of discretion and further adds that the resident must be informed of timescales for the job (same working day or four hours out of office hours). Paragraph six of the responsive repairs procedure outlines how it deals with water leaks in relation to access to the property.
The landlord’s corporate complaints procedure at the time of the complaint was a three stage approach. It stated that it would acknowledge all complaints within four working days and include an agreed corporate timescale. It outlined response times as follows:
1. Stage one – 10 working days.
2. Stage two – 20 working days; and
3. Stage three – 20 working days.
This Service introduced a Complaint Handling Code in July 2020 to enable landlords to resolve complaints raised by their residents quickly and to use the learning from complaints to drive service improvements. It sets out a two stage complaints procedure and landlord’s response times must be:
1. Stage one – 10 working days; and
2. Stage two – 20 working days.
On September 2021, the landlord updated its complaints procedure. This is now two stages and response times are twenty working days at both stages. It states that where a complaint involves any potential for an insurance claim against the Council as a result of loss, damage, injury or suffering, the insurance section should be consulted immediately.
The landlord’s compensation procedure gives examples of what it will consider paying in compensation when there is a service failure. The copy provided to this Service is not dated and states it is a ‘draft’. For time and trouble, its examples are:
1. £50 stage one complaint.
2. £50 to £150 stage two; and
3. £100 to £250 stage three.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that on 29 January 2021, it requested its drainage contractor to attend the property as soon as possible, to clear a blocked drain. The relevant parts of the engineer’s note state:
1. Attended site with a high-pressure wash jet unit (HPWJU), tested the sink and found that it seemed to be okay. The resident commented that during heavy rain, it upsurges. The neighbour came to the door and said he was experiencing the same problem.
2. After investigation, the engineer found the fabricated run full of fat, food waste and washing powder. It washed down the recessed chamber to break up the fat, tested the sink and reported that it seemed to be ok. It noted that further works were required in the near future and a recommendation was given to inspect the drain with a CCTV camera and possibly jet wash if needed on the opposite side to the main entrance. It confirmed that a quotation would be sent.
On 3 March 2021, the landlord’s records show an email from the drainage company to the landlord attaching a quotation. A record of the quotation has not been provided.
The landlord’s records show that a further order was placed on 10 May 2021 to the same drainage contractor. The job description states – “Attend site to clear the blockage causing the sink to overflow.” The relevant engineer’s notes confirm:
1. It attended site to clear the blockage affecting the kitchen sink.
2. It used machinery to clear the stack several times and after continuous jetting, it gained a partial flow. This was traced further downstairs into the bin stores where the chamber was located but was unable to lift due to it being concreted over. It did locate the stack behind the panel in the bin stores.
3. It reports that it located the chamber outside of the bin store and used a high-pressure wash jet unit (HPWJU) in an attempt to clear the blockage but reported that it was unsuccessful.
4. It recommended further works to be carried out as soon as possible to access the stack and confirmed that the bin access panel would need to be removed. Notes state that the stack was affected with very thick scale, fat and grease and required a full clean and CCTV camera immediately.
On 19 May 2021, the landlord’s records show another report was sent to the drainage contractor and the engineer confirmed they had completed the work to unblock the kitchen sink that was overflowing. This was logged on the same day and notes show:
1. It called to site for the blocked kitchen sink, located access onto the waste pipe, removed the access cap and used machinery through the waste pipe into the main soil stack. The blockage was cleared, and the flow test showed that all was working.
On 27 May 2021, the drainage contractor attended the resident’s home to clear a blocked and back surging bath, kitchen and bathroom sink. An email was sent to the landlord to confirm work had been completed and a job report was attached. The report has not been made available to this Service. However, notes on the order confirm:
1. No physical evidence of any blockage.
2. Flow tests completed to kitchen sink, wash hand basin and bath drains were as normal.
3. Recommendations were made to carry out a CCTV camera drain survey on the main soil stack.
On 27 May 2021, the landlord’s records show that it received a web form from the resident. The resident complained about sewage water flooding her home and the smell being putrid. The resident described the water to be thick, black and difficult to clean. She expressed her concerns that the kitchen was unsafe and that the flooding had occurred six times, that people were sent to fix the problem but it was never fixed. The resident commented that the situation has been ongoing for years and made her feel anxious.
