Places for People Homes Limited (201916334)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201916334

Places for People Homes Limited

30 June 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 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of report of a sewage leak and concerns about drainage in the property.
2. The landlord’s decision to enact its safeguarding policy and contact the emergency services.
3. The landlord’s handling of a fraud investigation by the local authority.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of a fraud investigation by the local authority.
This complaint concerns allegations that were made against the resident that he had made a fraudulent housing application to the landlord which the latter had reported to the local Counter Fraud Unit. On 16 October 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident noting it had been carrying out an investigation and sought to discuss the findings of the investigations with him. It stated that he may be guilty of a criminal offence by implying that he was a household member to be considered in the housing application, and subsequently failing to notify the landlord that he would not be using the tenancy address as his main or principal home. He was advised that he could bring legal representation to the interview.
Following this the resident was requested to attend a formal interview under caution on 25 October 2019 along with a member of the landlord’s tenancy enforcement team and a representative of the CFU.
In the landlord’s stage one complaint response of 7 May 2020 the landlord noted that the fraud issue was being addressed in an ongoing criminal investigation by the CFU, which it noted might result in criminal proceedings being brought against the resident. On the basis of these circumstances, it stated that it would not be appropriate to comment on the need for the investigation at the time. Criminal proceedings were ultimately brought against the resident by means of a summons for prosecution on 16 September 2020.
In the landlord’s final complaint response of 3 November 2020 it noted that the fraud investigation was an ongoing criminal investigation that was to be determined in court. It also stated that the resident had confirmed that he was content for the matter to be considered in court and did not require an update as part of the review. Furthermore at 26 January 2021, following the final complaint response, the landlord’s communication with the resident noted that the criminal proceedings were still in progress.
Paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings.
As the allegation of fraud has been noted to be before the court, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate it. The matters the resident has raised in terms of whether the allegation is established will be determined in those proceedings, and he will have the chance to put forward a defence. The resident has acknowledged in his communication with the landlord prior to the issuing of its final complaint response that he is satisfied for the matter to be investigated and considered by the court. The landlord agreed with this position in its final complaint response. As a result, the complaint as above is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a two–bedroom bungalow with his brother and mother. The resident’s mother has a physical disability which impacts her mobility and standing tolerance and requires use of a wheelchair, as well as other vulnerabilities. The resident is his mother’s carer.
In January 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to report potential drainage issues at the property, noting that the sewage would rise up and spill out of the drain next to the toilet intermittently. On 14 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging the report, noting that an inspection had been booked for the following day to ascertain what repair work needed to be undertaken.
On 15 January 2020 the landlord carried out the inspection at the property which noted there was no evidence of waste overspill in the property. The resident stated at this appointment that the soil pipe in the bathroom needed effective sealing as it hadn’t been properly sealed since a previous sewage leak. He also reported that sewage would come up through the shower drainaway when it backed up. He reported that this had happened on a number of occasions.
The landlord’s staff member noted that the toilet seat was in perfect condition which was an indicator that the seal had maintained its integrity and was not leaking. It was nevertheless decided to renew the pan connector to the toilet in the bathroom to reassure the resident that the toilet was not leaking. This work was scheduled for 21 February 2020, but later was brought forward to 14 February 2020 based on the resident’s concerns.
On 6 February 2020 the landlord carried out a further inspection of the property to establish whether there was a problem with the drainage from the property.
On 14 February 2020 the landlord attended the property to carry out the pre-arranged repair to the resident’s toilet, but the landlord’s records record that the latter denied access on the basis that he had not been given proper notice beforehand.
On 17 February 2020 at approximately 6:30pm the resident telephoned the landlord to report that a pipe had split. He reported to the landlord that the bathroom wash basin’s rear hot water pipework exploded, causing water to be sprayed across the entire bathroom, and in-turn over the resident’s mother who experienced significant shock, pain and distress. The landlord contacted the emergency services and an ambulance attended the property to take her to hospital. The resident’s water supply and heating was turned off, which he stated he did himself.
The following-day, 18 February 2020, the resident’s water supply and heating was restored at approximately midday. Police officers attended the hospital and spoke to the resident’s mother as well as contacting the landlord’s staff, before confirming there were no current safety concerns for the resident but that they would continue to liaise with the landlord.
