Accent Housing Limited (202225040)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225040

Accent Housing Limited

29 April 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked communal drain pipe which caused damage to her property.
2. The resident’s request for a drain maintenance plan.
3. The resident’s concerns about what repairs had been funded from the association’s sinking/reserve fund.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder but also pays a rent to the landlord as the property was purchased as part of a shared ownership scheme. The property is a ground floor two-bedroom flat. The resident lives in the property with her child and dog.
The landlord’s communal repair obligations are mentioned in the lease under section 5(3). This states that the landlord shall maintain, repair and renew the pipes, sewers, drains, wires, cisterns and tanks in and under and upon the building and the landlord’s estate. It is also responsible for the common parts of the building.
The landlord’s timescales for emergency repairs (e.g. a gas leak or burst water main) is four hours. Urgent repairs (e.g. the only shower in the property not working properly) are to be dealt with within five working days. All other repairs are to be dealt with within 15 days.
The lease says if the whole or any part of the premises (or the Common Parts necessary for access to it) are destroyed or damaged by fire, or any other risks covered by the landlord’s insurance, so as to be rendered unfit for use, then the rent or a fair proportion of it shall be suspended until the premises are again fit for use.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it would award between £50-£500 where there has been a significant service failure that has had a damaging impact on the customer.

Summary of events

On 14 December 2022, a blocked communal pipe caused an upsurge of sewage in the resident’s bathroom, which caused damage to the resident’s property. The resident arranged for a plumber to attend the following day, but it could not resolve the issue and recommended a drain company.
On 15 December 2022, the resident arranged for a drain company to attend and they asked for the toilet to be removed, which a plumber did later that same day. The drain company then returned on 16 December 2022 to investigate, but it could not resolve the issue and requested the resident obtain technical drawings of the pipes and drains.
The landlord said that it first became aware of the drainage issue on 19 December 2022.
The resident visited the landlord’s office on 20 December 2022 and spoke to an agent whom she said told her that as the issue was within her property, it was her responsibility to rectify the situation. The resident said she was told that as no other flats had been affected, then it was not a communal problem.
On 20 December 2022, the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend to flush the sewage from the pipes and unblock them. The following day the contractor attended, but they reported that as the manhole in the carpark was blocked, the water provider needed to attend, as they were responsible. The resident said she organised this for 22 December 2022, but when the water provider attended, they stated that as the land was private, they were not responsible for the issue.
On 23 December 2022, the resident said she received an email from the landlord stating that it was not responsible for any damage within her property. The landlord’s offices were closed for the holiday period and the resident said she was left with sewage leaking from the flats above her into her bathroom and hallway.
The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property again on 29 December 2022 and informed the resident that the internal stack pipe was blocked, which the resident said was a misdiagnosis of the problem. The contractor was supposed to attend again on 2 January 2023, but did not turn up. The repair notes state that the contractor would not complete the works as it was a shared stack (communal pipe). The resident said she was also told this on the phone.
On 4 January 2023, the resident organised for a private contractor to attend and they rectified the issue. The report from the company stated that there was considerable internal damage to the resident’s bathroom, plasterboard walls, boxed in wood construction, joinery, skirting boards, bath panel and flooring.
The contractor’s report said that the problem was a mass root ingress into the manhole which had caused the blockage. The resident contested that the landlord was responsible to make good the repairs that resulted from the sewage leak. During subsequent correspondence with the landlord, the resident mentioned that it had not offered to provide a specialist clean for the contaminated areas in her property, which she felt posed a health risk. The resident also noted that it took 22 days in total for the blockage to be resolved.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 January 2023 to ask when the contractors’ invoices would be paid, as she was being chased for payment. The following day the resident raised a formal complaint as she had not received any updates about rectifying the damage to her bathroom.
On 19 January 2023, the resident’s private contractor (who resolved the blocked pipe) contacted both the landlord and the resident to say their invoice had not been paid. As part of the ongoing correspondence about the incident, the resident said to the landlord that she had concerns about whether there would be a maintenance plan to check the drains in the future. She also wanted to know whether the landlord was paying for the repairs from the association’s sinking/reserve fund.
The landlord provided it’s a stage one complaint response on 24 January 2023. It said:
1. It was first made aware of the drainage issue on 20 December 2022 and the resident was advised to call through and raise a job which was done on 21 December 2022.
2. The resident was advised to contact Thames Water who attended on 22 December 2022 to remove the blockage. It had no further information on its system until 29 December 2022, when a new job was raised for the same issue and a power flush was also raised. The contractor that attended required access from neighbouring properties so they could not complete the works.
3. The resident arranged for a company to carry out the necessary works and the landlord agreed to cover the cost of this work. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
4. It apologised for any miscommunication or incorrect information given by its contractors and said this would be investigated.
5. There were no routine maintenance plans for the drainage of the property.
6. That there had only been one invoice deducted from the sinking fund in the last seven years and that was for roofing works in 2015/16.
7. It appreciated that the resident’s bathroom was damaged, but this needed to be addressed by the resident’s contents insurer.
