Bromford Housing Association Limited (202007837)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007837

Bromford Housing Association Limited

23 Feburary 2022

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 landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of flooding at the property and associated damage.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

2. The resident is a leaseholder at the property and is subject to the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. The landlord is a housing association.
3. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, the policy states that the resident’s must be kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident made a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should formally respond within 7 working days. However, if the complaint is complex it will discuss and agree timescales directly with the resident. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a review of the landlord’s decision and the landlord should provide a response within 14 working days.
4. Under the terms of the lease agreement the landlord is responsible for the repair and to keep in good working order all sewers, drains, pipes, watercourses, gutters and water pipes within the estate. 
5. Under the lease agreement the landlord will insure the structure of the premises against loss or damage but it is the resident’s responsibility to insure the contents of the flat and not to do anything that may render such policies void.
6. Under the terms of the lease agreement the resident must immediately notify the landlord in writing of any defect or want of repair in any part of the estate which the landlord is liable to repair.
7. Under the landlord’s repairs policy it aims to attend emergency repairs within 2-24 hours. It advised that it may make safe at first, and then arrange a follow up appointment to complete the works needed.
8. Under the landlord’s compensation policy it contracts with customers and long leaseholders to provide repairs and other services. Compensation may be claimed if it fails to provide one or more services. It can also make discretionary payments for its service failure including ‘sorry awards’.