On 7 June 2021, a landlord’s internal email refers to an email from the resident and describes the resident’s contact as a service request. It does not explain what action it intended to take to resolve the matter.
On 18 June 2021, the landlord has confirmed that a severe flood occurred. A record of the job details from the drainage contractor have not been made available to this Service.
On 21 June 2021, the landlord’s records show a further web form received from the resident. The resident referred to her home being flooded and made reference to it not being the first time. Concerns were again raised about the smell that permeated everything and the resident being scared that she could die and was living in a state of constant panic which she described as affecting her mental health.
On 24 June 2021, the landlord’s records show an internal email stating that it had spoken to the resident and confirmed that the severe leak of 18 June 2021 had damaged most of her personal items, including the flooring, beds and electrical goods. The resident advised the landlord that she had made a previous complaint about the recurring leaks and felt that it had not dealt with her concerns appropriately. It noted that the resident did not have household insurance. The landlord made reference to checking previous complaints that may have been made by the resident’s daughter.
On 28 June 2021, the landlord’s records show that it received a call from a resident of another tower block. The email referred to water often pooling around the side entrance, it being greasy and food particles being present. This neighbour referred to it being a recurring issue. The landlord advised that it would flag up a complaint.
On 29 June 2021, the landlord’s records show an internal email from the contract surveyor confirming that a works order had been raised to:
1. Descale the main stack pipe to two tower blocks. The surveyor commented that it needed to be more proactive than reactive in managing stack pipes in tower blocks and gave recommendations for:
  1. A descale of the stack every year to reduce the build-up of waste.
  2. Letters to be sent to residents asking for wipes and fats not to be thrown down the pipes as this would reduce the risk of further flooding.
  3. An annual clean of both stacks to be put into a programme for maintaining stack pipes of tower blocks throughout the borough.
On 30 June 2021, the landlord’s records show an internal email asking for an update of the situation in relation to repairs giving dates the order was raised of 7 June 2021 (and a chase up on 28 June 2021). It does not specify in the email what repairs it was referring to.
On 30 June 2021, the landlord’s records show that the contractor carrying out the survey of the property confirmed that “if he remembers rightly, the main source of leaks is old copper pipes which perish.” The officer went on to comment that “Ideally copper wastes within the block all need to be replaced and then a programme of descaling the stack pipe annually should be implemented.” A similar problem was noted relating to another tower block.
The landlord’s records show an internal email dated 8 July 2021, confirming that the landlord had spoken with the resident and informed her that the contractors would be attending on 13 July 2021 to carry out a site visit. It referred to being unclear if the leak has been resolved and the resident confirmed that the issue only happened when it rained and presently there was no leak. The landlord encouraged the resident to obtain contents insurance. The resident requested a complaint and confirmed that this was not the first request as she was not happy with the stance on not replacing the damaged items. The landlord signposted the resident to its complaints service and agreed to chase up two works orders.
On 2 July 2021, the landlord’s records show that it phoned the resident to discuss repairs but there was no answer, and a message was left.
On 9 July 2021, the landlord’s records show that it received a web form from the resident. The resident was concerned that the property kept flooding with sewage, causing the family to have rashes and bumps. She confirmed that she had had to throw away the furniture and appliances as well as food and that it had affected walls, floors and every room. The resident also raised how it had affected her emotionally and had a psychological toll on her and her daughter as she was always wondering when her home would flood; she had missed work and her daughter’s diagnosed health condition had worsened. The resident confirmed that she had asked for help multiple times.