On 30 January 2023, the resident said in an email to the landlord that her bathroom remained contaminated and she had sent it a list of recommended repairs. She said she had been unable to return to her property since the incident first occurred and she would not be paying any rental payments for this period, as the property was uninhabitable and a serious health and safety risk.
The landlord confirmed that the resident’s complaint had been escalated to stage two on 2 February 2023.
The landlord emailed the resident on the same day to ask for receipts of accommodation as a result of not being able to reside at the property due to it being uninhabitable. The resident responded to say that she had been staying with family, but was shocked that the landlord was asking for this eight weeks after the incident. The resident stated that she also had a child and a dog to look after as well.
On 6 February 2023, the landlord informed the resident its position was that it was only responsible for repairs to the communal areas, and as a leaseholder, the resident was responsible for all the internal parts of her property. The landlord attached building insurance information so that the resident could make a claim to recover any costs for damage to her property. The resident was not happy with this as she stated the damage had been caused by a communal pipe and the situation took a long time to resolve due to the landlord’s negligence.
On 22 February 2023, the landlord provided its stage two response. It said:
1. Its contractors did not manage to find the issue with the communal pipe work. It was the resident who had to instruct a company to complete the works to rectify the issue and it had reimbursed the external company for their work.
2. Damage caused within the resident’s home by blocked pipes must be claimed on her buildings and contents insurance. The landlord said that this was in accordance with the lease as the resident was a homeowner and the landlord was only responsible for the communal elements of the block. It said it was regrettable that its contractor was not able to resolve the communal repair and it apologised for the subsequent damage.
3. An offer of £250 as a gesture of goodwill was made to cover the standard excess so that repairs could be made.
4. It reiterated that the only transaction paid for from the sinking fund in the last seven years was roof repairs.
5. It would continue to repair communal pipe work where necessary. Regular scheme inspections were carried out, but due to the nature of the pipes being underground, it could not work out in advance where repairs were required.
6. In regard to making payments, it would only pay the invoice for the communal pipe work repair, as this was its responsibility. It said that no further invoices would be reimbursed as they did not refer to communal repairs.
7. For the period of 19 December 2022 to 4 January 2023, the resident was without toilet facilities and therefore the landlord offered a credit of £279.34. This amount covered 18 days of rental payments based on a monthly rent of £472.03.
On 9 March 2023, the landlord stated that the resident had confirmed to it that a basic clean had been completed. The landlord then instructed a contractor to complete an environmental clean on 10 March 2023, but as the resident could only allow access at weekends, the contractor could not accommodate this.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 March 2023 to say that a specialist clean was only offered two months after the sewage waste had entered her property and only when she requested it. The resident said she was not at the property during the week and needed the contractor to come after 5pm or over a weekend.
On 3 April 2023, the landlord instructed a new contractor to complete the environmental clean on the weekend of 8 April 2023, however, when the contractor turned up, the resident was not at the property. On the same date, the resident emailed the landlord to say that operatives had tried to gain entry to her property to complete a deep clean, but she had not been given prior notice. The landlord acknowledged that it had no evidence that the contractor had contacted the resident to arrange the clean for 8 April 2023. The resident said that for the appointment to be scheduled on that date was very inconvenient as it was over the Easter break, and because three months had passed since the incident, she had already used an alternative contractor to complete the clean.
The landlord said it credited £472.03 to the resident’s account on 17 April 2023. On 19 April 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to provide a copy of an invoice. She said she was hoping to return to the property, but would only do so once it was agreed that she would not be held responsible for the rent payments from December 2022 to April 2023 (whilst the property was contaminated and uninhabitable).
The resident said she would not accept the landlord’s offer of £250 and a credit of one month’s rent. She also wanted confirmation that the sinking fund was not used to settle additional works which she felt was due to negligence by the landlord.
On 2 May 2023, the landlord said it changed its position on reimbursing rent to include the period from when the resident reported the initial issue (14 December 2022) to when the deep clean of the flat was completed (around 18 March 2023). Therefore, a further £1,030.75 was credited to the resident’s account, making the total amount £1,502.78. The landlord said that this was the full rent amount for the period and it felt this it was a reasonable payment.
The cost of the environmental clean was £1,584.00. The landlord initially confirmed that it would reimburse the resident only £804, but later increased this amount to £1,264. However, it would not cover the full cost which included relaying the flooring. In addition, it also paid three of the resident’s contractor’s invoices.
On 23 May 2023, the resident sent the landlord an email saying she was unsure why the landlord would not pay the full invoice amount for the environmental clean and it was unclear from the evidence why the landlord had taken this position.
The landlord said it would pay the resident’s contents insurance excess, but said she would have to claim for any damage on her home insurance. On 30 May 2023, the resident responded to say that as the landlord caused the situation, then it should go through its own insurers and was not happy that it was only paying for part of the environmental clean and not all of it. The resident stated that the situation had caused her a lot of stress and that the landlord had not been helpful.
The landlord said it would cover the cost of the works carried out by the resident’s contractor to the drains, and would not recharge this through service charges to the other residents as a gesture of goodwill. It accepted that the communal repairs in this instance were its responsibility.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked communal drain pipe which caused damage to her property.