Summary of events

9. The leaseholder is not the resident however for the purpose of this report both the ‘resident’ and the ‘leaseholder’ will be referred to as the ‘resident’. 
10. On 17 June 2020, the resident contacted the landlord in relation to flooding at the property due to heavy rain and a blocked communal courtyard drain. The landlord’s engineer deployed sandbags that evening and advised that the drains would need to be rodded. The resident was advised that the drainage specialist would attend within two hours and to call the landlord for an update if the operative hadn’t arrived.  She advised that she had attempted to call the landlord a number of times but did not receive a response.
11. On 18 June 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and made a complaint that she was advised by the engineer that someone would attend within two hours to perform the rodding to the drain. She asked that the landlord complete the following works that day:
    1. That the communal courtyard drain be rodded.
    2. Cleaners attend the property and perform a deep clean of the kitchen and living room areas.
    3. That the landlord commence an insurance claim for damage sustained to the interior of her property.
12. On 18 June 2020, the specialist drainage contractor arrived at the resident’s property within 26 hours of the issue being reported by the resident. It performed a drainage survey and advised that the drains at the property were all clear and free flowing and the cause of the flood was flash flooding. It stated that the tenants front door was meters below ground level and water was able to flow through the front door of the property and flood internally. It stated that there was no resolution to this issue in terms of drainage.
13. On 25 June 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and said that it would be providing the full stage one response at the end of the week when further information regarding communication was available. It advised that:
    1. It had sought advice from its Insurance Business Partner and its Commercial Property Manager and concluded that there had been no reported floods directly linked to the drainage previously and that the flooding was caused by weather conditions outside its control. It advised the resident to make a claim via her own contents insurance for any damage caused and that if her insurance provider did not feel that it had acted correctly, a counter claim could be submitted by the provider.
    2. It accepted that the drain, the pipe, the courtyard, the threshold and the front door were its responsibility. It advised that should flooding become a persistent problem after the isolated incident then future action may be required. It advised that given it was an isolated incident and not an ongoing issue it would not provide the resident with any ongoing permanent flood defenses.
14. On 3 July 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one response in relation to the flooding at the property and addressed the following:
    1. It stated that the resident made three calls to it on the night of the flood and one the morning after, it advised that it downloaded and listened to the calls from the resident and the advice provided.
    2. The first call advised that it would provide sandbags and the operative gave information about how the resident could make an insurance claim. It acknowledged that the second and third call with its out–of–hours team was not up to the standard expected and apologised for this.
    3. It admitted that the two-hour timeframe to fix the issue was unrealistic and the operative should have let the resident know that due to the adverse weather conditions the wait may extend to 24 hours and potentially longer as the conditions meant that more jobs were required during the evening. It acknowledged that the drain specialist surpassed the 24-hour period that should have been given to the resident on the calls.
    4. It accepted that the services provided were ‘not good enough’ and would use the case as a learning exercise to ensure it does not happen again. It said that this would include its out of hours team and the feedback would form the basis of any training required.  
15. On 7 July 2020, the resident responded to the landlord’s stage one response and raised the following:
    1. She agreed with the number of phone calls and times logged but said that she wanted to take the matter beyond the landlord using it as a learning tool, with feedback to be shared. She stated that she didn’t expect the landlord’s after-hours staff to be any less professional and that they should have provided accurate information.
    2. That the landlord was not able to provide an accurate timeslot for the DrainTech professional meant the property was further exposed causing anger and disappointment and strained the tenant landlord relationship.
    3. She challenged the validity of the DrainTech report as the engineer was unable to lift a number of the manhole covers.
    4. She clarified that she did not ask the landlord to make an insurance claim but to return her to the position she was in before the flood, this included covering the cost of the chemical clean which was required and the insurance excess.
    5. She asked for a copy of the landlord’s schedule of maintenance for the past year in respect to the drains and pipework. She stated that the landlord’s lack of maintenance including the collection of grass clippings may have contributed to the flooding.
    6. She asked that the landlord provide the following:
       1. Reimbursement for chemical cleaning.
       2. Reimbursement for her insurance excess.
       3. Investigation into the gully drains, including full unblocking.
       4. Collection of the sandbags and dehumidifier.
       5. Compensation.
16. On 17 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and asked when the landlord would collect the dehumidifier and sandbags. The landlord responded the same day and advised that an engineer would come and collect them. The dehumidifiers were collected on 20 July 2020.
17. On 24 July 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its final stage two response and addressed the following:
    1. It acknowledged that it provided incorrect information about the 24-hour timeframe for the contractor to reach the resident. It stated that the contractor arrived within 26 hours of contact due to unprecedented weather conditions and offered its apologies for the delay. It also offered the resident an apology as the calls ‘were not responsive, empathic and they did not collect relevant information from the resident in a coherent or timely way’. It assured the resident that it would learn from the incident and actions would be taken forward with its out of hours response service.
    2. The drainage specialists completed a survey that confirmed that there were no issues with the drainage system and the cause of the problem was a flash flood caused by severe weather conditions.
    3. The resident raised concern in her stage one response that the technician was not able to lift all the manhole covers and that they suggested a flood defense system that was not suitable for the property. It reassured the resident that whilst the technician was unable to lift two of the manhole covers (because they wouldn’t be able to be reinstated safely) the Drain Tech operative was able to carry out high pressure water jetting from a manhole cover to all branches which were clear and free flowing.
    4. The operative determined that it was not the buildings flood defense system that failed but a result of flash flooding and that it was an isolated event. It advised that it encouraged all customers to ensure that they had adequate insurance in place for instances such as flash floods. It advised as above if the resident insurance believes that it is at fault it can contact its insurance provider directly.
    5. It advised that it would not be reimbursing or compensating the resident for damage at the property as it was due to severe unforeseen weather conditions and not the drainage at the property. It stated that it would not be providing a schedule of maintenance in relation to the drains and pipework as it is not obliged to conduct routine drainage checks. It said that it would arrange for someone to attend and inspect the resident’s concerns in relation to the gully as soon as possible.
18. On 21 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and expressed her dissatisfaction in relation to its stage two final response and that it had not spoken with her personally before making the final decision. She advised that she did not think the drains had been well maintained and after the flood she instructed a private drainage company to perform an inspection and was informed that the drains were blocked (date or report not provided). She asked that the landlord supply its maintenance schedule and also contact her in relation to the gully’s as they have not been checked by the landlord. She raised the distress the incident has caused her and her tenants and the significant out of pocket expenses experienced.
19. On 28 August 2020, the landlord responded to the resident and advised that it was ‘comfortable with its stage two final response’ and if the resident remained unhappy it would contact her Local MP or the Housing ombudsman.
20. On 18 May 2020, the landlord informed this service that it no longer owns the property involved and therefore, all outstanding repairs or works that are required will need to be completed by the new landlord. It advised that the resident was aware and had the new landlord details and any repairs that she felt were needed should be reported directly to them.