On 13 July 2021, the landlord’s records show an internal email attaching photos of the property and a report from the operative attending. These photos have not been made available to this Service. It confirms a dehumidifier was hired, delivered to site and set up for the resident. It also stated that the hallway, bathroom, kitchen and front room flooring all needed to come up due to a sewer back surge going back up in the flat from a blockage.
On 27 July 2021, the landlord’s records show an internal email confirmed the stage one complaint with a response due date of 10 August 2021. When the landlord provided information to this Service, it confirmed that this date was incorrect and the actual date of the stage one receipt was 9 July 2021, the date that the web form was received.
On 16 August 2021, the landlord’s records show that it issued its stage one complaint response. The landlord:
1. Apologised for the delay in responding.
2. Confirmed the order log of 18 June 2021 to the drainage contractor following reports of a back surge of sewage water flooding the kitchen and that attendance was made the same day with the contractor reporting the blockage was cleared and recommendations had been made to ensure the leak/flood was not repeated.
3. It referred the matter to the area surveyor for an urgent review.
4. It confirmed orders were logged to:
  1. Renew the kitchen double base unit.
  2. Renew the kitchen sink unit.
  3. Renew the sink.
  4. Renew flooring to kitchen and bathroom.
5. It Gave appointment dates of 29 and 30 September 2021.
6. It apologised for the length of time taken and inconvenience caused and offered £50 compensation which it said was in accordance with its compensation policy.
On 22 September 2021, the landlord’s records show another web form received from the resident. The resident requested a stage two complaint, described her living conditions as ‘squalor’ and gave specific concerns that the flood in June had left her home unliveable as:
1. Floors had been ripped up but not replaced, the kitchen was contaminated with sewage and walls were water damaged
2. The landlord did not want to fully repair all the damage and the workers were being mis-scheduled.
3. This was causing emotional distress and had affected her mental health in a profound way.
On 27 September 2021, the landlord’s records show an internal email asking for an update on the jobs. It also confirmed that a stage two complaint had been escalated.
On 28 September 2021, the landlord’s records show that it spoke with the resident and informed her that the compensation would be credited to her rent account. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the amount of money offered and that there were also outstanding repairs.
On 5 October 2021, the landlord’s records show an email from it to the contractor, confirming a job had been sent to the subcontractor pending a start date. Another email on the same date confirmed that all dates were booked in but then one of the operatives who would have been attending had left. It confirmed that work had been sent to the subcontractors so that all works could be done together.
On the same day, the landlord’s records show that the resident called about her outstanding work and was threatening legal action.
On 6 October 2021, the landlord’s records show an internal email commented that “it looks like a stage two complaint will have to be accepted” and that it appeared the contractor would not be attending anytime soon. The stage two complaint response has not been provided to this Service and it is unclear if this was issued. Another internal email chased up repairs and requested an update as soon as possible, making reference that the resident had been chasing up the repairs since June 2021 and that if it was unable to start works within the next seven days, it would have no option but to place an order with an alternative contractor.
On 19 October 2021, the landlord’s records show that it received an MP enquiry asking for advice on action it was taking, and it believed this was the second resident to make contact. The landlord responded the same day confirming the resident was asking for help due to the constant floods and emotional distress.
On 17 November 2021, the landlord’s records show that the resident made contact asking for clarification on the works. The following day, the landlord gave an update and apologised for the delays experienced so far. It confirmed its plan that all works should hopefully be completed before the new year and that work was due to start 24 November 2021 and it would ask the contractor to call to confirm arrangements. It went on to agree its approach to working in one room at a time due to the resident living at the property. It also confirmed that it would ensure works were agreed with the resident in advance of them starting.
In the same email, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it accepted escalation of her complaint on 16 November 2021, and the target date for a response was 14 December 2021.
Emails between the landlord and resident were exchanged in December 2021 and February 2022 and the landlord apologised for the delays in the stage three complaint response. On 2 February 2022, the landlord confirmed that the response was now due by 16 February 2022.