The appropriateness of the landlord’s response can only be assessed from when it was first made aware of the incident, which both parties confirmed was not before 19 December 2022. The resident initially thought that she was responsible given she was a leaseholder, and attempted to resolve the problem herself by hiring several contractors. Ultimately the cost for these contractors was paid by the landlord when it was ascertained it was responsible to remove the blockage which was appropriate in the circumstances.
Once the landlord had been made aware of the blocked drain/pipe, it arranged for a contractor to attend to unblock the pipes. The contractor then stated it was for the water supply company to deal with the incident, stating it was their responsibility to deal with the effected drain. The resident arranged this to occur on the following day. Although the resident had taken responsibility to make the arrangement following the landlord’s contractors advice, there is no evidence that the landlord checked up, or enquired with the resident to ascertain if the blockage effecting its property had been resolved.
Upon being told by the water supplier that they were not responsible for the repair, the resident attempted to contact the landlord and said she received an email the following day (23 December 2022) from the landlord to notify her that its office would be closed for the holidays.
Given the responsibility for the repair ultimately rested with the landlord, and the wider circumstances relating to the impact the sewage leak had upon the ability of the resident to stay in her home, the landlord showed a lack of resolution focus towards the resident by not enquiring as to whether the issue had been resolved after its contractor had attended. It also did not do enough to satisfy itself that it was not responsible for removing the blockage before passing responsibility back to the resident. Its actions in doing so showed a lack of compassion towards the resident who had to contend with an uninhabitable home and sewage blockage over the holiday period without any support from the landlord. This was unreasonable and inappropriate.
The priority for the repair was urgent and therefore the landlord should have ensured it completed the repair within five days of being notified; however, it closed for the holidays and the resident said she was left with sewage leaking in her bathroom. Given that the landlord knew that its offices would be closed over the holidays, it could have done more to prioritise the repair and support the resident. Instead, the resident was left for nearly a week before the contractor returned on 29 December 2022.
The landlord’s contractor was not able to resolve the issue on 29 December 2022 and then failed to show up for an appointment on 2 January 2023. The resident ultimately hired a private company to resolve the issue. The landlord failed to comply with its timescales for attendance or to practically conduct the repair. This was inappropriate and a significant failure. It was unreasonable that the resident was left with no other viable option but to hire a third party to conduct the repair due to the landlord’s failing. Throughout this period, the resident’s home was uninhabitable which would have caused significant distress and inconvenience.
The issue was caused by a mass root ingress in the manhole which caused the blockage. As such, under the terms of the lease, the landlord was responsible. In January 2023, the resident enquired as to why the landlord had not offered a specialist clean-up for the contaminated areas which posed a health risk. The landlord subsequently instructed a contractor to undertake an environmental clean on 10 March 2023, which was nearly three months after the incident first occurred.
The landlord was aware that sewage had previously flowed into the resident’s bathroom and hallway, yet it did not offer a clean for some time, despite the resident requesting one. The landlord should have offered an environmental clean much sooner, as the source of the problem had been rectified by 4 January 2023. The landlord’s delay in arranging the required cleaning was inappropriate and a failing which resulted in the resident’s property being left contaminated by sewage for an unnecessarily prolonged period and would have caused a significant amount of distress and inconvenience.
