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

Home Group Limited (202006072)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006072

Home Group Limited

8 July 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of issues with the drainage system at the resident’s property.
    2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident owns and occupies the property, which is a 1-bedroom flat, under a shared ownership agreement with the landlord dated 15 May 2015.
  2. The resident first reported issues with the property’s drainage system in 2015. In 2017, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord, which was referred to this Service. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged service failure in completing repairs to the system’s pumps, offered £250 compensation, and agreed to service the pumps each month until new equipment was installed. Following this Service’s intervention, the landlord agreed to pay the resident £6000 compensation. The landlord advised this Service on 9 January 2018 that it had arranged works to upgrade the pump equipment, to improve its capacity for dealing with misuse by residents, as the issues had been caused by a build-up of inappropriate items in the system.
  3. In September 2020, the resident contacted this Service to complain that she had experienced further issues with the drainage system, which had meant that she was unable to live in the property for 5 days in June 2020 as the bath, sink and toilet would not drain. The resident wanted the landlord to ensure the system was functioning correctly and to put in place an emergency protocol for dealing with future issues. She also expressed doubt that it had followed-up on the servicing commitment it had made during the previous complaint. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint on the resident’s behalf.
  4. In October and December 2020, and March 2021, the landlord received reports of an alarm sounding at the property’s pumping station, causing a disturbance to residents. It also received reports of blockages in December and March 2021, which were manually cleared. Its investigations revealed that there was ongoing misuse by residents, causing the drainage pump system to malfunction. The landlord installed a silent beacon, arranged for a remote monitoring system to be set up so residents were not relied on to report issues, and later disabled the alarm. Its contractor also recommended some follow-on works.
  5. The landlord confirmed in its complaint responses that it was already aware of ongoing issues with the pumping station prior to the resident’s complaint. It stated that the drainage issues it had identified were as a direct result of tenant misuse. It confirmed that as part of its resolution to the previous complaint it had only agreed to servicing until the equipment was upgraded and that no servicing regimen had been in place since that work was carried out. The landlord recognised that its procedure for processing payments had contributed to delays and committed to take responsibility for future drainage malfunctions including, where necessary, arranging adequate manual clearance of the tanks. The landlord offered the resident £715 compensation, calculated at £55 per day for the 13 days the resident stated she was unable to remain in the property in June 2020 and March 2021. The resident feels that this does not reflect the level of stress and inconvenience she has experienced.

