Hyde Housing Association Limited (201912702)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201912702

Hyde Housing Association Limited

29 April 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 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 about drainage at the property;
• Response to the resident’s reports about a leak at the property;
• Response to the resident’s reports about a mice infestation at the property;
• Response to the resident’s reports about communal refuse and refuse area;
• Response to the resident’s reports about service charges;
• Complaints handling.

 

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. This Service understands that, at the point at which this case fell within the Ombudsman’s formal remit, no final response had been issued in respect of the complaints about communal refuse and service charges. Regarding service charges, it is relevant to note that the Ombudsman does not have any authority in relation to the level, in accordance with paragraph 39 (g) of the Scheme.
4. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that this Service will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
5. This is not the case here and so, these aspects of the complaint are outside jurisdiction and will not be covered in this report. The resident is free to bring these issues at a later stage, if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response(s), should she progress the complaint(s), or if she has already progressed them through the stages of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
6. The remaining aspects of the complaint are within jurisdiction and will be considered in the investigation report below.

Background and summary of events

Background, policies and procedures

7. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord at the property, with a lease start date of 3 January 2014. The landlord is a housing association.
8. The resident’s representative, who also lives at the property, initially contacted this Service about the issues on 6 January 2020. For the sake of clarity and conciseness, the resident’s representative will be referred to as ‘the resident’ throughout the remainder of this report.
9. Under the terms of the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for ‘maintaining and repairing the drainage and water apparatus in, under and upon the building and/or the estate, except such as serve exclusively an individual flat in the building and except such as belong to any utility supply authority or company’. The lease also confirms resident responsibility for repair/maintenance of the demised property, in relation to any part of the structure or service network that is not specifically detailed as the landlord’s responsibility under the lease.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms landlord responsibility for water leaks on the ‘shared system. The policy also states that leaseholder responsibilities include:

• Water leaks in individual properties;
• Damage to goods following repair issues (e.g. a leak)
• Pest issues within the property;
• Communal pest issues;
• Blocked wastes to basin/sink, blocked toilets;
• Toilet flushing systems and waste pipe leaks.

11. The landlord’s repairs policy for emergency repairs to be completed within 4 hours and ‘anytime’ (i.e. any other repairs) to be completed within 20 working days.
12. At the time of the resident’s initial complaint to the landlord, its complaint procedure comprised four stages:   

a)     Stage 0: informal resolution within two working days.

b)     Stage 1: formal response within 10 working days, where this timescale will not be achieved, the policy requires a holding response to be sent.

c)     Stage 2: Further formal response, required within 10 working days of escalation.

d)     Stage 3: The complainant has the option of having the complaint reviewed by a Director or complaints panel.

13. The Pest Control and Identification Procedure the landlord has provided to this Service came into force in June 2020; the landlord has not provided an older version. The procedure states that where possible, entry points will be blocked to prevent further entry. The procedure also confirms that a pre-inspection will take place to identify the cause of an infestation.

Summary of events

14. The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 18 May 2018, about:

• A leak at the property. The resident said that she had been experiencing leaks since she had moved into the property in 2014. The resident said that it was the landlord’s responsibility to identify the source of the leak and to remedy it.
• The bin store lock at the resident’s block of flats.
• Rubbish in the communal area.
• The bathtub filling up with water: The resident said that the landlord had failed to respond to her previous reports on this issue. She referred to a manhole in connection to this, which she said been looked at by the landlord’s contractor on 15 March 2018. The resident said that the contractor needed to investigate the issue, as it had started to cause an unpleasant smell; she pointed out that she had a very young child who was exposed to this.
• A mice infestation: The resident said that she had complained to the landlord about mice/rats in the ceiling at the property and highlighted that a pest control service was being paid for through the service charge.

15. The resident concluded by saying that she felt that there had been a lack of accountability, poor management and poor communication on the landlord’s part. She said that the landlord had not shown that it was willing to work towards resolving the issues. In her complaint email, the resident indicated that she had submitted the same complaint to the landlord via email on 29 April 2018. This Service has not been able to confirm this from the evidence both parties have provided.
16. On 23 May 2018, the landlord replied to the resident to inform her it had recorded two stage 0 complaints:

a)     One concerning the leaks, the manhole and mice.

b)     The other one concerning the bin store lock and rubbish at the back of the property.