On the same day, 18 February 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord noting that the repair to the pipe had been carried out that day, restoring the ability to flush the toilet as well as access to drinking water and heating. The landlord wrote to the resident stating that it was pleased the repair had gone ahead. It noted that the resident had made reference to a number of outstanding but non-specific repair issues. It offered the resident the opportunity to discuss the matters with staff to clarify exactly what repair issues the resident considered to be outstanding.
On 19 February 2020 the resident left a voicemail for the landlord noting that he had been waiting for its post-inspection report regarding the 6 February 2020 inspection for three weeks. On the same day, the landlord’s contractor provided its report to the resident which established there was no major problem with the drainage system.
On 24 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging the resident’s contact about the post-inspection report. It stated that the inspection had taken place on 6 February 2020 and the report was sent to the resident on 19 February 2020, which was a gap of 9 working days.
On 26 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident requesting that a meeting be arranged between the parties to discuss the resident’s concerns and complaints about outstanding repair issues and the handling of the 17 February 2020 incident. The resident declined this request.
On 4 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that the offer of a meeting remained open and that the landlord was happy to discuss rehousing options with the resident.
On 16 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that a blockage of the drainage system had occurred. On the same day the landlord’s engineer attended the property, finding that a blockage had occurred in the drainage system which had been caused by volumes of wet-wipes being flushed through into the drainage pipes. It noted however that there was no evidence to suggest that the blockage had resulted in sewage leaking or spilling into the property, recording in its notes of the inspection that the issue was “contained”. An order was raised for a drainage specialist to attend the property.
On 17 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that the latter had incorrectly communicated that all repairs had been completed as set out in a report which had included recommendations for necessary works. Among other issues, the resident stated that no repairs had taken place relating to the toilet or the issues surrounding the blockages at the main drainage cover outside which were causing the back-up to spew up through the bathroom floor surrounding the toilet.
On either 17 or 19 March 2020 contractors attended the property and unblocked the shallow drain outside the property on the driveway. They also provided a quote to the landlord to undertake descaling of the external drainage pipes to improve flow and lower the risk of a of a potential blockage. The landlord’s internal emails noted that the quotation was provided in a “recommended capacity” for preventative maintenance as opposed to a direct requirement. The landlord approved the quote.
On 25 March 2020 the drainage specialist contractors attended the property and undertook the descaling of the external drainage pipes. The scope of the works required necessitated a follow-up appointment on 31 March 2020 at which time the works were competed.
On 9 April 2020 the local water authority attended the property to carry out a CCTV review of the drainage area of the street to assess its condition.
On 24 April 2020 the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s response to the repair issues and the safeguarding decision made to contact the ambulance and police service on 17 February 2020. On the same day the landlord logged the complaint at stage one and sent an acknowledgement to the resident, noting it aimed to provide a written response within ten working days though noting this might be delayed by the Covid-19 situation.
On 1 May 2020 the landlord’s internal emails note that contrary to the resident’s statements there had never been any evidence to suggest that raw sewage had leaked inside the property. This was based on the attendance and observations of contractors on multiple occasions. It was also noted that there were no soiled drainage items, despite what had been suggested by the resident. The emails noted that a thorough investigation of the issues had been carried out on 15 January 2020, and it was later established that wet-wipes being flushed down the toilet were a major cause of the issue with repeated blockages. It noted that there had been no further correspondence in relation to drainage issues at the property.
On 7 May 2020 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response, in which it set out the following:
1. Regarding the repairs, it noted it had received the reports of potential drainage related issues at the property resulting in an inspection being undertaken on 15 January 2020. It set out that there were no repair issues observed on this day, but that the replacement of the pan connector was arranged for 14 February 2020 to provide assurance to the resident that the toilet was not leaking.
2. Regarding the landlord’s contact with the emergency services, it noted the residents’ report on 17 February 2020 that the incident with the water pipe had occurred, that the resident’s mother had been “smothered” by very hot water and was screaming in distress. The resident had been asked whether his mother had been taken to hospital and stated that she was not showing signs of pain beyond her ordinary levels. Given the circumstances and the fact that an elderly and vulnerable customer had been reported to be injured and in considerable distress, the landlord contacted emergency services which resulted in an ambulance attending the property followed up later by the police who were seeking to obtain further details about the incident. It was confirmed that there were no concerns following this and the police continued to liaise with the hospital social services team.

