The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Aster Group Limited (202005514)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005514

Aster Group Limited

8 March 2021


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 how the landlord handled repairs to the resident’s path and subsequent flooding.

Background and summary of events

  1. In September 2019 the resident reported that her path had loose slabs and cracks throughout. This was initially deemed a low priority as a surveyor assessed that no trip hazards were present. However, in June 2020 the resident suffered a minor injury when her foot went in a hole, causing her to fall. As a result, the works were classed as urgent and a quote was received from a contractor to carry out the necessary repairs. The quote was to ‘renew paths 40m2: dig out old concrete, lay new sub-base, base coat and top coat in tarmac.’ The work was completed on 21 August 2020.
  2. On the same day, further to a discussion about potential flooding, the resident sent the landlord photographs of the path, particularly highlighting its new raised level. She was generally pleased with the path and said that the contractors who had laid the tarmac had done a brilliant job and had angled it to try to improve the flow of any water. However, there was previously at least a 4inch drop between the door and the outside level, but water had still come in. Her concern now was that there was less than an inch gap, so there was less space for the water to go.
  3. On 27 August 2020 there was a storm with heavy rain which affected a number of the landlord’s properties. The landlord logged a call from the resident to attend as an emergency as she said that the gully drain to the front of her property had blocked and flooded the property. She asked for the issue to be recorded as a complaint. The landlord responded that it was sorry to see the flooding and that it was trying to get around to its water damaged properties as fast as it could. It said that its carpenter would visit that evening to deliver a dehumidifier and that he also had an aqua vac and could help to lift the carpet if required. The resident was advised to take photographs of the water damage and to contact her insurer immediately.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 1 September 2020, explaining that there were further issues with the installation of the path, such as it being above the height of the damp course in places and it being incorrectly edged with wood which was a trip hazard as it was too high. In addition, the gas safety shut off on the outside of the house had been covered in tarmac. She explained that the flooding had ruined all the downstairs flooring and two sofas, and she had had to deep clean all the white goods in the kitchen. The landlord’s Contract Manager and Groundwork Team also visited the property on this date to assess the situation with the path.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 3 September 2020, it said that it was immediately aware of the flooding and that, due to the severity of the storm, it had received a number of similar calls from tenants. The capacity of the drains in the area contributed to a number of properties being flooded and the drainage contractor was unable to do anything as the drains were at full capacity due to a large quantity of rainfall in a short space of time. The landlord agreed that the height of the path was slightly higher than originally, but the primary cause of the water ingress was the amount of rainfall which led to a flash flood incident.
  6. The landlord agreed that the quality of the path installation was not up to the standard it would expect, but the intention had been to make the path safe to use in the quickest time following the end of the Covid lockdown. It proposed to remove the path completely, excavate and reinstate it and add several steps to reduce its gradient. The work would be carried out by its own internal team, as the resident had expressed that she did not want the original contractors to return, and a drainage contractor had attended and confirmed that the drainage was performing as it should. With regard to the property itself, the landlord said that it was its responsibility to ensure the structure was in good condition and so the resident should let it know if she wanted the floors and walls to be inspected once the flooring had been removed. It reiterated that the damage was not due to any negligence on its part and that the resident should make a claim on her contents insurance for damage to any belongings.
  7. On 7 September 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to request that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. She said that the stage 1 response had failed to address a number of points, such as a need for a run-off. Further, the drainage contractor had only checked that the drain was not blocked, which she knew anyway. She had calculated that the raised path had reduced the capacity of the outside space so that it would now hold 500 gallons of water less than it would before and that she had lived there for 20 years and knew how much rainfall the area could take before entering the house. She also queried the need for steps as the gradient had always been fine before the new path had been laid. She said that no time scales had been given and, if the work was not carried out by 21 September 2020, she would arrange for it to be carried out herself and seek to reclaim the costs via legal action.
  8. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 14 September 2020 it said that it would like the opportunity to put the work right and, if the resident agreed, the dates would be confirmed with her. It had gone back to the contractor who was disappointed with the quality of the work and who would like the opportunity to put it right using a different team. If the resident was in agreement, the contractor would visit to discuss the works. Alongside the steps, it would like to incorporate some additional Aco drainage which would run into the existing drainage. The drainage company had attended and supplied a CCTV camera test which confirmed that there were no concerns with the system. The landlord asked the resident to confirm if the inside of the property was now dry, in which case it would arrange for a surveyor to attend to take some internal fabric readings.
  9. Following further liaison between the resident and the landlord, it was arranged for the landlord and contractor to attend the property on 22 September 2020 to discuss the works to the path. Surveyors were to attend on 23 September 2020 to assess any internal damage.
