Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Barking and Dagenham Council (202003034)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003034

Barking and Dagenham Council

18 November 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 the:
    1. landlord’s handling of a toilet blockage from 2019 – 2020.
    2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a new build property since May 2018.
  2. The Home User Manual notes where problems occur when once the resident moves into the property, they can report them to the Housing Repairs and Maintenance Service. The property is under warranty by the builder for a period of 24 months from the date the property was handed over to the landlord. If the resident reports a repair that is considered the responsibility of the builder, then the landlord will instruct them to carry out the repair.
  3. The landlord has two stage complaints process. At stage 1 it should respond within 10 working days. Following this a review can be requested. An acknowledgement will be sent within five days and a response within 30 working days. If it cannot meet this target, it will send a progress report.

Summary of Events

  1. The resident first raised a formal complaint in June 2019. As such the Ombudsman has assessed matters from the beginning of 2019, which is 6 months prior to the formal complaint being made. The events prior to this are noted for context.
  2. The resident moved into the property in May 2018 and immediately reported an issue with the toilet. Following this there were an additional 4 reports of the same issue in 2018.
  3. Between January and October 2019 there were 10 reports of blockages to the toilet. These were responded to on the same day.
  4. The landlord’s contractor carried out a CCTV inspection of the toilet in June 2019 and found that an element of the toilet pan had been pushed too far in, blocking the outlet pipe. It advised that if this was still under the warranty period, the original contractor should remedy the issue. The resident complained to her MP.
  5. Following receipt of the resident’s complaint on 19 August 2019, the landlord responded on 4 September 2019. It apologised for the inconvenience and difficulties the resident had experienced. It noted numerous visits had been carried out and following a CCTV inspection it was found that the pan was fitted incorrectly. It noted it had addressed the concerns with the relevant department and the fitting issue would be rectified. It noted the resident could escalate the complaint to the corporate complaints team.
  6. It is noted within communications between the parties that the original contractors attended on 2 occasions in October and December 2019 and following this no further reports were made.
  7. No records have been provided by either party that the complaint was escalated.
  8. The resident then contacted the Ombudsman in July 2020 and the Ombudsman requested that the landlord respond. The landlord advised on 5 August 2020 that it had received no further contact from the resident since its response of 4 September but would respond again at stage 1 by 25 August 2020.
  9. On 11 September 2020, the landlord provided its stage 1 response and apologised for the difficulties the resident had experienced and for any inconvenience caused. It referenced the resident’s previous complaint in August 2019 noting that following a further 2 visits in October and December 2019, the toilet was left operational on both occasions and there had been no further reports. The matter was subsequently closed in January 2020.
  10. On 24 September 2020, the resident responded noting that whilst the landlord’s response team always attended within 24 hours of her reports, she should not have had to call so frequently. She noted that as she was pregnant at the time, she was not able to stay in the property due to the smell and non-functioning toilet and she incurred other expenses whilst paying rent. She noted the blockage was cleared but sought compensation for the lack of the toilet, distress caused, and extra expenditure incurred.
  11. In October 2020, the resident was advised that she would receive a response within 2 weeks. This did not happen and no further holding responses were sent. In December the resident contacted the Ombudsman for assistance and the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord to request it provide the stage 2 response.
  12. On 23 December 2020, the landlord advised the resident would receive a response to her request for compensation to address the delay in carrying out repairs to the toilet by 15 January 2021. It apologised for the significant delay.
  13. On 28 January 2021, the landlord provided what appeared to be an additional stage 1 response. It noted that the resident had continually reported a blocked toilet and following nine visits a camera survey was completed. It advised whilst the original plumbing unit had been pushed too far back, it was a maintenance issue as opposed to a defect. It noted it was considering whether any compensation was payable, due to the number of visits before the camera survey was commissioned. It noted the resident could escalate the complaint should she wish.
  14. On 4 February 2021, the landlord provided its stage 2 response, further apologising for the delay in addressing the compensation request. It reiterated its earlier response and added that a more detailed investigation should have been completed sooner to rectify the issue and the resident should not have had to raise numerous reports in quick succession. It apologised and offered £200 to reflect the inconvenience, distress caused, and time and trouble expended, especially given that she had had to complain before it considered a payment.

Assessment and findings

Level of compensation

  1. The Ombudsman recognises that there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant. Whilst there was a repeated number of call outs, it is accepted by the resident that these were responded to as emergency repairs and within 24 hours of the report. The landlord also referred the matter to the original contractors in line with the Home User Manual. The Ombudsman deems that the service failure was limited, in so far as whilst there were multiple reports, these were addressed and resolved immediately.
  2. The landlord has accepted that it failed to address the issue to find a permanent fix sooner and has also offered £200. In considering the complaint the Ombudsman has sought to assess whether the landlord’s offer of compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the repeated repairs is sufficient redress in the circumstances.
  3. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance notes that awards of between £50 and £250 address service failure resulting in some impact on the resident. As such, the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable, genuinely reflected the service failure and in line with the Ombudsman’s awards.
  4. While the resident has advised that she incurred additional expenses, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord was ever provided with details of such, relating to the toilet blockages. Should the resident have such information, she should provide this to the landlord for consideration.
  5. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident has referred to the blockages impacting on her health during pregnancy. The Ombudsman is unable to make any causal link between matters complained of and an individual’s health. This is as these are matters which relate to personal injury and outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. Should the resident want to pursue the matter, she is advised to seek independent advice.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident raised the complaint via the Ombudsman in August 2020, the landlord was advised to respond by 25 August. This was already more than the 10 working days stipulated in its policy. This did not happen and there is no evidence that the resident was advised of a delay, in line with the complaint’s policy. A response was sent 11 working days late of the agreed date.
  2. The resident escalated her complaint in September 2020 and in line with the landlord’s complaints procedure, a response was due by 5 November. The landlord however contacted the resident noting a response would be provided sooner. It has acknowledged that it then failed to update the resident to advise that the response would be delayed.
  3. Following the Ombudsman’s contact, the landlord advised the resident that a stage 2 response would be provided by 15 January 2021. This did not happen, but the resident then received a further response at the end of January. This was confusing as it again advised that the resident should escalate the complaint, as opposed to being the stage 2 response.
  4. The stage 2 response was finally issued on 4 February. This was 60 working days later than the policy stipulates. While the landlord apologised, it failed to include assurances that the same service failure would not occur again and set out what steps it had taken to try to ensure this and therefore the apology was not sufficient redress.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states ‘At any time, the Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily’, the level of compensation offered by the landlord amounts to reasonable redress.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged that it should have taken more investigatory action sooner in order to find a permanent fix to the toilet. It accepted that this was a failing and also that it would have caused the resident inconvenience, distress and time and trouble and offered adequate redress.
  2. The landlord failed to offer adequate redress for the failings identified in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that within four weeks, the landlord pays the resident:
    1. £200 offered at stage 2, as the reasonable redress finding is based on this payment
    2. £75 for the complaint handling failures
  2. The Ombudsman also orders that the landlord provide further training to its staff on addressing complaints to ensure that these are responded in line with the policy and residents are adequately kept informed.