Assessment and findings

Handling of issues with drainage system

  1. It is not disputed that the landlord’s repair and maintenance obligations extend to the property’s drainage system, which includes the on-site pumping station. This is in accordance with clause 5.3 of the resident’s shared ownership agreement. The landlord has explained that the cost of repair and maintenance is recharged to property owners via the service charge, which the resident must pay, and the landlord must administrate, in accordance with the terms of clause 7 of the shared ownership agreement.
  2. The resident initially complained that the reoccurrence of issues with the drainage system had meant that she was unable to remain in her property for 5 days in June 2020. The landlord has not provided evidence of the resident’s reports of issues in June 2020 or the action it took in response, and this has made it difficult for the Ombudsman to assess it actions at this stage of the complaint. The landlord is reminded that it is its responsibility to maintain adequate records and to provide the relevant evidence for investigation when required. It is noted, however, that its offer of compensation to the resident included this period of her reports.
  3. In its stage 1 response the landlord listed the action it had taken since October 2020. This included inspecting the system and replacing the alarm with a beacon to reduce the disturbance to residents when the system was malfunctioning, or the tank had reached capacity. The landlord acknowledged that there were further works required to address the recurring drainage issues. A month later, the resident expressed her frustration at the lack of progress.
  4. Following the stage 1 response, the landlord’s contractor attended on 28 January 2021 to clear a build-up of debris from the system. However, the alarm continued to sound and there were delays in the landlord installing a remote monitoring system and disconnecting the alarm, which it has identified were due to inefficient processes for authorising payment to its contractor. The landlord indicated that it would change its processes as a result of the complaint investigation, which demonstrates a willingness to learn from the outcome of complaints. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord was attempting to put in place a reliable alert system so that it had advance notice of rising levels within the system’s tanks, albeit that there were some delays in arranging for these works to be completed.
  5. There is no evidence of further reports of issues by the resident between 28 January 2021and 28 March 2021. On that date the resident reported that she had been unable to remain in the property over the weekend as the drainage issues had reoccurred. She also noted that she was 8 months pregnant and that it was difficult for her to find alternative accommodation. The landlord informed the resident that it was aware of further issues, as its contractor had attended to install the monitoring system on 26 March 2021 and reported that a crust created by the debris had re-formed.
  6. There is no evidence that the landlord provided information or advice to the resident about the provision of temporary accommodation whilst she was affected by the drainage issues. The landlord has stated to this investigation that its Decant Policy does not apply to leaseholders and noted that the resident did not request a decant in either June 2020 or March 2021. Given the vulnerability of the resident due to her pregnancy and the fact that she expressed concern about finding alternative accommodation, the landlord should have explored the possibility of pursuing temporary accommodation through its insurers, which it states may be available where a property is uninhabitable.
  7. There was a delay in restoring functioning drainage between 26 March 2021 and 1 April 2021, indicating that the landlords’ emergency protocols were not working effectively. The email evidence provided to this investigation shows that the landlord was actively working with its contractors to resolve the issue but there was confusion about which contractor should attend and how the callout should be paid for, adding to the delay. During its attendance on 1 April 2021, the contractor identified that the pumps had been switched off at the panel and, once reset, the system was functioning correctly. Had the landlord arranged an inspection within 6 hours, in accordance with its emergency callout protocol, the issue may have been resolved more quickly, minimising the impact on residents.
  8. Throughout the course of the complaint the landlord did provide periodic updates to the resident. The complaints team emailed the resident to provide an update on the progress of repairs on 15 and 23 February 2021, 9 March 2021, 12 and 22 April 2021 and 4 May 2021. The landlord also communicated with the resident by text message when there was a live issue with the drainage system at the end of March. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord made considerable effort to keep the resident informed of progress with its actions to resolve her concerns, although on some occasions there was little to report.
  9. As part of the complaint the resident raised concerns that the landlord did not have a regular servicing agreement in place, which could have revealed problems before residents were affected. In its complaint response the landlord confirmed that no servicing agreement was in place following the installation of the new pump equipment in 2018 but according to the landlord’s internal emails, a new servicing agreement was established in August/September 2020 for 2 services a year. At the time of the complaint the landlord also had in place an agreement for emergency callouts within 6 hours where an issue was reported.
  10. The commitment made by the landlord in its stage 2 response of 2017 was to service the pumps monthly until the equipment was upgraded. As this was not an ongoing commitment, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that it breached any prior agreement with the resident in the months leading up to the formal complaint in 2020.
  11. However, whilst the Ombudsman does not have the technical expertise to determine the appropriate frequency or nature of any servicing agreement, it would expect the landlord to have processes in place for the regular inspection, servicing, and maintenance of its communal systems. The landlord’s internal emails also indicate that this should have been the case. The landlord has informed this Service that it now has an arrangement in place for the system to be serviced twice a year. Although the Ombudsman recognises that the underlying issue is resident misuse, the build-up may have been identified by regular inspections and had the system been serviced in the 6 months prior to June 2020, the issues experienced by the resident may have been avoided.
  12. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s frustration at the length of time it has taken the landlord to determine the best course of action to permanently resolve the drainage issues. It is clear that this has caused the resident considerable stress and inconvenience. However, the evidence provided to this investigation demonstrates that the landlord has put significant time, effort and resource into finding a workable and lasting solution to the underlying issue, which is ultimately due to tenant misuse.
  13. The landlord has made an offer of compensation to the resident, which it stated was calculated based on the number of days that she was unable to remain in the property. The landlord has not provided a copy of its Compensation Procedures setting out the amount payable in such circumstances, and so the Ombudsman is unable to assess whether the offer made by the landlord was in line with its policies and procedures. Thus, the adequacy of the landlord’s offer has been considered according to the provisions of the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
  14. This assessment has noted that the landlord’s attempts to provide a resolution were complicated by the fact that the system previously in place relied on residents to report issues before the landlord could attend. The landlord has taken steps to resolve this by installing remote monitoring, but its emergency callout and servicing procedures could have been more robust throughout the period where these works were being arranged. There is no evidence that the landlord considered arranging regular inspections, for example, until adequate remote monitoring was in place. In addition, the landlord could have been more supportive when the resident voiced concerns about her inability to remain in the property and it has also failed to provide vital evidence to this investigation of the action it took in June 2020.
  15. As discussed in the paragraph above, the Ombudsman has identified additional failings not noted in the landlord’s complaint response. This report concludes that an offer of £715 is, in the Ombudsman’s view, a reasonable and proportionate means of providing redress to the resident for the stress and inconvenience she experienced. In line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance, the Ombudsman has taken into account both the impact on the resident, as well as the action taken by the landlord in response to a recurring issue caused by factors outside its control.

Complaints handling

  1. Following a referral from this Service on 6 December 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint on 11 December 2020. A stage 1 response was provided on 21 January 2020, which noted that the resident had already expressed an intention to escalate the complaint when the landlord had telephoned her to discuss the complaint outcome.
  2. The stage 1 response listed the action the landlord had taken, and intended to take, to address the ongoing issues with the drainage system. It did not, however, demonstrate that the landlord had investigated the action it took in June 2020, when the resident states she was unable to remain in the property. Whilst it was helpful and necessary for the landlord to set out an action plan for resolving the substantive issue, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to review the level of service provided to the resident and identify whether there was any service failure.
  3. The stage 2 acknowledgment was provided on 2 February 2021, which was somewhat delayed considering the landlord was aware of the resident’s desire to escalate the complaint on 21 January 2021. A final response to the complaint was not provided until 21 May 2021, which is significantly in excess of the 20-working day target timeframe for providing a response.
  4. The landlord explained to the resident in an email dated 23 February 2021 that with complex complaints about repairs where specialist works were required, the response time may exceed the 20-day target. This approach is contrary to the paragraph 5.5 of the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code, which states:

‘A complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed’.

  1. The landlord could have answered the resident’s complaint about the service it had provided in June 2020, and how it had handled the reoccurring drainage issues to date, within the 20-working day target timeframe. It was not necessary for the landlord to ensure it had a solution to the drainage issue before responding. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint due to the delay in providing a stage 2 response, as this increased the resident’s frustration and prevented her from escalating her concerns to this Service at an earlier point in time.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has provided sufficient redress to the resident, which satisfactorily resolves her complaint about its handling of the drainage issues at her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must confirm to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the following Order to:
    1. Pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of its poor complaints handling.
    2. Contact this Service to confirm compliance with the orders.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its record keeping policies and procedures, to ensure that full and accurate records of contact with residents are maintained and readily available for delivering to the Ombudsman for the purpose of its investigations.
    2. In addition to the £50 ordered above, pays the amount originally offered to the resident in compensation for the issues with the drainage system as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the sufficient redress finding is made on that basis.