  10. On 23 September 2020 the resident called the landlord’s complaint team. The call note records that she was unhappy as she felt she had not been listened to. She said she did not want the same contractor to return and the stage 1 response had said the work would be carried out by an internal team, whereas the stage 2 response said that the contractors would like the opportunity to fix the work. The resident was seeking compensation for distress and inconvenience as she had been living without any carpets since the flood. The dehumidifiers were still being run which was incurring additional electricity costs, and the damage to the inside of the property and her belongings had not been acknowledged. The complaint team therefore escalated the complaint to stage 3.
  11. Upon being passed the resident’s email, the complaint investigator expressed surprise as he said he had spoken to her in depth the previous week and during the visit on 22 September 2020 and she had agreed that she was happy to give the contractor the opportunity to put things right. It was agreed that the contractor would provide details of the work which would then be confirmed with the resident. The complaint investigator was still awaiting a written report from the surveyors but had been led to believe that there was no internal damage to timber or the floor structure.
  12. On 24 September 2020 the landlord emailed the resident with an update about the path. The contractor had given a date of 12 October 2020 to complete the works. The works were described as: breaking out all concrete that has been identified down to original levels with type 1 stone for base with new PCC edges on path from gate as agreed. The concrete area out front of the house will be the same and will be done in sections with expansion joints with shuttering and 100mm of concrete which will be dished into existing gully to take any water away with a brush finish. Any ground that has been disturbed will be top soiled and seeded on completion. The resident was asked to confirm if the date was acceptable.
  13. The resident responded that the date was fine provided that the landlord confirmed what was going to happen with the drainage problem, as there was no point starting the path if the drains were not going to be sorted out. The landlord responded that it had met with a drainage contractor on 25 September 2020 and that a new soakaway was to be installed. This needed to be done before the path, so work would start on 1 October 2020.
  14. On 29 September 2020 the landlord contacted the resident with the results of the surveyors’ internal inspection. It said that it needed to carry out the following works: Apply liquid vapour membrane plus latex levelling screed to hallway/kitchen and lounge, replace kitchen plinths, replace vinyl in the kitchen and refix skirting board. It offered to replace the lounge and hallway carpet and offered £30 to cover the extra cost of electricity whilst using the dehumidifiers. In response, the resident said that, overall, she was happy with the response and hoped the matter could get resolved as soon as possible. She later confirmed that she was happy to discontinue the stage 3 complaint.
  15. The works to the path were completed on 15 October 2020. The resident emailed the landlord the following day to complain. She said that the ground works had been brilliant but the laying of the concrete was now falling on her to correct and this is why she had not wanted the contractor back. She said that ‘all their tools left etc are up on the footpath waiting for them to collect’. She said she was told that it would be a ‘brush finish’, but that was not what had been done, and there were raised parts and deep gouges. She said that the landlord’s groundwork supervisor had said she was being picky, which was insulting. She was concerned that the same sub-standard work would be done inside the property. Therefore, she did not want anyone else in the house as it was too stressful, and she would complete the work herself.
  16. The landlord asked its groundwork supervisor to comment on photographs the resident had supplied and he said that the finish was a brush finish, to make it non-slip, and that all of its concrete works were completed like that. He said a photograph of an area around a shed just demonstrated how much the level of the path had been reduced by.
  17. The landlord’s intention had been to install an additional overflow soakaway in the verge outside the perimeter of the resident’s garden (as this was owned by the landlord) which would connect into the gulley. However, as the resident had moved the contractor’s materials out onto the footpath and told it not to continue with the works, it had stood down from all remaining works.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord did not inspect the work done to the path immediately after the first works were completed on 21 August 2020. It has said that this was because both the contract supervisor and the groundwork foreman were on leave. It was after the flooding that the work was inspected, and the contractor accepted that the work was not up to its usual standard. Although the landlord did originally say that its own staff would carry out the work, in terms of cost effectiveness it was reasonable that its preference would be for the contractor to correct matters, as long as it could be assured that the quality would be better.
  2. The landlord’s contract manager visited jointly with the contractor to discuss what was required and the contractor gave an undertaking that the supervisor who had visited would be in charge of overseeing the works and ultimately, the resident did agree that the contractor could carry out the works. In the interests of making the most effective use of its resources, as a social landlord, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s approach to rectifying the sub-standard works was appropriate.
  3. No evidence has been provided that there was any fault with the main drains. The resident’s point is that the outside of the property acted as a reservoir for rainfall, with water pooling there until it could enter the drains. She felt that the raising of the level of the path thereby reduced the cubic capacity of that area. With that in mind, she has provided photographs of flooding outside the property during a storm in November 2019 and says that, although the rain was heavier at that time, the water was contained in the outside space and stayed below the threshold of the doorway.