On 11 February 2022, the landlord’s records show its stage three complaint response was issued. The complaint was upheld in relation to the delays the resident had experienced and the landlord apologised for these delays and explained the Covid-19 pandemic had resulted in a backlog of repairs, the impact of which was still being felt but it said that this was not an excuse and purely to put things into context. It advised the resident to take out contents insurance and explained the following:
1. Delays in works
  1. It explained that the kitchen sink blockage was reported in January 2021 and the drainage contractor attended and cleared the build up of fat and debris in the stack pipe. It added that further floods were caused by blockages in the main stack and made worse during heavy rainfall leading to wastewater backing up. The drainage contractor attended on each occasion and confirmed the blockage was cleared and requested follow on works to try to avoid recurrences of the situation.
  2. The landlord confirmed that jetting undertaken on each attendance to clear was not sufficient to resolve the problem and this culminated in the most severe flood on 18 June 2021. It went on to say that a large proportion of the property was flooded due to the main stack back surging via the sink and bathroom and it took in excess of 12 hours for the drainage contractor to clear the blockage and halt the flood. The contractor reported that the inspection chamber to the rear of the block was found to be heavily blocked with fat deposits and that once it was finally cleared on the day, the repairs service arranged for a tanker to attend to descale the entire stack in the block and remove remaining fat deposits.
2. Flood – The landlord acknowledged the significant damage to the resident’s home, affecting the bathroom and all flooring in the property, walls, kitchen cabinets, appliances and furniture. It went on to explain that due to the severity, an emergency decant was recommended to allow remedial works to be undertaken but this was declined due to the resident’s concerns over having to relocate in the midst of the pandemic. It noted that, in addition, a family member with poor mental health whom the resident cared for at the time would not be able to cope with a move to an unfamiliar location.
3. Remedial works – In June 2021, the landlord confirmed that the surveyor raised remedial works with the main contractor. This included an order to ensure electrical safety on 19 June 2021 and to install a dehumidifier to help dry out water damage on 13 July 2021. It noted that on 6 August 21, the damaged flooring was removed and disposed of, leaving the concrete flooring exposed. The contractor had wanted to start work to the kitchen on 12 August 2021 but when the scope of works was explained to the resident, she advised the landlord that it was not what had been promised by the surveyor and asked that this be resolved before they started. When the contractor was due to re-attend in Sept 2021, this appointment was apparently cancelled due to not a problem sourcing the materials required due to supply chain issues caused by the pandemic. The landlord confirmed that an order was raised to replace the bath on 11 August 2021, and it was fitted on 26 August 2021 with the stud wall completed on 13 October 2021.
4. Complaint – It apologised for the delay in issuing the stage two complaint response and gave a reason that this was due to delays in completing work to the property. It acknowledged that the £50 offer of compensation at stage one complaint was not appropriate and made an offer of £500 for the distress and delays experienced throughout the whole process. It also agreed to cover the cost of replacement flooring and fitting up to a maximum of £30 per square meter of affected areas with the resident arranging the purchase and fitting of the floor independently. It confirmed that the repairs service had agreed to undertake repairs above and beyond the landlord’s responsibilities and these included full decoration to the damaged areas.
5. Outstanding work – The landlord confirmed the outstanding works to be to the hall and kitchen, but it did not specify what they were. It also referred to the disposal of damaged sofas and the redecorations to the living room and bedroom. It gave assurance that managers would monitor the situation to ensure the remaining works were completed as soon as practicable. It did not give a scope of works or timeframe.
