Guinness Housing Association Limited (202201117)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201117

Guinness Housing Association Limited

27 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s: 
   1. response to reports of sink back surges into his property;
   2. handling of the associated repairs;
   3. handling of the resident’s concerns about his property being left unsecured, and;
   4. handling of the overall complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident has health issues and lives with a full-time carer (a family member). The property is a first floor flat.
3. In response to a leak from the property entering the ground floor flats below, the landlord raised an emergency repair on 16 January 2020. The resident was on holiday at the time and said that the landlord could contact a family member who would provide access for the emergency repair team. On 17 January 2020, a contractor cleared a drain blockage that had likely caused a back surge and subsequent flooding. The resident was informed that the property would be left unlocked from Friday afternoon until Monday morning. The resident reported being uncomfortable with this and said that, after being unable to contact his neighbourhood warden to discuss, he flew back home on 22 January 2020.
4. The landlord’s records show that due to a communal drainpipe still being blocked, communal drainpipe repairs were raised on 24 and 29 January 2020. On 31 January 2020, the resident explained to the landlord that in his view the kitchen sink was incorrectly connected to the rainwater downpipe, and with excessive rainfall this could cause another back surge. The landlord raised a number of work orders between 17 January 2020 and early February 2020, and its reports show the blocked communal drainpipe was cleared on 6 February 2020.
5. The resident made a formal complaint on 4 February 2020 regarding his property being left unsecured, and the handling of the drainage repair. He requested reimbursement for the earlier-than-intended return flights. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 March 2020. The resident chased for responses and updates several times between March and May 2020, and also stated that he did not think that the cause of the flooding had been addressed. The landlord issued a stage one response on 13 May 2020 and:
   1. apologised and acknowledged the difficult decision the resident made to come home
   2. explained an emergency repair was raised on 16 January 2020 for an unforeseen flood, and a decision was made to leave the resident’s front door unsecured as it felt this access was needed to deal with the repair
   3. explained the delays arose because of arranging contractors and drainage experts, in conjunction with scaffolding issues
   4. offered £250 compensation.
6. In his response that same month, the resident said that the flooding had been caused by the kitchen sink being connected to the rainwater downpipe, and that repairs were required to prevent a recurrence. He reiterated his concerns about the front door being left unsecured and said that this was the primary cause of returning home early from holiday. The resident was unhappy with the compensation offered and asked that his complaint be escalated to stage two (although the landlord did not do so).
7. On 14 August 2020 the resident reported a second flood, and an emergency repair was raised and attended the same day. In November 2020, the resident chased up his formal complaint, and queried when a CCTV survey promised in August would be carried out. He continued to chase the landlord in January 2021. The landlord’s records show a CCTV survey of drains was completed on 30 January 2021. On 11 March 2021, the resident told the landlord he rejected the £250 compensation offered at stage one and wanted the drainage issues fully resolved. The landlord arranged further surveys and, on 30 March 2021, said the CCTV surveys showed the drains full of fat and grease.
8. On 13 August 2021, the landlord emailed the resident offering an additional £100 for delays and inconvenience. The landlord said it would not reimburse the costs of flights and provided escalation rights to stage two. The resident emailed the landlord to escalate on 20 August 2021 and continued to chase the landlord in December 2021 and January 2022. The landlord issued its final stage two response on 6 February 2022. The landlord said:
   1. The property should have been secured after the initial visit from its contractor and apologised for this.
   2. The resident had stated that he wished to be present for remedial works and so had decided to return home earlier than planned.
   3. The drainage issue was resolved, and in order to prevent further leaks or blockages, a further CCTV survey of the drains would be conducted to confirm whether additional works were required.
   4. As a result of the poor service received, the resident was offered £900 compensation as follows:

i.            £250 for the delays to the repairs

ii.            £350 for the stress and inconvenience

iii.            £200 for the time taken to pursue the complaint

iv.            £100 for the delays in the complaint handling

9. The resident remained unhappy with the outcome of the stage two response and referred his complaint to this Service on 19 April 2022. The resident remained unhappy due to the following:
   1. The property was left unsecured when he was on holiday, and permission had only been given for the landlord’s representative/s to enter with the resident’s family member present for an emergency inspection.
   2. The remedial works began when he was absent.
   3. His holiday was cut short, and the expense of return flights was not compensated.
   4. He had been waiting over two years for the drainage problem to be fully rectified.
10. The resolution the resident seeks is for the landlord to complete all outstanding drainage works in order to prevent future floods and to be reimbursed for the cost of flights and having to cut the holiday short.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

11. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will “maintain the outside and the structure of your home…This includes drains, gutters and external pipes”. It says that the tenant agrees to allow the landlord and its contractors to carry out repairs to their home or to the rest of the building. The landlord will give the resident 24 hours’ notice except in an emergency.
12. The landlord’s repair policy categorises its repair requirements as either ‘routine’ (attend within 28 calendar days) or ‘emergency’ (attend within 24 hours). An emergency repair includes a flood or leak that cannot be contained. The landlord aims to either complete a repair or carry out a temporary repair to make the situation safe within 24 hours. If a temporary repair has been carried out to make the situation safe, the landlord will return within a reasonable timeframe to complete the works.
13. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to acknowledge it within two working days, draw the resident’s attention to this Service and provide a stage one response within ten working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the stage one response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. A review of the complaint will be undertaken, and the landlord will provide a stage two (final) response within 20 working days.
14. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider an offer of compensation when it is at fault, and an apology or other remedy alone is not sufficient. An offer of compensation can be made in recognition of loss or damage, or for distress and inconvenience caused when something has gone wrong. The amount of the offer will be based on the detriment caused to the resident or the household by the landlord’s failure.

Response to reports of sink back surges

15. Once it was informed of the back surge/flood, the landlord had a duty to respond to the matter in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies.
16. The landlord was made aware of the initial flood from the sink back surge on 16 January 2020 and arranged an emergency repair the same day. In the absence of the resident, it took appropriate steps to access the property via a family member to carry out the emergency repair. The landlord’s records show a repair was carried out with job status ‘complete’ on 17 January 2020.
17. The resident reported a second sink back surge on 14 August 2020 and an emergency repair was raised and attended the same day.
18. The evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps, in line with its policy, to raise and attend emergency repairs the same day as receiving reports of back surges/floods.

Handling of the associated repairs

19. The landlord had a duty to return in a reasonable timeframe to complete the follow up works/investigations, in line with its obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its responsive repair policies.
20. Following the 17 January 2020 emergency repair, further works were raised to address the cause. The resident reported that contractors arrived at the property ‘blind’ – without prior knowledge of site layout and conditions – in relation to the repairs raised on 24 and 29 January 2020, and the initial clearance of the blockage was delayed three times.
21. The landlord addressed this in its stage one response by stating that the first engineers who attended could not unblock the leak and decided drainage experts would be needed. However, they were unable to unblock the drain without scaffolding. There were delays with the erection of scaffolding which affected the length of time the repairs took. The blockage was cleared on 6 February 2020, which was three weeks after the initial report. The Ombudsman considers that, especially as scaffolding had to be erected, these follow-on works were completed within a reasonable timeframe, and in line with policy.
22. No further floods were reported until 14 August 2020, and this emergency repair was resolved within the correct timeframe. However, no follow up investigations were carried out to determine the cause, until a CCTV survey of the drains was completed on 30 January 2021 (finding no issues). This took approximately five months, which was an unreasonably long period of time. This was a failing on the part of the landlord, which should have ensured that this was progressed without the resident having to chase up. This failing caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident. Further surveys of the external drainage system were arranged by the landlord in March 2021, and its records state that on 11 March 2021 the drains were fine and not flooding.
23. However, the landlord went on to advise the resident that “the images from inside the drains show pipes that are full of fat and grease build up”.  The landlord indicated that this issue would need to be addressed communally to ensure that fats were not poured down the drain. It is unclear how the landlord came to this conclusion given the reported findings of the surveys, or what its plan was to address the issue.
24. The resident continued to chase the landlord regarding preventive works that he considered were necessary (relating to the kitchen sink being connected to the rainwater downpipe). Between April 2021 and August 2021, the landlord’s records show a large job planned, namely, to remove a wall and ceiling and to clean the communal drains, but with no scheduled date. This was a further failing on the part of the landlord to progress works, exacerbating the resident’s frustration, and his anxiety that the lack of preventive measures could result in further flooding to his home when it rained. It is unclear whether or not this large job was ever completed.
25. Neither is there any indication that the landlord considered the resident’s view that the back surges/floods were likely a result of the sink drainpipe being connected to the rainwater pipe. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed this with the resident.
26. After the landlord issued its stage two response, a contractor recommended that the landlord disconnect the pipework that connected the stack (the rainwater pipework) to the kitchen sink pipework and install a pump. This correlates with the resident’s view of the cause of the floods. The corresponding work order was raised on 10 March 2022. It is unclear if this work order has been completed.
27. Overall, there were a number of failings in the landlord’s handling of the matter. While these failings did not result in any further flooding, they did cause the resident frustration and anxiety, as well as the time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
28. In its final response to the complaint the landlord apologised to the resident and awarded £250 compensation in respect of the delays to the repairs. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged failings and apologised for these, and offered compensation to ‘put things right’. It also said that it would continue investigations into the drainage so that preventative measures could be put in place. It also made comments showing it had learned from outcomes by providing feedback to its contractors in relation to the delays the resident had experienced.
29. Overall, the landlord made a reasonable attempt to ‘put things right’ with its apologies and offer of compensation of £250, which was in line with its compensation policy and this Service’s remedies own guidance, which suggests amounts of between £100 and £600 where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, but there has been no permanent impact.
30. However, as noted above, the landlord’s position on the causes of the flooding incidents and what, if any, remedial works are required to address this remains unclear. It is also unclear whether it continued investigations so that preventative measures could be put in place, as promised. As such, a finding of service failure is made, and orders for remedy made below.