17. The resident emailed the landlord on 31 May and 5 June 2018, to request an update, as she had not heard from it.
18. On 8 June 2018, the landlord replied to the resident’s emails. It said that a property manager had visited the resident, though it did not say when. The resident replied on the same day to confirm the visit had taken place however, there had been no discussion about the leak. The resident also said that no one had contacted or visited her regarding the issue with her bathtub and the mice infestation.
19. The resident emailed the landlord again on 13 June 2018, to inform it that the leak had worsened. She asked that the flat above her property be inspected. She appeared to be concerned about her ceiling collapsing and the safety of her young child because of this.
20. On 14 June 2018, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it had registered a complaint at stage 1 of its complaint procedure.
21. The landlord’s records indicate that on 21 June 2018, it sent a request for its pest control service to attend the resident’s block of flats, in regard to a mice infestation and to locate the mice entry points. The request appeared to have been raised for the whole block and not for the resident’s property only.
22. On 28 June 2018, the landlord’s repairs contractor emailed it in response to queries it had submitted in connection with the complaint about the leak on 21 June 2018. According to the information provided by the repairs contractor, its operative had attended the flat above the resident’s property on 28 February 2018, following reports of a leak into the resident’s property, and to refix the wet room flooring. The operative report stated that water was staying on the floor after showers as there was no slope to the floor; he advised to renew the polysafe flooring with the right angle or to fit a large barrier. The notes do not confirm whether this issue had caused the leak into the resident’s property. The operative notes also state that the works order in relation to these recommendations was cancelled ‘as price per property cancellation’.
23. In the same email, the repairs contractor provided further records which showed that it had attended the resident’s block of flats following reports of an ‘uncontainable’ leak on 5 June 2018. The notes suggest that this was affecting a communal area. The operative’s notes stated that the water meter was leaking and that there was water on the concrete floor in the water cupboard. The operative recommended follow-on works. The notes do not say whether this had caused a leak into the resident’s property.
24. On 6 July 2018, the landlord emailed the water company in connection with water meters at the resident’s block of flats. The landlord stated that its contractors had reported defects with the water meters connections at the block of flats and had requested they be looked at by the water company.
25. The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord sent a holding letter to the resident on 12 July 2018.
26.  The landlord’s records show that, on 19 July 2018, it emailed the water company in regard to the issue of the water meters. It said that its resident’s property was affected by ongoing leaks as a result of the issue and that it wanted this resolved as soon as possible. It also enclosed copies of emails from its repairs contractor which stated that it had identified major defects with several water meter connections and fittings, which were directly connected with water meters within the communal areas. There was no mention in the enclosed emails, of the meters issue having caused a leak into the resident’s property. The landlord emailed the resident on the same day, advising that it had been in contact with the water company so it could inspect in relation to the water meters.
27. On 27 July 2018, the landlord sent a further holding letter to the resident. On 29 July 2018, the resident emailed the landlord. In addition to providing photographs to show the impact the issues had upon her family, in particular her very young child, the resident explained that they had to go to their parents’ house to have showers.
28. It is not disputed that the landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 30 July 2018, following which a camera drain survey was scheduled, and went ahead, on 6 August 2018.
29. In her email of 1 August 2018, the resident said that she had been informed by the landlord’s surveyor that it had been monitoring the wrong manhole. The resident reiterated that she had a very young child and also referred to photographs she had sent to the landlord on 29 July 2018. She said that the bathtub issue was taking place two to three times a day, and that instead of promptly taking action to resolve the issue, the landlord had told her to buy a rod to try and resolve the problem herself. The resident said that based on photographs of the manhole that she had in her possession, she believed that it needed to be cleared. She asked that photographs of the manhole be sent to her, so she was aware of what was happening with it. In regard to the leak, she said that she could not understand why the landlord had been referring to the water company. She said that the surveyor had told her that the leak was in no way connected to the issue of the water meters but that it was originating from the flat above her property. 
30. On 2 August 2018, the landlord emailed the resident in response to her email dated 1 August 2019. It said that a supervisor had reported that the issue with the water meters could possibly have contributed to the leak into the property. This Service has not had sight of records that confirm the landlord’s position here. 
31. On 10 August 2018, the landlord’s pest control contractor emailed it to advise that it had carried out three visits following reports about a mice infestation in the resident’s block of flats. It said that:

• At the first visit on 29 June 2018, it had found evidence of mice.
• At the second visit – it did not say when this took place – it had found that bait had been taken and it had replaced the bait boxes.
• At the third visit, on 30 July 2018, it had found that no bait had been eaten and it had therefore closed the case.

32. On 14 August 2018, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it had received the report from the camera survey on 6 August 2018. It said that it had identified materials within the waste run and that this was causing a blockage. It said that it was awaiting further instructions from its surveyor on how to proceed. On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that she had noticed someone was cleaning the manhole and that there were stones which had been dropped by rats. The resident asked that action be taken on this, given a pest control service was being paid for as part of the service charges. The landlord’s records indicate that on 15 August 2018, its drainage contractor had also emailed it to make a recommendation that a pest control service should attend in connection with the manhole issue.
33. On 29 August 2018, the resident emailed the landlord to request an update on both issues (manhole and leak). On 31 August 2018, the landlord emailed the resident in regard to her complaint. It recognised that there had been a delay on its part in identifying a solution and said that it had escalated the resident’s case so a response could be provided to her the following week. However, the records show that it sent a further holding letter to the resident on 18 September 2018 and on 26 September 2018, the resident emailed it to express how dissatisfied she was with the way the landlord had been handling the matter.
34. On 1 October 2018, the landlord replied to the resident to advise that its surveyor had instructed its contractor to jet the drains at the rear of the resident’s block. It however said that it was awaiting an appointment date for the works to take place and that it would update the resident. The resident replied on the same day as she was unhappy that it had taken so long for the landlord to resolve the issues. The resident highlighted that her carpet was getting wet, that it had a very bad smell. She requested that the issues be dealt with as quickly as possible.
35. On 2 October 2018, the landlord replied to the resident to advise that an appointment for the drains had been scheduled to take place on 5 October 2018. It also said that its surveying management team was investigating why there had been a delay in progressing the required works.  
36. The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord sent a further holding letter to the resident on 12 October 2018.
37. On 22 October 2018, the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint. Its findings and conclusions were as follows:

a)     Pest control: The landlord reiterated the information provided by its pest control contractor on 10 August 2018 (see above). The landlord also said that it had asked its property manager to monitor the bin store so as to ensure it was regularly cleaned and cleared of rubbish.