On 22 February 2022, the landlord’s records show that the resident emailed the landlord stating that she was confused by the compensation of £500 for almost a year of issues and was concerned that it did not cover what had been lost and the emotional and mental distress caused. The resident also confirmed that the work had not started to the kitchen, living room or hallway and the offer was refused.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 14 May 2022 and the resident confirmed that she was unhappy with the following:
1. Excessive delays with repairing the damage to her property.
2. Repeated incidents of flooding led the family to lose sleep with worry about potential recurrences.
3. Her daughter’s existing mental health issues had been exacerbated.
4. The communication with the landlord was poor and repair appointments were not communicated properly.
5. The level of compensation offered which she felt did not cover the damage to personal items nor the distress the experience had caused.
The resident has confirmed to this Service that the decoration of her home is now complete, and the floor coverings have been renewed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s home following repeated floods

The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are to:
1. Be fair;
2. Put things right; and
3. Learn from outcomes.
Between January 2021 and June 2021, the landlord’s records show that its drainage contractor attended the resident’s home to clear drain blockages on five occasions. On one of these occasions, the landlord has evidence that a neighbour’s home was also affected. Whilst the landlord does not specify the timescale for drainage issues, this Service would expect the landlord to classify blocked drains affecting the internal property as an emergency repair, to be attended to within the same day. The evidence suggests that the landlord fulfilled its repair obligations in relation to each of the individual reports of attendance to a blocked drain.
However, when it first attended in January 2021, recommendations were made to inspect a drain at a specific location with a CCTV camera and the drainage contractor agreed to send on its quotation for the works.
It was not until March 2021 that a quotation from the drainage contractor was received. Whilst the landlord made attempts to clear the blockages on each occasion the drainage contractor attended the resident’s home, there is no evidence that the recommended works were ordered at this point and on two separate occasions when it attended site again, the same recommendation was made. The delay in the landlord acting on these recommendations was unreasonable; it does not give assurance that it satisfied itself or the resident that all preventative measures had been taken and this was a service failure.
The landlord’s surveyor made clear recommendations to:
1. Descale the stack every year to reduce the build up on waste.
2. Send letters to resident’s asking for wipes and fats not to be thrown down the pipes to reduce the risk of further flooding.
3. Clean both stacks on an annual basis and put a program together for maintaining stack pipes of tower blocks throughout the borough.
On a separate occasion, a further recommendation was made to suggest that the copper wastes within the block needs to be replaced and then a programme of descaling the stack pipe annually should be implemented.
There is no evidence that the landlord has carried out any of these recommendations. This was inappropriate as the landlord has not demonstrated that it took steps to minimise the risk of future flooding.
On 18 June 2021, a severe flood occurred at the resident’s home caused by the main stack back surging via the kitchen sink and bathroom. It took in excess of 12 hours for the drainage contractor to clear the blockage. The landlord confirmed this timescale in its stage three complaint response but did not offer the resident any explanation as to why it took this long. This resulted in significant damage to the resident’s home.
The resident contacted the landlord numerous times, clearly distressed and concerned about the poor condition of her home. She described how the situation was affecting her own and her daughter’s mental health. Whilst it is not for this Service to assess medical conditions, it is clear that the situation was stressful and distressing.
The landlord has provided confirmation that the flood was severe and that it offered the resident emergency rehousing but it has not provided the records of its assessment of the property condition after the severe flood, whether it deemed the property as uninhabitable or the discussions that took place regarding rehousing. Neither is there any evidence of support being offered to the resident and her daughter, the post-flood plan of works and the timeframes involved. Given the severity of the situation and the health and safety concerns, this assessment was crucial to satisfy itself that the resident was safe to remain in her home. It is inappropriate that the landlord cannot demonstrate its decision making process and that it failed to provide the resident with a clear plan as to how it would complete remedial works.
