Islington Council (202212996)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212996

Islington Council

30 January 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1.     The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:

1. Reports of flooding and sewage in the property and damage to flooring.
2. Related complaint.

Background

2.     The resident is the secure tenant of the first floor 2-bedroom flat, owned by the landlord which is a local authority.

3.     The resident reported a back surge of sewage from the toilet in her property on the morning of 18 November 2020. She was initially unable to get through on the landlord’s emergency phone number and said that contractors did not arrive within the 2-hour published time frame. The landlord delivered a chemical toilet to the property. A deep clean took place, which had to be repeated on 24 November 2020 as lino was not initially lifted.

4.     The resident and her daughter were provided with emergency accommodation for 1 night and temporary accommodation the following day. In her complaint, on 23 November 2020, she stated that the temporary accommodation was not suitable, as it had no Wi-Fi, and she was working from home and her daughter studying for A levels.

5.     A CCTV survey found a collapsed pipe outside the resident’s property and work began on 29 November 2020 to repair the damage and was completed on 3 December 2020. The resident was told to claim on the landlord’s insurance for damaged carpet as she had no contents insurance, but this was ultimately declined.

6.     The landlord partially upheld the complaint due to some service failings after the incident and awarded the resident £175 in compensation. This was increased to £275 in the stage 2 response. The landlord denied responsibility for the damaged carpet as it said that the pipe collapse could not be anticipated.

7.     The resident said that the landlord delayed in responding and this caused more damage. She feels the landlord is liable as the same issue had occurred in 2009 and 2015, thus she wants the landlord to reimburse the cost of the carpet. The landlord increased its offer of compensation by £1,075.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8.     The Ombudsman cannot consider the events in 2007, 2009 and 2015 which the resident feels indicate that the waste pipe was not maintained by the landlord, leading to the recent leak. This is because they are historic and not raised with the Ombudsman at the time.

9.     In accordance with paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.

10. Further, in accordance with 42 (b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the Ombudsman within 12 months of exhausting the landlord’s complaint procedure.

11. This investigation considers the landlord’s response to the events occurring as from 18 November 2020 only and looks to see if it was appropriate and fair in all the circumstances.

12. The resident has referred to unpaid time off work during the repairs. In general, the Ombudsman would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a complainant for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out. Whilst such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, their occupancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed, and it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a complainant reimbursement for loss of earnings relating to repairs.

13. It is noted that the resident has said that the repair work has affected her physical and mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt her comments; but must clarify that it is beyond the expertise of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the repairs at the property and her health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

Assessment

14. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that it is responsible for keeping the structure and outside of the property in repair including drains gutters, external pipes, installations for the supply of water and sanitation. This housing repairs guide includes keeping in good repair installation for supplying water, including drainage.

15. The policy further says that in the case of emergency repairs, the contractor will respond within 2 hours and make safe.

16.  The landlord does not dispute liability for responding to the back-surge at the property. There is some difference of opinion regarding the time the landlord attended the repair, however. Its records show that the repair was raised at 8:18am and photos were taken on site at 10:38am whereas the resident said the contractor did not arrive until 11:41am.

17. It is acknowledged that any delay in obtaining a response when sewage is present in your home is extremely distressing. In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord, at least, was more than 20 minutes over the 2-hour timeframe. It is understood that, although this was not an excessive delay, this would be unacceptable to the resident in such conditions.

18. The landlord acknowledged that it did not attend the repair within its published target. It said that the situation with the COVID-19 pandemic was unusual and outside of its control. It said it had made efforts to provide the expected level of service during a time that there was more demand but with reduced staffing levels.

19. The resident said that when she first called the emergency number, she was unable to get through. She reports calling from 7:40am and given the call was not logged until 38 minutes later, this would reasonably cause significant anxiety and distress. The landlord said that this was due to a new telephony system combined with the demands of COVID-19 and a reduction of staff. It apologised for this but did not offer compensation specifically for the delay in first attending the repair.

20. The resident then told this Service that by the time she began calling the landlord, the flooring in the toilet and hallway had already been damaged. On the basis of the evidence, this Service is unable to conclude that the delay in the landlord taking the repair call and attending the site caused any additional damage. Its reasons for the delay are appreciated but given that the COVID-19 lockdown started almost 8 months prior, it is appropriate that it acknowledges its service failure in respect of the delay in attending the repair.

21. The landlord should pay £100 in respect of the particular distress caused by its delay in responding to the resident’s initial phone call. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance for instances where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings.

22. The repairs and maintenance policy says at section 9.1 that it is the tenant’s responsibility to insure their home and its contents. 9.2 says that the tenant is responsible for any loss or damage to their home due to flooding. 9.3 says the landlord routinely advises tenants to take out home insurance to cover furniture and fittings and personal belongings.

23. The housing repairs guide section 11.1 says the resident is responsible for insuring themselves against any loss or damage to the contents of their home due to theft, flooding or accidental damage. 11.2 says the landlord strongly advises them to take out their own home contents insurance cover to protect belongings, for example furniture and fittings.

24. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy section 3.1 says ‘There may be areas where the council is unable or limited in what it can do to investigate the complaint under the corporate complaints policy’. It further provides that ‘claims for damages/compensation ‘should be dealt with as an insurance claim. If your property or any personal items have been damaged, this is an insurance matter. In the first instance, you will need to make a claim via your own home contents insurance’.