Assessment and findings

21. The resident raised the issue of the flooding at the property on 17 June 2020. The flood caused water to enter the basement level property causing damage to the flooring and decoration. The impact on the resident would have been unpleasant and it evidently caused the resident great distress and inconvenience.
22. Under the terms of the lease agreement the landlord is responsible to repair and to keep in good working order the drains within the estate. Once the resident had reported the flooding the landlord took a resolution focused approach and had an engineer attend the property and deploy sandbags in an attempt to minimise damage and it also provided advice that the drains would need to be rodded. The landlord also provided dehumidifiers in an attempt to minimise damage to the property. The actions taken by the landlord at this stage were appropriate and in line with its repair’s obligations
23. The resident was advised that a specialist contractor would attend the property within a two-hour time period to fix the drainage. The landlord subsequently accepted that it was not realistic to provide such information. The Landlord should have kept the resident up to date in relation to the operative’s expected arrival, this failure led to the resident having to make a number of calls throughout the night seeking an update and on two separate occasions she received incorrect and incomplete information. This failure evidently added to the resident’s distress and the landlord accepted that its service was not appropriate or in line with its complaint handling standards.
24. The landlord accepted that its communication was ‘not good enough’ and would use the case as a learning exercise to ensure it does not happen again which was appropriate given the circumstances of the failure. In this situation due to the distress caused it would have also been appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with compensation to put this failure right. Accordingly, an order has been made for compensation of £150 to be paid to the resident to remedy its failure.
25. The specialist contractor failed to arrive within the landlord’s prescribed repairs timescales. This delay was mitigated however by the extreme weather conditions at time and that the operative arrived within 2 hours of the prescribed timeframe which was not a significant failure. The operative provided a survey that stated that the drains at the property were clear and free flowing and the cause of the damage was flash flooding and an isolated event.
26. Accordingly, the operative arriving earlier was unlikely to have had an impact on the severity of the flooding. The resident stated that the contractor was unable to lift a number of hatches and therefore could not have performed the survey adequately. However, the landlord’s decision not to perform drainage works was in line with the findings of the survey and the landlord was entitled to rely on the survey findings as they were carried out by a suitably qualified specialist.
27. The resident said that she hired an independent drainage specialist who determined the drain was blocked, however no evidence was provided to the landlord or this Service in relation to this. This assessment carefully considered the resident’s argument that the landlord breached the lease agreement by failing to proactively maintain the drainage at the property. The starting point was to refer to the wording of the agreement, which is the legal document defining the respective obligations of both parties. It was noted the wording of this document implies that maintenance and repair are distinct actions
28. Although the document confirms the landlord has clear obligations to repair, no wording was found in the agreement to specify the landlord’s obligations in respect of maintenance. For example, to show how or when the parties agreed that maintenance should be carried out. Given the above this assessment was unable to draw firm conclusions on the matter. Since it appears to involve a legal argument, the issue is also beyond the scope of this assessment. This report rather focused on how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and formal complaint and whether it acted fairly under the circumstances of the case.
29. When taking all the information into account it is clear that the impact from the flood was very worrying and caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. There is however no evidence that the flooding was caused by any disrepair that the landlord was responsible for. As the resident disputes this she could seek independent advice or challenge the decision through her insurers.
30. overall, although there was no evidence that the flood was a result of the landlord failure to repair, the Landlord failed to adequately compensate the resident for its accepted communication failures.

Determination (decision)

31. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of flooding at the property and associated damage

Reasons

32. The landlord acknowledged its failings with respect to its communication with the resident however the training order was not adequate to fully redress the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
33. The landlord was entitled to act in line with the advice from its drainage specialist by saying that it was not responsible for the damage caused to the resident’s property. It appropriately provided the resident with information about the insurance process and used its discretion to provide sandbags and dehumidifiers to minimise the damage caused.

Orders and recommendations

34. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £150 in respect of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the lack of communication and incorrect information given.
35. The landlord is to make this payment to the resident within four weeks and to update this service when payment has been made.