A full scope of remedial works has not been provided to this Service and it is unclear when the property repairs were fully completed. Records suggest that from the severe flood of June 2021, work still remained outstanding until February 2022 and the evidence suggests that the landlord did not keep the resident informed. Instead, the resident had to chase up works on a number of occasions. It is also noted that it took the landlord one month to deliver a dehumidifier to the resident’s home. Nine months is an excessive and prolonged period of time: it was unreasonable to expect the resident to remain in the property for such a long period without having the full use and enjoyment of her home. Whilst it is noted that the resident refused an emergency move, it is unknown to what extent this was considered by both parties as there are no records to support this discussion other than confirmation in the stage three complaint response. The landlord’s delay in carrying out remedial works without having a clear scope of works and timeframes and its failure to pro-actively keep the resident updated and records its discussions with her about a potential move were all unreasonable.
The evidence from the landlord and resident suggests that the property may have been uninhabitable and that emergency rehousing was offered but due to the resident’s concerns about her daughter’s health in dealing with an emergency move, it allowed the resident and her daughter to stay at the property. It is difficult to make an assessment of this situation given the lack of documentary evidence of the condition of the property or the options it explored in relation to temporary rehousing or whether it followed its decant policy. The landlord has not demonstrated that it acted reasonably, did all that it could to support the resident and explored all options for a temporary move.
The landlord pointed out to the resident on more than one occasion that she should consider obtaining contents insurance. This is appropriate advice by the landlord to ensure the resident’s contents are appropriately covered in the event of loss or damage. Whilst it is not for this Service to determine the success of any such claim, factors of negligence and liability would have to be established if either the landlord or resident made a claim. However, it is inappropriate that there is no evidence that the landlord contacted its insurance department for advice on the matter even though its complaints policy advises that it should do so when there has been loss and damage.
The landlord did recognise that there had been fault through its complaint investigation and offered the following redress:
1. Undertaking repairs above and beyond it responsibilities, including decoration to flood damaged areas.
2. £500 in recognition of distress and delays experienced through the whole process.
3. To cover the cost of replacement flooring and fitting up to a maximum £30 square meter of affected areas (it is unclear if the resident accepted this offer).
Although it was appropriate that the landlord took steps to offer redress to the resident, given the faults in it resolving the drainage issues, the long-term period of the inconvenience caused to the resident pending completion of remedial works and the lack of records kept by the landlord to show it pro-actively communicated with her and offered support, the level of compensation was insufficient. The landlord has also failed to demonstrate that it learned lessons from its handling of this case even though it was aware that other residents in similar blocks could be impacted. It therefore failed to act in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
The Ombudsman has made orders below for an increased level of compensation to recognise that various rooms in the resident’s property were impacted by flood damage and the use of these will have been significantly impacted by issues such as the removal of flooring.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

Despite the resident first contacting the landlord to express her concerns about recurring floods in May 2021, it did not register a formal complaint and instead, its records indicate that it dealt with the issues as a service request. It was given another opportunity to register a complaint in mid-July 2021 but still did not register this and instead gave the resident an email address for her to contact another department.
The stage one complaint was finally registered on 9 July 2021; two months after the resident’s contact. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code gives landlord’s clear expectations on how complaints should be handled without unnecessary delay. The delay in accepting the complaint was unreasonable and added unnecessary distress to the resident. Given the severity of the issue, the resident’s description of the kitchen being in an unsafe condition and her concerns that this had happened previously, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not pro-actively log the complaint, leaving the resident in an uncertain position and having to chase it for progress.
The landlord’s complaints procedure at the time committed to acknowledging complaints within four working days and responding within ten working days. When the landlord finally accepted the complaint, there is no evidence that it acknowledged it with the resident and the response was completed within fourteen working days which was slightly out of the ten working day timescale.
In its stage one complaint response, the landlord did apologise to the resident for its complaint handling delays; it outlined the works orders, appointment dates, apologised for the time take to carry out the remedial works and offered £50 compensation that it stated was in accordance with its compensation policy. Whilst a £50 time and trouble payment is given as an example of a payment that can be made at a stage one complaint stage, given the landlord delayed by almost three months in addressing the resident’s substantial concerns, this low level of compensation was not in line with the severity of the service failure and did not offer sufficient redress.