  4. It is appreciated that the resident, having lived in her home for a number of years, has a good understanding of how water would run off and pool at her property. However, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the ingress of water into the house was solely the result of the raised path level. There would have been a number of factors at play, including the amount of rainfall over a certain period of time and the localised nature of any rain, affecting the ability of the drains to cope. The heavy rainfall on 27 August 2020 happened over a very short period, resulting in the drains being overwhelmed and a number of other properties in the area being flooded. Given these factors, it is not possible to say that the internal flooding would not have happened if the path had been at its original level.
  5. The resident is unhappy with the communication from the landlord, particularly that the Head of Operations (HO) who was investigating the complaint, was not in more direct contact. Having considered the chronology of events, it is clear that the HO did arrange visits by the contract supervisor, who then reported back. The HO was also in regular email contact with the resident, had a good understanding of the issues at hand, and was working to resolve them. He also spoke with the resident directly in early September 2020 and understood her to be in agreement with its proposals. There were also direct email exchanges in late September 2020, resulting in the resident saying she was happy with his response.
  6. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord failed to meet the resident’s expectations in terms of communication, because the HO did not initially telephone or visit in response to the complaint. However, the HO did act as the point of contact for the complaint. Overall, the landlord responded to contact from the resident in a reasonable time and provided sufficient information to keep her informed of what its intentions were. The formal responses at stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaint were also provided in good time.
  7. The work to the path completed in October 2020 included the installation of a new gulley, as well as the level of the path being dropped down again. The resident was happy with the groundwork but was dissatisfied with the finish of the concrete surface which she says was not a ‘brushed finish’. From the photographs that have been provided, she also appears to be unhappy with the finish around the edge of the path where it abuts certain walls. It should therefore be noted that the principal purpose of re-laying the path was to make it safe, rather than to improve or alter its appearance. The path not being visually to the resident’s taste is different to it being of sub-standard quality. Although the resident has provided photographs of the new surface, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude from these that the path is not now a safe, level surface to walk on.
  8. Upon making the complaint, the resident said that she wanted a full survey in the first instance, the path to be dug out before being replaced and a run–off to be installed. All of these requests have been completed. The resident has said that the drainage works are of poor quality and that she would like the landlord to finish off work to the drains. She has provided some photographs of unfinished works on the other side of her garden wall. However, it was the resident who, being unhappy with the works carried out to that point, removed the contactor’s materials from her garden and told them not to return. This was before they could complete work to a secondary soakaway.
  9. With regard to any internal damage, the landlord immediately accepted that it would be responsible for repairing anything structural. It correctly advised the resident to contact her contents insurer in relation to any damaged personal belongings. In a telephone call to the complaints team on 9 September 2020 the resident expressed dissatisfaction that no one had been to assess the full extent of the damage that had been caused. However, the landlord’s stage 1 response of 3 September 2020 asked the resident to let it know if an inspection of the walls and floors was required once the flooring had been removed. There would not have been much point in inspecting the property until the dehumidifier had had time to dry out the fabric as much as possible.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 response asked the resident to confirm if the inside was now dry, in which case it would arrange for surveyors to attend to take readings. When the surveyors did attend, the readings of the walls showed there was no damp and it was assessed that a chemical membrane should be applied to the floor before the kitchen plinths and skirting boards be refixed. The resident was happy with this course of action, only requesting advance notice so that furniture could be moved to accommodate the work.
  11. It must have been very upsetting and unsettling for the resident to have her home flooded and then to have to deal with the consequences of that. Although the resident has requested compensation for distress and inconvenience, as it has not been found that the flood was the result of any failings on the part of the landlord, it would not be appropriate to award compensation.
  12. The landlord, as a gesture of goodwill, had offered to replace the resident’s lounge and hallway carpet and to pay £30 towards the cost of extra electricity. The resident was happy with this offer at the time that it was made. It appears that the resident has replaced the flooring in her home as she told this Service that she would like reimbursement from the landlord.
  13. In summary, the landlord cannot be held responsible for the water ingress into the resident’s property in August 2020. It then responded appropriately to her complaint by agreeing to rectify the sub-standard path and carrying out internal works that it was responsible for.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to this complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:
    1. pay the resident the £30 offered towards her electricity bill if it has not already done so;
    2. liaise with the resident about reimbursement of the cost of new lounge and hallway carpets. However, the landlord will not be liable to pay this if the resident included the cost of flooring as part of her contents insurance claim and received a payment from her insurer for these items, as it would not be fair for the resident to receive payment twice. She would need to provide evidence of her insurance settlement to confirm that this was not the case;
    3. if the resident agrees, arrange to return to complete works on the secondary soakaway.