The landlord refused to pay for the entire invoice for the environmental clean, as it would not pay for the bathroom floor to be re-laid. The invoice clearly stated that the floor needed to be lifted up and cleaned and then re-laid. Therefore, it was not appropriate that the landlord would only pay for the floor to be taken up and cleaned, but not re-laid. The total invoice came to £1,584 but the landlord only paid £1,264. The blockage was the landlord’s responsibility and the issue took a long time to be resolved. Having accepted responsibility to pay for the clean, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to pay the full invoice to put things right for the resident. This was a failing by the landlord and an order will follow to pay for the full amount.
The blocked pipe caused damage to the resident’s property and she had to seek alternative accommodation for 3 months. The landlord initially offered to reimburse the rent for the 18 day period that the resident was without toilet facilities, but subsequently increased its offer to £1,502.78 to cover the period from when the issue first arose, until when the deep clean was completed. Whilst the landlord’s actions were welcomed, this occurred in May 2023, after the complaint had been referred to the Ombudsman Service and not as part of the landlord’s complaint process. This delay was inappropriate and avoidable as the matter was resolvable during the complaint process.
The landlord informed the resident on 6 February 2023, that she was covered under its building insurance (which is paid through the service charge). A copy of the policy was sent to the resident to make a claim to recover the cost of any damages to her property. The excess was £250 and the landlord agreed to cover the excess in its stage one response, which was a reasonable action in the circumstances. However, there was confusion as the resident was constantly told by the landlord, including in the stage one response, that she had to go through her own contents insurance to recover the damage to the bathroom, despite also telling the resident to claim on its buildings cover. There was a failure here, as the landlord should have had an informed and consistent approach of directing and signposting the resident to the appropriate insurer, rather than providing inconsistent information. This would have caused the resident more confusion and inconvenience.
The resident made representations many times that the landlord should go through its own insurance to pay for the damage, as it was responsible for the problem and that it took a long time to rectify the situation. The delay in resolving the matter of making an appropriate insurance claim was unnecessary, and prolonged the distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family.
During its complaint responses the landlord made offers to pay the resident’s invoices, reimbursed some of her rent and cover the insurance excess, but it did not acknowledge or offer any compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures.
The blockage was the landlord’s responsibility to resolve, and therefore it should not only have paid the invoices and the rent for the period that the flat was uninhabitable, but it should have also offered appropriate redress for the inconvenience the situation caused and by its failures. Considering that it also occurred over the holiday period and there were delays with the landlord offering a comprehensive clean, compensation of £500 is reasonable in the circumstances and an order is made to this effect.
There has been maladministration in regards to the landlords handling of the reports of the blocked pipe and the damage to the resident’s flat. In summary the information provided by the landlord regarding the resident making an insurance claim for the damage to her property was confusing and unnecessarily protracted. The landlord did not complete the repair in line with its policy and the delay caused further damage to the resident’s flat. It did not offer a deep clean until March 2023, despite the resident asking for this from January 2023. The landlord did not pay all the invoices, as it withheld part of the total of the environmental clean.