The resident raised her dissatisfaction with the stage one complaint on 22 September 2021, and a stage two complaint was registered the same day. The tone of the landlord’s internal email makes reference to a reluctance to having to accept the stage two complaint response and there is no evidence of a stage two acknowledgement letter. The landlord made reference to the stage two complaint response being due on 4 November 2021, but this response has not been provided to the Service and therefore it is unclear if it was sent within this timescale or if it was ever sent. Nevertheless, the resident had a two month delay even if she did receive the complaint response and the landlord had some reluctance to accepting this. Whilst the landlord subsequently apologised for the delay, given the delays in accepting the complaint and its previous delay with the stage one complaint response, the apology did not offer sufficient redress and the landlord failed to act in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations set out within its Complaint Handling Code.
Prior to issuing the landlord’s stage three complaint response, a number of updates were given to the resident, and it apologised for the delay in responding, giving new timescales up to February 2022. The landlord sent the final complaint response on 11 February 2022; it recognised and apologised that the stage two complaint was not issued within the appropriate timeframe and offered the resident compensation for the overall delays and distress caused. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to award compensation for the substantive issue of the flood and remedial works, it should also have made a separate award in recognition of its complaint handling failure.
In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling service failures are evident throughout the whole complaint handling process. In total, the resident had nine months of seeking resolution to her complaint (May 2021 to February 2022). This was an unreasonable delay given the severity of the issues raised and constitutes maladministration by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s home following repeated floods.
In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s home following repeated floods

Whilst individual drainage orders were attended to promptly by the contractor, the landlord delayed in resolving the underlying drainage issue and did not act on the contractor’s recommendations to carry out a CCTV of, and preventative works to, the drains.
There is evidence to suggest that more than one resident’s home was affected by the drainage issue. This includes issues within a neighbouring tower block.
The landlord did not provide records of its assessment of the resident’s property after the severe flood and how it could support her. It confirmed that emergency accommodation was offered but there is no record of any other assurance or support measures it put in place.
The landlord then took nine months to carry out remedial works to the resident’s home and failed to keep her updated. Whilst the landlord did offer redress of £500 for the delayed repairs, this does not give reasonable redress given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord also failed to consult their Insurance department regarding a liability claim for damages, but it is noted that it did offer its own redress in its offer to replace floor coverings and redecorate the resident’s home.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord delayed in registering a complaint from the resident and contributed to unnecessary delay in the resident obtaining a final complaint response. Its apology and £50 compensation award did not offer sufficient redress given the circumstances of the case.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report and:
1. Clarify if a CCTV camera survey of the drains was carried out, if not, when it will be carried out. It should provide the outcome of theCCTV survey, what works are recommended and likely timescale for these.
2. Outline its intentions in carrying out preventive work to the drains as per the surveyor’s recommendations. It should provide an outline of the plan of work and timescales. This should include recommendations for similar tower blocks in accordance with the surveyor’s recommendations.
3. Confirm the date when all remedial works were completed at the resident’s property and offer to post-inspect these if has not already done so.
4. Contact its insurance department and advise the resident and this Service on its position, including advice on whether the resident can submit a liability claim.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1800 within four weeks of the date of this report, made up of:
1. £1,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her (in addition to the £500 already offered to the resident by the landlord through its complaints process if this has not already been paid).
2. £300 compensation for its complaint handling failure in recognition of the nine month delay and the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing her complaints.

This compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against her rent account.

Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must review its complaints and compensation procedure to ensure it complies with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and provide an up to date copy of its self-assessment against the Code (with particular attention to the stage one complaint response timescale of 20 working days, the acceptance of complaints and complaint acknowledgements).
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Set out how it plans to train staff on the revised complaints procedure particularly in recognising and accepting a complaint.
2. Review its record keeping in this case and advise this Service of its plan to improve record keeping practices.
The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.