b)     Leak: The landlord said that its contractor had attended the flat above the resident’s property and had asked the water company to review the water meter connection for it. It said that the water company would be contacting the resident of the upstairs property and that it had also written to them with further information though it did not say what this was. The landlord also said that its surveyor had spoken with the upstairs resident, who had confirmed that there was no active leak at their property, though they had previously experienced a leak which was resolved. The landlord said that, as a goodwill gesture, it would carry out a stain block to the old water stain in the resident’s lounge.

c)     Water backup in the bathtub: The landlord recognised that the delay in its surveying team actioning the contractor’s recommendation had resulted in further frustration for the resident and so, it apologised for the inconvenience this had caused. It said that its surveyor had finally authorised jetting of the drains to the rear of the block in September 2018, and that this was completed on 5 October 2018.

38. To conclude, the landlord said that there had clearly been a delay in resolving the blockage in the manhole and in addressing the resident’s complaint. It said that as an apology and in line with its compensation policy, it had decided to award £250 compensation (£100 for the delay in resolving the blockage in the manhole and £150 for her patience throughout the complaints process). The landlord’s records indicate that it received the resident’s signed acceptance form for the compensation on 31 October 2018.
39. On 16 December 2018, the resident emailed the landlord to report a further blockage in the bathtub and a leak. She said that she had noticed drops of water on her coffee table and that her house phone had been damaged because of this.
40. The landlord replied to the resident’s email on 18 December 2018, stating that:

a)     It had checked its records and could not find any report from the upstairs flat concerning a leak. It asked the resident to confirm whether the leak was originating from the property above hers so it could ask its contractor to attend.

b)     Regarding the blockage in the bathtub, it said that, as the resident was a  leaseholder, and it had taken the necessary actions to address the drainage issues and confirmed there was no fault with the drains, it was for the resident to instruct a plumber to attend to the bath in the property.

41. On 26 December 2018, the resident sent photographs to the landlord to show that water was coming through the ceiling at the property. On 28 December 2018, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it had received the report from its contractor regarding the leak. It said that its contractor had confirmed that there were no active leaks in the upstairs flat however, it had noted that there were small holes in the grouting and as such, works had been raised to re-grout the wall tiles in the bathroom; these were to take place on 4 January 2019. It said that it was likely that poor grouting had allowed water to escape, causing the leak into the resident’s property.
42. On 3 January 2019, the resident reported that she had noticed water on her coffee table and water was leaking from the ceiling. The landlord responded the same day to confirm that its contractor was to attend the upstairs property on the following day and so, it was going to highlight the resident’s email to it so action could be taken to address the issue. 
43. On 24 January 2019, the resident forwarded a copy of a plumber report regarding the manhole issue to the landlord. The report states that the resident’s plumber had attended the property following reports of a blocked bath. The resident’s plumber said that further investigation had uncovered that a communal chamber located next to a bike rack at the property, was fully charged with rubble and stones due to a rat infestation. The resident’s plumber recommended that a camera survey of the communal chamber be undertaken to identify where the rats were getting the stones from, and that a rat gate be installed within the chamber. The resident also emailed an invoice from her plumber so the landlord could reimburse the associated costs to her (£144).
44. On 1 February 2019, the landlord replied to the resident stating that it would escalate her complaint to the second stage of its complaints procedure. It also said that it was going to refund the plumber costs to her.
45. On 14 March 2019, the resident submitted a further complaint. She said that she had received no response to emails she had sent in regard to the manhole issue. The resident has highlighted to this Service that during that time, she was pregnant and also had a very young child. The landlord replied on 18 March 2019, to apologise and advise that it had passed the resident’s query on to its property services’ complaints department.
46. The landlord’s records indicate that it reimbursed the resident’s plumber costs (£144) to her in April 2019. This was also confirmed by the resident to this Service on 1 March 2021, although she did not say when exactly this had happened.
47. The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that it had arranged for the polysafe flooring in the upstairs flat to be replaced and that the works were due to be completed on 24 July 2019. This Service understands the works in question related to the issue of the leak. The evidence provided to this Service indicates that the works were completed on or around 29 July 2019.
48. The landlord sent holding letters to the resident on 30 July 2019, and 12 August 2019.
49. On 23 August 2019, the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the complaint. It said that it had reviewed the stage 1 response to the complaint and was of the view that it was appropriate in the circumstances. It then went on to refer to events that had taken place following the resident’s reports in December 2018, regarding the blockage affecting her bathtub and the leak into her property.
50.  In regard to the manhole, the landlord said that its surveyor had met with its contractor to discuss the steps to take to address the manhole issue. It said that:

• In January 2019, the resident had provided a report from her own plumber which confirmed that the blockage had resulted from the manhole issues that had been addressed as part of the stage 1 complaint.
• Its surveyor had reported that the drain for the resident’s property was located at the end of the run for the entire block, meaning it would be prone to blockages from possible drain misuse in other properties. It said that its drainage contractor had attended the block of flats on 21 March 2019, to jet the drains.
• The resident had provided it with photographs showing evidence of rat activity in the drain and that subsequently, its surveyor and its contractors (drainage and pest control) had attended the block of flats on 28 March 2019. It said that its surveyor had confirmed that the drain was filled with earth and rat droppings and suspected a pipe was broken on the drain run. It then explained that its drainage contractor had completed a camera survey on 7 May 2019, which had confirmed that there was no defect in the drains. Further to this, the landlord said that it had instructed its pest control contractor to re-attend and install a rat flap to prevent the rats from travelling in the pipework. It said that its pest control contractor had found that the drain was blocked again and suspected this could be due to damage to the pipe. The landlord said that it had subsequently instructed another contractor to carry out a further survey of the drains and provide a second opinion. It said that following the second survey, its contractor had relined the external drains on 30 July 2019.

51. In regard to the leak, it said that its contract manager had ‘intervened’ to ensure the leak was resolved. It said that all works had been completed in the flat above the resident’s property, and that these would have hopefully resolved the issue.
52. In conclusion, the landlord said that the repairs service it had provided to the resident was not indicative of the service it was aiming to provide. It said that it had considered the length of time taken to identify and complete the repair (it did not specifically say which one), the time and trouble the resident had expended in pursuing this matter and actions she had taken to highlight the cause of the drain blockage, and believed that it was fair and reasonable to make an increased offer of compensation. It then said that it had increased its offer to £400 (£250 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £150 for the delay). However, it had also enclosed a compensation acceptance form, which confirmed that the total amount to be paid to the resident was £650; this suggests that it had in effect offered £400 at stage 2, in addition to the £250 compensation it had awarded at stage 1. It apologised for the delays and the distress caused to the resident and her household and said that it was reviewing its repairs service and the management of complex works.
53. On 3 September 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to query whether the manhole issue had been addressed as she was experiencing another blockage at the property. On the following day, the landlord replied to say that it had spoken to the contractor who had relined the section of drainage and had asked it to carry out some checks on the pipework.
54. On 23 September 2019, a Member of Parliament emailed the landlord on behalf of the resident. In regard to the leak and the blockage, they said that the resident had explained to them that the landlord had initially said that it was an internal issue and so, the resident had spent hundreds of pounds in plumber costs in order to resolve the problem. However, it later appeared that a blocked manhole outside the property had caused the blockage. They said that the resident had told them they were not interested in receiving compensation, but simply wanted the issue fixed.
55. On 21 November 2019, the landlord replied to the above email. It said that it had identified that the blockage issue had been caused by rats accessing the communal drains, which had resulted in a build-up of dirt/rubble blocking the drains. It said that its regional contracts manager was overseeing the progress of the works to the drain, to install rat blockers.
56. Regarding the leak, it said that the resident was responsible for internal plumbing issues and instructing a private plumber to investigate. It said that the resident had provided a report of her plumber, showing that the issue was a communal one and that a reimbursement had been issued in light of this; it did not say when this happened. This Service has only had sight of the correspondence concerning the plumber invoice for the manhole/bathtub issue.
57. The landlord’s repairs records then show that its contractor attended the resident’s block of flats on 21 November 2019, to clear a blocked drain at the rear of the block, which was affecting the resident’s flat. The record notes state that the contractor recommended that a camera survey be urgently undertaken to enable it to identify suspected defects. The repairs records show that the contractor attended on 27 November 2019, however it was unable to carry out the survey. It recommended that a tanker be used and that this be followed by the camera survey. The landlord’s records show that it had rejected the quote submitted by its contractor for the recommended works.
58. On 5 December 2019, the resident emailed the landlord stating that she was still experiencing issues with the bathtub and so, she requested an update.
59. The resident contacted this Service on 6 January 2020. On 20 January 2020, this Service received the resident’s complaint form in which she indicated that her complaint to it was in connection with the leak at the property, the manhole issue, the service charge for the property, and rubbish at her block of flats. She stated that the landlord had taken too long to resolve the issues raised, that there had been a lack of communication on its part and that its customer service in general was poor. The resident said that her water bill had gone up due to the manhole issue. She also said that she had highlighted to the landlord that she had two very young children.
60. Following this, on 22 January 2020, the resident emailed the landlord’s regional contracts manager in connection with the manhole issue. In her email, she stated that she had spoken to the landlord’s property manager in December 2019, who had informed her that its original contractors’ quote was too high and that it needed to review other quotes before the works could take place. On the same day, the regional contracts manager replied to the resident to confirm that its contractor had relined the drains adjacent to the property in July 2019, and that rat blockers had been installed on 26 September 2019. The regional contracts manager said that they had visited the property shortly after this, and that the resident had confirmed that there had been no further issues with blockages or leaks. However, they said that they had found a quote which had been submitted for a tanker to come and clear the pipework and check the drains to ascertain whether any additional repairs were needed. They said that they had approved it and that the works had been prioritised.
61. On 29 January 2020, the regional contracts manager emailed the resident to advise that they had spoken to the drainage contractor responsible for the works and that they were to attend the resident’s block of flats on 3 February 2020.
62. On 18 February 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to request an update on the manhole issue, due to the smell in her bathroom. On the same day, in response to an email from the regional contracts manager’s, the resident confirmed that the contractor had attended on 3 February 2020, however, she had been told that more work was required and that a report would be sent to the landlord. The resident said that the contractor had told her that the drainage pipe needed to be repaired due to the damage caused to it by the rats.
63. On 25 February 2020, this Service contacted the landlord to notify it that the resident had complained about it, and had also advised that the issues had remained unresolved. This Service asked the landlord to make contact with the resident and to respond to her through its complaints procedure; this is because she had not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
64. On 28 February 2020, the resident emailed the landlord’s regional contracts manager to request an update. The contracts manager replied on 4 March 2020, to confirm that they had just received an update and the costs, and that they had agreed to them.
65. The landlord’s repairs records indicate that its contractor had attended the property on or around 16 April 2020. The notes state that the manhole appeared to have been blocked again with sediments, possibly due to rats digging through the drainage run. The notes state that there was no ‘visible’ evidence of a rat blocker having been installed into the manhole servicing the resident’s flat. The notes state that there however appeared to be a rat blocker for another manhole, which was adjacent to the resident’s garden. The records indicate that works were completed on the same day and that these consisted of clearing the drain.
66. On 16 June 2020, this Service contacted the landlord to highlight that the response to the resident’s complaint remained outstanding and asked it to contact the resident by 30 June 2020.
67. On 30 June 2020, the landlord emailed the resident in relation to this Service’s request to it. It asked the resident to email it, setting out the reasons why she remained dissatisfied and what further steps she believed it should take to resolve her complaint.
68. The landlord’s records indicate that it spoke with the resident on the same day. The landlord’s records state that the resident complained that:

a)     There had been no clarity on the actions taken by the landlord;

b)     Whilst the stage 2 complaint had been resolved, the problem had not been fixed;

c)     She had to ask a Member of Parliament to intervene;

d)     She always had to chase up. She said that she had to contact the landlord’s regional manager in January 2020, to advise that the drain needed to be cleared;

e)     She had to prompt the landlord and this had led to the eventual resolution of the manhole issue in April 2020;

f)       She was never provided with confirmation on whether the problem had been resolved or not, although there were no apparent leaks or rats. She added that she had received no explanation regarding the leak;

g)     The landlord’s customer service had been ‘abysmal’ throughout the whole process.

69. The landlord provided a further update to this Service on 30 June 2020, stating that it had contacted the resident and that, as she had provided no new information, it would issue its final response to the complaint.
70.  On 10 July 2020, it issued its final response to the complaint. It said that it had decided not to change its decision in regard to the complaint. To explain this, it said:

‘We checked all the details of your complaint thoroughly and responded to all the points you made.

With this in mind, I believe we gave you a fair reply. In your latest email, there’s no new information about your complaint to consider, which is why we won’t be changing our decision.’

There were no additional details or information in relation to the resident’s specific concerns.

71. The landlord’s repairs records indicate that it raised a works order on 15 September 2020, due to further blockage issues at the resident’s flat. The notes state that a works order was raised to clear the bath waste and that the works were completed on 16 September 2020.
72. The resident’s complaint became one that this Service could formally consider on 18 September 2020.
73. On 10 February 2021, the resident informed this Service that there were still mice in the property. She said that the landlord had told her that, as it was an internal issue, it would be a matter for the leaseholder to resolve.
74. On 1 March 2021, the resident provided further information to this Service. In her emails, the resident asked this Service to consider her request for the reimbursement of plumber costs (£367.20), which she said she had incurred in relation to the manhole issue in April 2017. The evidence provided to this Service by the resident shows that on 9 May 2017, the landlord told the resident that it was not willing to reimburse those costs; it did not say why.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

75. In reaching a decision, this Service considers whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way.  The Ombudsman’s investigatory powers are also limited by time constraints, with issues not raised within a reasonable time to either this Service or to the member landlord considered to be outside of remit. For this reason aspects of the complaint will not be considered here. This investigation relates to incidents relating to the resident’s formal complaint of May 2018.
76. In addition, the resident has raised concerns about the impact of the landlord’s potential service failures upon her and members of her household. This detrimental impact is relevant to the investigation as it confirms the resident’s position as to what she considered to be the adverse impact upon her. However, irrespective of whether any service failure has taken place on the landlord’s part, the Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to making a finding about the harmful impact of such service failures on a household member’s health, in the way that a court of law would when making an award of damages.
77. It is apparent here that the issues reported by the resident were connected. The drainage issues that she reported were impacted by the pipework exterior to the building and these same issues were related to the pest infestation issue. In addition, there was confusion as to the root cause of leaks entering the property. Whilst there is evidence that the above issues were connected, the issues have been separated so as to clarify the distinct areas of landlord responsibility and its performance against these requirements.
78. The resident has referred to the landlord’s communication and customer service standards throughout. These issues, along with the landlord’s record keeping, have been considered in light of the landlord’s response to each of the separately defined complaints. The landlord’s complaints handling has, however, been considered as a separate issue in its own right as the Ombudsman has a primary role in monitoring the effectiveness of member landlord’s complaints handling processes.