The resident’s request for a drain maintenance plan

The resident wanted the landlord to have a maintenance plan in place so that the situation did not occur again. The landlord clarified in its stage 1 and 2 responses that there would be no maintenance plan for the drainage of the property. It stated it would continue to repair communal pipe work where necessary, but due to the nature of the pipes being underground, it could not work out in advance where repairs were required. Whilst the landlord is entitled to decide how best to allocate its resources, it’s response to the resident lacked empathy and failed to acknowledge that the issue which caused the damage to the resident’s property was root ingress caused by hedges being in close proximity to the manhole. In these circumstances it would be reasonable for the landlord to have provided reassurance to the resident and demonstrated it had considered whether the existing hedges posed a likelihood of re-occurrence and if any ongoing maintenance was necessary with the particular drain which had been the cause of the issue.
The failure to consider the resident’s complaint on an individual basis and the unique circumstances that existed undermines the landlord/tenant relationship and amounts to a service failure, as the landlord had not reassured the resident that it was taking her concerns seriously to minimise the likelihood of the same incident occurring again.

The resident’s concerns about what repairs have been funded from the sinking fund

The landlord confirmed in its stage one response that there had only been one invoice paid from the sinking/reserve fund in the last seven years. This was from a roof repair from 2015/16.
Furthermore, the landlord said it would cover the cost of the works carried out by the resident’s contractors, and would not recharge this through service charges to residents. Therefore, the landlord made its position clear to the resident and the steps taken by the landlord were reasonable in the circumstances as it confirmed that it would cover the costs itself.
A recommendation has been made below to enable further clarity and communication regarding what responsibilities the landlord has to comply with and where the resident can access information.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s stage 2 response stated it would only cover the invoice for the communal pipe work, as this was its responsibility, and that no other payments would be made by it. However, after the landlord’s complaints procedure had been completed, it agreed to refund all invoices and contributed to a deep clean. This also applied to its increased offer to cover all rent payment for the period the property was uninhabitable. The landlord’s inability to make these offers during the complaints process was inappropriate, given the conditions as set out in the lease provided for this. These examples show that the landlord was not as proactive with its complaint handling as it could have been, and as a consequence caused the resident time and trouble as she continued to seek all invoices and rent to be paid/reimbursed.
The landlord has not offered redress despite the failings detailed above, to account for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures. This is not 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. This was a service failure by the landlord and it missed opportunities to support the resident and assure her that it was taking her complaint seriously. The landlord is ordered to pay £100 compensation for its poor complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, the Ombudsman Service finds maladministration in regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked communal drain pipe which caused damage to her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, the Ombudsman Service finds service failure with regards to the resident’s request for a drain maintenance plan.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, the Ombudsman Service finds no maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about what repairs had been funded from the association’s sinking/reserve fund.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, the Ombudsman Service finds service failure with regards to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not complete the repairs in line with its policy and the resident had to find her own contractor to resolve the issue. The landlord did not offer to complete an environmental clean until several months after the pipe had been unblocked. The landlord gave inconsistent information regarding who the resident was to make an insurance claim from for the damage caused to her flat. It also failed to provide redress for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s legitimate concerns around ongoing maintenance lacked empathy and did not consider her concerns as an individual or account for the unique circumstances relating to her complaint.
The landlord had confirmed to the resident that it did not pay for the invoices out of the reserve fund and said it would not recover the funds from residents through service charges.
The landlord’s complaint handling could have been better as it initially did not refund all the invoices and only reimbursed a small portion of the rent. It was only after the complaint came to the Ombudsman that the landlord increased its offer of payment. The landlord did not offer compensation where it had admitted failings.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord should pay the resident £600 compensation within four weeks of the date of this report, made up of:
1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failures in its handling of her reports of a blocked drain pipe which caused damage to her property.
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failure in its handling of her complaint.

The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not be used to offset arrears (if there are any).

The landlord should reimburse the resident for the total amount paid for the environmental clean (£1,584 less any payment the landlord has already made) within four weeks of the date of this report.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to consider whether it needs to monitor this particular drain pipe in the future, given the problem was caused by root ingress. In reaching its conclusion, the landlord should consider whether it needs to seek professional advice from an expert. It should also write to the resident and this Service to explain its findings and inform her of any action it plans to take.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord write to the resident to explain what its legal responsibilities are with regards to providing information about the sink/reserve fund. The landlord should also explain where the resident can find the relevant information regarding the fund that the landlord is required to provide.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.