25. The resident’s main financial concern was the cost of new floor covering for the hallway. The landlord initially directed the resident to its insurers as directed in its policy. The claim was declined, but this is not something the Ombudsman would get involved in. The Ombudsman looks to see that the landlord correctly signposted the resident to the appropriate place to assist them, which the evidence indicates that it did.

26.  When the resident approached this Service, she had not yet had a final complaint response. She had previously advised the landlord that she would settle the matter on payment of £1,160.88 which was the quote she had for new carpet and fitting. When the Ombudsman approached the landlord, it reviewed its previous position and offered the resident a further £1,075. £1,000 of which was in respect of the damaged carpet.

27. The landlord denied liability for the resident’s carpet, as it concluded that there was no negligence on its part. However, its final complaint response in February 2023 said that whilst there was no obligation to do so, it was agreed that it would cover the cost of the resident’s carpets.

28. It has not been shown that the landlord had a responsibility to replace the resident’s carpet, but the Ombudsman welcomes its decision to do so. It has been shown that residents are advised to take their own insurance to cover possessions in the event of a flood. Whilst the resident’s frustration is understood, there are no grounds to increase the sum awarded by the landlord in respect of the carpets.

29. The resident had concerns about communication during the period she was in temporary accommodation and the effect of the incident generally. Compensation of £175 was awarded by the landlord at stage 1 which included £25 for the time and effort taken to complain, £25 for failure to remove the floor covering to complete cleaning initially, £25 for the landlord’s failure to update the resident when works were completed and £100 for distress.

30. The landlord offered a further £100 compensation at stage 2 of the complaint process. This was for service failure in the delay in collecting the chemical toilet, and the related inconvenience to the resident. The sum is in line with the remedies recommended by the Ombudsman for circumstances where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but with no permanent impact.

31. The resident asked the Ombudsman to consider the possibility of the same issue occurring again. She is understandably concerned given that there were several back-surges in the past. As covered above, the Ombudsman is not able to investigate these issues due to the time that has passed. The landlord has no records from this time to be able to confirm the cause of these back-surges. The Ombudsman cannot predict what may occur in the future but looks to how the landlord responds when repairs are reported. In this case there were failings, but in the main these have been acknowledged and addressed.

32. The Ombudsman appreciates that this type of incident is extremely unpleasant and stressful for the resident. The Ombudsman cannot make a finding on historic repairs or speculate as to the cause. However, given the evidence that back surges have occurred on at least 2 earlier occasions at the property, it is not unreasonable that the resident would seek reassurance that it will not be repeated.

33. An undated letter from the resident, provided by the landlord, shows that 2 CCTV surveys had been scheduled after the repair in December 2020, but that the resident was unable to make the dates offered. This would suggest that the landlord had offered to supply a further CCTV survey to reassure the resident that there were no issues which may give rise to a future flood, as she had asked.

34. Whilst the Ombudsman understands the landlord cannot issue guarantees that a particular repair will not occur in the future. It would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the CCTV survey it had planned. This will give the resident the confidence it is keeping the drain in good repair as it is obliged to do. If a CCTV survey of the repaired pipes has not yet been arranged, and a report provided to the resident, this should be done as soon as possible.

Complaint handling

35. The corporate complaints policy, provided by the landlord, says that stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. However, this policy says it was updated in March 2023, so is not the policy which was in force at the time of this complaint.

36. In this case, there appears to have been 3 stages to the complaint process. The resident’s first complaint was logged by the landlord on 23 November 2020. The response was issued slightly late on 14 December 2020, when the complaint was partially upheld due to failings after the incident. The landlord apologised for the poor communication and that the floor was not satisfactorily cleaned before the resident’s complaint. The landlord referred the resident to its insurers in respect of her damaged possessions.

37. The landlord offered £175 compensation in relation to the repair. The resident escalated the complaint the next day and the response was issued on 14 January 2021, which was within the new time scales. This stage 2 response did not give escalation rights to this Service but offered a Chief Executive’s review as a third stage of the complaint process.

38. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the landlord issued a Chief Executive’s response on 10 February 2023. The landlord offered £75 in recognition of a delayed response to the resident’s escalation. It has since said that this was in error, as it did not receive a request from the resident to escalate this complaint. The resident has a number of other complaints with the landlord, and it seems that an escalation request for one of the other cases was wrongly attached to the case about the back-surge.

39. Whilst no evidence has been seen to show the resident specifically asked for the complaint to be reviewed, there were emails between the landlord and resident during this time, concerning legal action the resident was taking. It is understood that there is no action being taken at this time. In terms of the complaint process, the landlord was contacted by this Service on 20 January 2023, and issued its Chief Executive’s response on 10 February 2023, which is within a reasonable time frame.

40.  Although the Ombudsman has not been provided with the complaint process in place at the time of the resident’s complaint, the response times were not excessive. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord acted inappropriately in terms of its complaint handling in this case.

Determination

41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the repair.

42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

43. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:

1. Pay the resident the £100 in respect of the initial delay in responding to the resident’s reports of a repair.
2. Contact the resident to agree a date for CCTV survey of the repaired pipes, after which it should provide her a report.

44.  The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that the above orders have been complied with, within four weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

45. It is recommended that the landlord remind relevant staff of the need to provide the policies in place at the time specific to the complaint under review.