Drainage

79. It is not disputed by the landlord that it is responsible for drainage within the common areas at the resident’s block of flats. Furthermore, the lease agreement confirms that it is the landlord’s responsibility to maintain and repair the drainage and water apparatus in, under and upon the building and/or the estate, provided it does not solely serve an individual property with the block or belong to any utility supply authority or company. The landlord has also confirmed that the property sits at the end of a drainage run, meaning that actions of neighbouring residents might impact upon the drainage at the property.
80. The resident’s formal complaint of May 2018 referred to previous reports she had made to the landlord about drainage, which, she said, the landlord had responded to without achieving a resolution. She said that the bathtub constantly filling up with wastewater caused an ‘unpleasant’ smell; she also said that she and other household members (i.e. her young children) had to go elsewhere in order to shower. Whilst the Ombudsman cannot make a finding on the extent to which the resident was affected by this drainage issue, it is clear that the impact was significant, in that it affected day to day living and had taken place over an extended period.
81. The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 30 July 2018, following which a drain survey was carried out (6 August). On 31 August, it acknowledged that there had been a delay in progressing this issue and, on 1 October, it confirmed that works had been scheduled to jet communal drains. These works took place on 5 October, following which, the landlord’s stage one response stated that the issue had now been resolved. It acknowledged the delay in reaching this stage and its compensation offer at this time included an amount of £100 for this delay. It was appropriate that the landlord had identified the delay and offered compensation as it had been more than four months from the date of the resident’s formal complaint. Further consideration as to the overall level of compensation is provided below.
82. The drainage issues returned however. The landlord’s initial response was to require the resident to take action herself as, in its view, its previous actions had resolved the issue. This response was reasonable given the landlord’s understanding of the case at that time. It had acted upon its surveyor’s recommendations and believed that it had taken appropriate action in relation to its contractual obligations to the resident. It also said that it would reimburse any contractor costs incurred by the resident if further exploratory works identified that the issue turned out to be a communal one. This was a reasonable position as it provided clarity to the resident that it would accept responsibility if it received evidence confirming as much.
83. The contractor instructed by the resident confirmed that the drainage issue related to a blockage in a communal chamber (report sent to the landlord 24 January 2019). The landlord acted appropriately by reimbursing the costs related to this report (£144) and accepting responsibility for resolving the issue. Having done so, further jetting of the drains took place in March 2019 and a further survey completed on 7 May 2019 confirmed no issues with the drains. However, the pest control team appointed to fit a rat prevention device to the drains subsequently reported a further blockage, bringing into doubt the findings of the May 2019 survey. The landlord took appropriate action by appointing a separate contractor to obtain a second opinion. This resulted in the drains being re-lined.
84. At stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure, the landlord recognised that there had been further delays, resulting in distress and inconvenience to the resident. A further offer of £400 in compensation was offered in total, though this figure included redress offered by the landlord in relation to the separate leak issue. Further investigation of the landlord’s offer of compensation can be found below.
85. Drainage issues persisted at the property however, with the resident continuing to report her bathtub filling with waste water over the following months. The landlord’s records show that it fitted rat catchers to the drains on 26 September 2019 and that its operative attended on 21 November 2019 to unblock a drain, following which the operative had recommended an urgent survey to identify defects. A survey was scheduled for the following week, but this did not take place. There then followed an extended period of delay before the pipework was attended to on 3 February 2020. Further works were identified at this visit, with the works approved at a later date (4 March).
86. The landlord’s notes from around 16 April 2020 then confirmed a further blockage. The resident’s subsequent contact with the Ombudsman included her confirmation that the drainage issue was resolved at or around this time. In addition, the landlord’s records also include confirmation that works were completed at the property on 16 September 2020. There is no evidence of any further reports of drainage issues at the property since this date suggesting that these works were successful in resolving the drainage issues.
87. The landlord’s final response (10 July 2020) upheld the landlord’s previous decision on the grounds that no new information had been provided. In the circumstances, given the continued delay in resolving the drainage issues, a further amount of compensation would have been appropriate however, to reflect the additional distress/inconvenience experienced during this period. Further consideration of the landlord’s complaints handling and the amount of compensation offered can be found below. As requested by the resident, it would also have been appropriate for the landlord’s final response to provide an explanation as to what had occurred at the property, together with confirmation that the issue had been resolved.