Handling of the resident’s concerns about his property being left unsecured

31. Due to the emergency nature of the repair required at the property, the landlord acted appropriately and in line with the tenancy agreement in gaining access in the resident’s absence to carry out the works required.
32. However, it was unacceptable for the landlord to leave the property unsecured. The landlord has acknowledged this failure in its stage two response and offered £350 compensation for the stress, inconvenience, and emotional impact this had on the resident. This is in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy, which sets out amounts of £250-£700 where there has been a demonstrable impact. This sum is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
33. The landlord declined to reimburse the resident’s flights, explaining that, whilst it acknowledged the resident’s early return home may have reduced the time his home had been unsecured, the resident’s decision to return early was his own decision, rather than in response to a request by the landlord. There is insufficient evidence for the Ombudsman to conclude that the resident had no alternative in the circumstances other than to fly home. As such, the landlord’s response to this aspect of the complaint was reasonable.

Handling of the overall complaint 

34. The Ombudsman’s Complaint handling Code sets out good practice that will allow landlords to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. In this case, the landlord did not adhere to the Code.
35. It took the landlord three months to respond to the stage one complaint, a significant delay on the ten working days set out in its complaint policy. The resident requested to escalate his complaint on a number of occasions, and at points was told this could not be done as repairs were ongoing. This was unreasonable. A landlord should provide a response within its complaint policy timescales, regardless of whether a repair has been completed or not. There were also errors by the landlord insofar as it set up multiple complaints for the resident. The initial complaint was made on 5 February 2020 and a stage one response issued on 13 May 2020. The landlord should have escalated the complaint to stage two when the resident requested this on 19 May 2020.
36. The landlord incorrectly provided a second stage one response, on 13 August 2021. The resident again requested, on 20 August 2021, that the complaint be escalated. It took the landlord a further six months to provide the stage two response, two years after the initial complaint had been made. These were significant failings by the landlord, which did not deal with the complaint in line with its own policy nor the Code. This meant that the resident waited two years for a final response to his concerns, during which time he had to make excessive efforts to have his complaint progressed.
37. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the poor service received and offer compensation (£300) as part of its stage two response. However, this was insufficient to fully reflect the impact the delays and poor communication had on the resident over the two year period. Further, the landlord has provided no evidence to show it has learned from outcomes in relation to the handling of the complaint. As such, a finding of maladministration is made, along with orders for remedy.

Determination

38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports of back surges in the resident’s property.
39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated repairs.
40. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was an offer of reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his property being left unsecured.
41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.

Orders

42. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:

1. Pay the resident a further £150 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its complaint handling.
2. Write to both the resident and the Ombudsman, confirming:
   1. the cause of the flooding incidents
   2. the results of any surveys or inspections carried out
   3. the action taken in relation to the findings of fat and grease clogged drains
   4. when the work to disconnect the pipework and install a pump was/will be completed
   5. whether any other investigations or works are required to address the flooding/back surge issue, and if so, the date that these will be completed, and then confirmation that these have been done by that date
3. review the handling of the formal complaints, with reference to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, to determine the reasons for the failings in this case, and what steps have been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence.

Recommendations

43. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £900 compensation offered via its complaint response.