London Borough of Barnet (202203457)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203457

London Borough of Barnet

31 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of blocked pipes and damage to a washing machine.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property. The tenancy started on 8 August 2022. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord confirmed it was aware the resident was suffering from bladder cancer during the complaint period.
On 18 November 2022, the resident reported a repair to the kitchen sink. The report said the sink pipes were blocked and backsurging. The landlord completed the repair on this day. On 12 January 2023, a further repair for this was raised. The landlord completed the repair on 13 January 2023.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 14 January 2023. She said the following:
1. Since moving into the property, she had experienced 4 floods.
2. She first complained in late September 2022.
3. The washing machine flooded with sewage which then backed up into the sink, and then backed into the washing machine.
4. After having her washing machine blocked for 4 days, the landlord had attended. The blockage was dealt with, and her washing machine emptied out. When the resident went to use the machine, it stopped working.
5. The operative attending the repair said this was probably due to the floods it had received.
6. She was now without a working washing machine, and this was imperative at the moment as she had bladder cancer.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 on 6 February 2023. It said it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint. It said a repair was raised on 12 January 2023. Its contractors attended on 13 January 2023. They unblocked the sink, tested it and left it free flowing. The repairs manager who attended the property confirmed the blockage from the sink would not have caused the washing machine to stop working. It had sent the resident’s request to claim against the landlord to the homes insurance procurement department.
The resident escalated her complaint on 8 February 2023. The resident said the washing machine worked up until the point that the repair operative was leaving. She said the water from the sink kept backing into the washing machine as it had nowhere to go for 4 days while she waited for the landlord to attend. The landlord recently attended and ripped out hard wood frames which were sodden with mould and flood water.
The landlord provided its final response on 10 March 2023. It said the following:
1. It was not upholding the resident’s complaint.
2. It could not find any evidence that it or its contractors acted in a negligent manner.
3. A drainage issue was reported on 18 November 2022. A contractor attended and resolved it the same day.
4. A further issue was reported on 12 January 2023. A contractor attended within 24 hours. The contractor resolved the issue and left it free flowing.
5. A further recurrence was reported on 6 February 2023 and attended within a 24-hour period.
6. Backsurging can happen for a variety of reasons.
7. The resident stated that on one occasion it took 4 days for the landlord to respond to the repair. The landlord did not have any evidence that this was the case. It asked the resident to confirm the dates and it could review again further.
8. Its approach to responding and attending had been in line with expectations. If the resident had evidence that this was not the case, it was willing to look at this further.
9. A visit to the property in February 2023 noted a small area of dampness, which was common behind washing machines. There was no mention of damage to the kitchen.
10. It could arrange a visit to inspect the condition of the kitchen. It would review any associated impact of backsurging or leaks and ensure orders were raised to repair anything outstanding.
11. It appreciated the backsurging would have been frustrating. All the evidence suggested it responded in line with its policies. If the resident had evidence that this was not the case, it asked her to let it know.
12. It was aware the process had been referred down the public liability route. In regard to compensation through this route, this was not something it was able to consider at that point.
13. Residents were expected to take out contents insurance to ensure items were covered for any accidental damage in the property.
14. There was no evidence that negligence had caused damage to the washing machine.
15. No evidence was submitted which would point to a backsurge as causing the machine to stop working.
16. It would expect a technical report from a washing machine repair company or operative, or factual documentation to highlight the cause of damage.
17. It recommended the resident have someone look at the washing machine to see if this could be repaired or contact her contents insurer to assist her further.
18. A CCTV survey would be carried out, because there had been a few instances of backsurging. This was to see if there was a root cause, and to rule out defects with pipes and drains.
19. It asked the resident to provide any evidence of wrongdoing for it to investigate further.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The case was accepted for investigation by this Service in January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation.

Part of the resident’s complaint relates to damages to a washing machine. Determining liability and awarding damages are legal aspects that this service has no jurisdiction over. Such matters require a binding decision from a court or consideration via an insurance claim. This service can, however, consider the landlord’s response to the resident and if it had acted fairly and reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures.
Further repairs were raised in relation to a blocked sink and the kitchen after the landlord’s final response. This investigation has considered matters from the date of the reports of the blocked pipes and backsurge in November 2022 to the date of the landlord’s final response on10 March 2023. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s jurisdictional authority under the Scheme, and in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the investigation of this Service. Any further issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of blocked pipes and damage to a washing machine.

The tenancy agreement says the landlord will carry out repairs within a reasonable period of time. It says the landlord will keep in good repair and proper working order the fittings in the property which supply water and sanitation, including sinks.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says the landlord will repair fittings in properties which supply water, and sanitation. The policy says residents are responsible for repair to domestic appliances belonging to the resident, drains (not including waste pipes – residents must demonstrate that they have made all reasonable efforts to unblock waste pipes, including the use of a plunger or domestically-available drain cleaning products), and waste blockages.
The policy catagorises repairs as follows:
1. P1 and P2 out of hours and daytime emergency, are where there is an immediate risk, a total loss of services, severe damage to the structure or security of the property. These are to be attended and made safe within 4 hours and completed within 24 hours.
2. P3 responsive repairs, are where a repair needs to be completed but it is not considered an immediate risk. These are to be attended and completed on the appointed date, and within 15 working days of the order being raised

The policy says sometimes an inspection is necessary before an order can be raised. Inspections may be raised at the discretion of the landlord. This may be for reasons including where there is a reoccurring problem, and drainage queries where blockages are not the problem.