Leaks at the property

88. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms leaseholder responsibility for resolving internal leaks affecting the property. The policy also confirms that a leaseholder will be responsible for any damage caused to property due to repair issues. Nonetheless, it is not disputed that the landlord, in this instance, accepted a responsibility to investigate and resolve the leak issues affecting the property. This was a reasonable course of action as the leaks originated outside of the property. The resident’s formal complaint of May 2018 referred to continuous leaks at the property dating back to 2014. This investigation, however, is limited to the landlord’s consideration of the leaks considered through the complaints policy.
89. There are significant concerns about the reliability and suitability of the landlord’s investigation of the leak issue. The landlord’s records referred to a previous visit to the flat above by its operative (February 2018) which had identified an issue with pooling on the bathroom floor, though it was not clear whether this might have contributed to the leaks the resident’s property. The same operative also referred to an uncontainable leak affecting communal areas in June 2018, emanating from water meters. In any case, having identified the pooling issue in the flat above, these works were not completed until July 2019, nearly 18 months after the February visit.
90. The landlord’s stage one response said that the water company were contacted about the meter issue and that the upstairs neighbour had confirmed no active leaks. Whilst it was a reasonable exercise of discretion to offer to stain block damage to the property, it was not evident at this stage that the landlord had identified the root cause of the issue. The upstairs neighbour might not necessarily have been aware of any leak coming from their property and the landlord’s reliance on this feedback will not have provided reassurance that an appropriate investigation had taken place. The subsequent re-occurrence of the leaks in December 2018 confirmed that the issue did in fact remain unresolved.
91. The landlord confirmed (28 December 2018) that holes in the grouting in the upstairs property had been identified, for which works were scheduled for 4 January 2019. Landlord records from this point onwards are limited, though it is reasonable to conclude that the leak issue was resolved at this point as the resident did not state otherwise. The landlord’s stage two response confirmed that works had been completed; it apologised for distress and inconvenience experienced as a result of this issue and awarded a total amount of compensation of £400, which included the additional adverse impact to the household relating to the drainage issue. Further consideration of the amount of compensation offered can be found below.

Pest infestation

92. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms leaseholder responsibility for both communal and individual pest infestation issues. The resident stated, on more than one occasion, that she pays a service charge in relation to pest control and this has not been disputed by the landlord. It is not clear to what extent the service charge places a responsibility on the landlord regarding infestation issues, however, in response to the resident’s recent reports about infestation, it confirmed that she is responsible for internal issues. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord has some responsibility towards communal pest issues, for which it levies a service charge to leaseholders.
93. In any case, it is evident that the landlord is responsible for repairing/maintaining the pipework/drainage system serving the building. It is not disputed that rat activity had contributed to the drainage issues outlined above and, as such, the landlord had a duty to ensure that any infestation issues were resolved so that the detrimental impact upon the drainage to the building could be resolved.
94. The landlord’s stage one response outlined the steps taken by its pest control team at the building, including investigation, baiting and monitoring over the period June to July 2018. Having identified no further evidence of an infestation at its final visit, it was reasonable for the landlord’s contractor to close the case down. This was confirmed in the landlord’s stage one response. The above actions demonstrate the landlord taking steps to eradicate an ongoing infestation issue, however, it is not evident that the landlord had taken steps, at this stage, to prevent pests from accessing the property, or even to identify the cause of the infestation. Such actions would have been in accordance with the 2020 pest control procedure outlined above and might have resulted in earlier identification of the issues affecting the drainage.
95. Whilst no further reports were received from the resident in relation to pests within her property (at least not until the completion of the complaints procedure), the landlord continued to experience issues with rat activity affecting the communal drainage. It was not until the January 2019 plumber report that rat activity was identified as having caused a blockage to the drains. The landlord’s pest control team attended the building on 28 March and then re-attended (date after 7 May 2019) to install a rat flap, though this did not take place as a further defect to the drain was identified, with the landlord subsequently confirming that blockers had been installed on 26 September. In November 2019 however, the landlord’s correspondence indicates that works to install rat blockers to the drains remained outstanding. It is not known what, if any, further works have been completed from this point and the resident’s further reports of mice within the property suggest a possible further issue in this regard. As the resident’s reports took place following the end of the landlord’s complaints process, they have not been investigated here however.
96. It is of concern that works to prevent rat activity impacting upon the drainage at the property took a long time to identify and take place. It is also of concern that the landlord’s initial response to the reports of infestation did not appear to include consideration of how pests had accessed the building. Had such exploratory work have taken place at an earlier point, it may have resulted in an earlier identification of the drainage issues outlined above. In respect of the service failures identified, a reasonable and proportionate amount of compensation would offer redress for any distress and inconvenience experienced, together with a clear explanation as to what occurred.
97. Should the resident continue to experience pest issues, she should continue to report them to the landlord for its consideration. Whilst it is appropriate that the landlord require her to take any necessary action for pest issues within her property, it is clear that it also continues to have a responsibility to ensure pests aren’t able to access the building itself.

Complaints handling

98. Whilst it is commendable that there is evidence of the landlord having sent the resident holding responses whilst it continued the investigation of the case, as required by the landlord’s complaints procedure, it remains that, on this occasion, the complaint took an excessive length of time to progress through the complaints procedure. The initial complaint was raised on 23 May 2018, with a stage one sent on 18 October 2018, a stage two response on 23 August 2019 and a final response on 10 July 2020. This meant that the resident was required to wait for more than two years for a final response on the case.
99. Some of this period can be attributed to gaps between resident contact, and the landlord’s service delivery will have been impacted from March 2020 by pandemic related issues. It is also relevant that this was a highly complex case, requiring extensive investigation for multiple issues. Nonetheless, the delay in progressing the case through the complaints process was unacceptable. The recent introduction of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code is intended to address such delays, clarifying the expectation that a landlord will provide formal responses within prescribed timescales, irrespective of ongoing investigation into substantive issues relating to a complaint. The Ombudsman expects a complaint to progress in a timely fashion as this provides the best opportunity for a complaints process to act in a complementary manner to its overall service delivery, enabling potential issues to be identified and addressed. Should further developments take place following the completion of a complaints process, a new process can be raised for further consideration.

 

100.      The landlord’s conversation with the resident on 30 June 2020 clarified the outstanding issues relating to this complaint. It is of concern, however, that its response was that no further investigation was required as no new information had been provided. Given the history of the case, it would have been reasonable to provide the resident with the clarity and reassurance that she was seeking. The resident clearly outlined her view that she had not been treated well during the progression of the substantive issue and related complaint. For the landlord to have dismissed her case at the final stage without further review amounted to an unreasonable decision in the circumstances.

 

101.      It was appropriate that the landlord offered compensation for the delays it identified at stage one of the complaints process. However, given the further failures identified, an additional amount would have provided redress to the resident for the distress and inconvenience she experienced in the landlord’s complaints handling.

 

Compensation

102.      The landlord’s final offer of compensation amounted to £650. As the amount offered at stage two (£400) related to both the leak and drainage issues, the amount has been divided equally between these two areas of service failure. Consequently, the landlord’s final offer can be broken down as follows:

• £150 – complaints handling;
• £300 – drainage issues;
• £200 – leak issues.

103.      The amount offered for drainage issues is not considered reasonable or proportionate. The resident’s contact with the landlord prior to its final response confirmed her view that this issue had not been fully resolved until April 2020, nearly two years after her formal complaint. Given the extent of the detriment, which included her reports that, there was an unpleasant smell, that she and her children had to bathe elsewhere, that she had incurred plumbing costs that had not been reimbursed in 2017 and that a carpet had been damaged, a significant sum is considered reasonable. Adding in the fact that these issues persisted over an excessive period, an award in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for cases involving maladministration having a long term impact upon the resident would have been appropriate.
104.      With respect to the leaks, it is noted that the landlord also offered stain blocking of affected parts of the property. It is also relevant that the landlord ultimately resolved the issue by completing works to the upstairs property. The landlord’s offer at stage two of the complaints process is considered reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
105.      There is concern that the landlord did not fully comply with its pest control procedure when initially looking into the pest infestation issue. This failure, together with consideration of the fact that the resident was impacted by this issue for an extended period provides for an offer of compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s consideration of cases involving considerable service failure.
106.      The landlord identified the requirement to offer compensation at stage one of its process for delays in the handling of the complaint. The additional failures identified here warrant a further payment, to reflect a case again involving considerable service failure.

Determination (decision)

107.      In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was maladministration in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about drainage.
108.      In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress for service failures identified with the leaks at the property.
109.      In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a pest infestation at the property.
110.      In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

111.      The resident experienced drainage issues over an extended period, resulting in a significant detriment to her and her household. In the circumstances, the landlord’s offer of compensation is not considered reasonable and proportionate to this detriment.
112.      The landlord’s response to the leaks issue lacked clarity and resulted in a delay in identifying the root cause of the issue. The landlord’s offer of compensation reflected the identified service failures however.
113.      The landlord did not follow policy when dealing with the resident’s initial reports about pests as there is no evidence that it took action to prevent pest access to the building. The pest infestation issue took an excessive period to resolve.
114.      The landlord did not increase its offer of compensation for complaints handling failures, despite the excessive further delays following its stage one response. It is also of concern that no further investigation took place at the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

115.      The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1550 within four weeks of the date of this report. This comprises:

• £1000 for any distress/inconvenience experienced as a result of the service failures relating to the landlord’s response to drainage issues;
• £250 for any distress/inconvenience experienced as a result of the service failures relating to the landlord’s response to pest infestation issues;
• £300 for any distress/inconvenience experienced as a result of the service failures relating to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Any amounts already paid, including the £650 detailed above, to be reduced from the amount payable to the resident.

The landlord to confirm compliance with the above order by 27 May 2021

116.      The landlord to provide a written report, to both the Ombudsman and the resident, detailing its view on the failures identified. This report will include the following:

• Clear explanation as to what the landlord has done to resolve the drainage, leaks and pest infestation issues, including what evidence it has relied upon in reaching this decision;
• Confirmation, including any timescales, for any outstanding works at the property/building in relation to the above issues.

The landlord to confirm compliance with the above order by 24 June 2021