The responsive repairs policy also says residents are responsible for taking out their own home contents insurance to ensure their possessions and decorations are protected against loss, theft, fire, water, and accidental damage.
The landlord’s compensation and financial loss policy says goodwill compensation is discretionary and may be given where it decides that a level of service, action, or inaction is not in line with service standards. This includes issues where customers can demonstrate actual loss, or discretionary payments for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience.
The policy says if a resident feels the landlord is responsible for damages to personal possessions or decorations, depending on the amount being claimed for, this may be treated as a negligence claim and referred to its insurers. Any losses will need to be evidenced and ownership proven. Compensation will not be paid where the landlord has not been negligent, for example where it could not have been foreseen that an item needed repair.
The resident said in her complaint that she had experienced 4 floods since moving into the property. This Service did not receive evidence to demonstrate reports were made prior to 18 November 2022.
The evidence provided to this service showed the repair to the blocked pipes in the kitchen and a backsurge was reported to the out of hours team on 18 November 2022. The landlord attended to this repair on this date. This met the timescales within the landlord’s responsive repairs policy.
A further occurrence of the blocked sink and a backsurge was reported on 12 January 2023. The landlord attended and repaired this on 13 January 2023. This repair was completed within the timescales of the landlord’s responsive repairs policy.
The landlord showed it attended to the reported blockage and backsurge within a reasonable timescale on both occasions during the complaint period. In her complaint, the resident told the landlord her washing machine was blocked and water had backed up into the machine for 4 days while she waited for the landlord to attend. This Service has not seen any evidence to demonstrate there was a delay in the landlord’s response here.
The landlord confirmed in its final response that it investigated this matter and was not able to find evidence that the resident waited 4 days for the landlord to attend. In its final response, the landlord demonstrated it investigated this matter and confirmed its response to the reports of the blocked sink and back surges was in line with its policy. The landlord said it could review this further if the resident could provide the dates. This action showed the landlord was willing to reinvestigate should the resident have any evidence it had taken 4 days to respond. This was a customer focused approach.
It was noted a further issue with a backsurge was reported on 6 February 2023, and a repair completed the following day. The landlord’s final complaint response said it would arrange a CCTV survey to assess for any defects to the pipes. This was an appropriate response given that there had been 3 separate occurrences of back surging reported. This action was in line with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy. It also demonstrated a proactive approach by the landlord to investigate an occurring issue.
The resident told the landlord her washing machine was broken following the repair on 13 January 2023. The resident said the operative attending advised this was probably due to the floods to the washing machine. This Service was not able to comment on whether the landlord was liable for damage to the resident’s washing machine. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise to determine or award damages for liability in the way that a court or insurer might. However, it was evident the landlord had taken steps in line with its policies in its response.
The landlord is not responsible for insuring residents’ contents, or possessions. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says residents are responsible for taking out their own home contents insurance to ensure their possessions and decorations are protected against loss, theft, fire, water, and accidental damage. In line with its policy, the landlord referred the resident’s claim of damage to its insurance team. This was an appropriate action to take, given the resident indicated she felt the landlord’s actions had caused this.
While it may be the case that the washing machine developed a fault following the repair visit by the landlord, there was no additional evidence presented to the landlord to indicate an operative caused this fault. In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed it discussed the issue with the repairs manager who attended the property during the repair in January 2023. They had confirmed a blockage form the sink would not have cause the washing machine to stop working. The landlord also confirmed at stage 2 it reviewed the works orders and there was no record of the washing machine being affected or damaged.
This service appreciates the fault with the washing machine was frustrating for the resident. However, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damage to her washing machine was reasonable in the circumstances. Given that the landlord did not have evidence to confirm the cause of the fault, it was reasonable for it to rely on its own internal investigations.
The landlord demonstrated it carried out a reasonable investigation into the damage claim and explained clearly the reasons it was not able to consider compensation at that point. It also set out the type of evidence it would need to highlight the cause of damage and provided the resident with the opportunity to provide any further evidence for investigation.
However, the resident told the landlord at both stages of her complaint that she had bladder cancer and a washing machine was imperative to her at that time. In her complaint escalation the resident explained the impact to her health of having to use a laundrette to wash her clothes. The landlord did not demonstrate it had responded to the resident’s concerns raised about her need to access clothes washing facilities.
The landlord did not reference the resident’s concerns in its complaint responses, or respond in an empathetic manner. While the landlord suggested the resident to contact her contents insurer, it did not provide the resident with any signposting to additional support services. This did not demonstrate a customer focused approach.
In summary, the landlord demonstrated it attended to the resident’s reports of a blockages to the sink pipes and backsurges in line with the timescales set out in its responsive repair policy. The landlord also took the appropriate step of proposing to arrange a further CCTV survey to investigate any underlying causes, in response to a further report during the complaint process. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about damage to her washing machine, and provided her with a reasonable explanation of why it was not able to consider compensation for this at that point.
However, while the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of blocked pipes and damage to a washing machine were in accordance with its repairs procedure, it is of concern that the landlord failed to address the resident’s specific concerns about how the issues impacted upon her, given her personal circumstances. This meant that the landlord missed the opportunity to provide, or signpost the resident to any additional support services that might be in place. It also missed the opportunity to provide reassurance to a vulnerable resident. For this reason a determination of service failure has been reached, with orders of compensation and an apology.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of blocked pipes and damage to a washing machine.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 for any distress and inconvenience experienced as a result of its failures. This is payable direct to the resident.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.