The landlord stated that it was satisfied that it had been appropriate to contact the emergency services in the services in line with its adult safeguarding policy and procedure, and it was satisfied that no false allegations were made.

On 28 October 2020 the resident spoke to the landlord on the telephone about the grounds on the basis of which he was seeking a review. As part of this call the resident acknowledged that he was happy for the fraud investigation to progress through the court processes and did not require a complaint response from the landlord on the matter. He raised concerns about new repair that, on the evidence, had not been previously reported to the landlord including:
1. Pooling of water at the bottom of the ramp
2. Blown double glazed windows
3. Black and green mould throughout the property
4. Maggots throughout the address.
On 3 November 2020 the landlord provided its stage two complaint response in which it set out the following:
1. Regarding the repairs, it noted that all potential drainage-related issues were inspected which included the commissioning of an independent contractor on the drainage repairs required. These were all arranged and completed by 31 March 2020. It noted that since the completion of the works it had received no further repair requests relating to drainage issues.
  Noting the additional repair issues raised on the call on 28 October 2020 including the pooling of water, blown windows, mould and maggots, it stated that the repairs team had no knowledge of any such issues as these had not previously been reported. It stated that it would raise an inspection/survey of the property at a convenient time no later than 4 November 2020.
2. Regarding the landlord’s contact with the emergency services, it noted it was satisfied with its decision to contact the emergency services. During the investigation the resident had stated that he was in possession of phone call recordings in which the landlord had made slanderous allegations, although he had not shared these with the landlord and noted his intention to seek a determination on the matter through the court case. The landlord stated that based on the information available to it, the decision to contact the police was appropriate in the circumstances and in line with its adult safeguarding policy and procedure.
On 2 December 2020 the landlord’s internal emails set out that, based upon the completion of the previous waste clearance in March 2020, it was of the opinion that there were no issues relating to the property’s drainage and waste water. It stated that the resident’s references to waste spewing around the base of the toilet referred to a historical leak that had been caused by a blockage within the pipe, rather than a direct failure of the pan connector itself. Upon clearance of the blockage, it had been identified that the blockage was caused by sanitary products down the toilet. It also stated that on all occasions whereby drainage clearances had been undertaken by its contractors, sanitary products had always been found to be present within the system and therefore contributing to the blockage.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy notes that emergency repairs will be responded to within 24 hours of a report, while all other repairs will be addressed at an appointment booked in within 28 calendar days from receipt of the report.
The policy refers to the website which lists repairs that are the landlord’s responsibility, including external drains, gutters and outside pipes, water supply and water pipes, and the unblocking of external waste pipes. Residents are noted to be responsible for blocked baths, basins, sinks, showers and toilets.
The landlord’s safeguarding policy sets out that the landlord has safeguarding duties which apply to an adult who has needs for care and support, whether or not the local authority is meeting any of those needs, who is experiencing or at risk of abuse or neglect and is unable to protect themselves from this risk. The policy notes that staff are not responsible to prove or disprove information received, only to record and report the information appropriately.
The policy states that, where there is an immediate risk of harm to the individual, immediate measures must be taken to protect the safety and health of the person affected. The landlord must call Adult Social Care Services, the police or an ambulance, the latter if there is an injury.
The policy’s “Flow chart for reporting/recording safeguarding issues” notes that if urgent medical attention is needed, emergency services i.e. an ambulance must be contacted.
The landlord’s complaints process sets out multiple stages. While it aims to “put the issue right” within 24 hours, if it cannot the complaint moves to the next stages:
1. Stage one frontline stage: The complaint will be acknowledged within five working days and the outcome provided and explained to a resident within ten working days.
2. Stage two investigation stage: If the complaint is escalated, an acknowledgement will be provided within three working days. A final outcome letter will be provided within 20 working days unless the complaint is extended.

Assessment and findings

Reports of a sewage leak and drainage issues

The evidence demonstrates that the landlord has responded promptly to the resident’s reports of problems with the sewage and drainage systems at his property. Following the reports in January 2020, the 15 January 2020 inspection was carried out appropriately as contractors recorded the resident’s full report of the issues as well as attempting to establish what was causing the problems. Further inspections of the bathroom, the internal and external pipes and drains were carried out in early February that supported the position that there were no major issues with the drainage system. The landlord’s internal emails and reports later noted that sanitary products had repeatedly been found in the drainage system when drainage clearances had been undertaken by its contractors, which was the most likely cause of the recurring problem, and these blockages were resolved by the contractors as necessary.
The landlord attempted to book an appointment to carry out a repair to the resident’s toilet pan connector even though this was not considered strictly necessary on the basis that this would provide some reassurance to the resident about the condition of the drainage system, given he was concerned that either the pan connector or soil pipe was leaking or had the potential to. However the appointment on 14 February 2020 did not go ahead on the basis that the resident reported the landlord had not provided him with proper notice. There is no evidence that this particular non-essential repair was completed, nor that either the resident or landlord made any attempt to rebook it. However given this repair was established to be a discretionary decision by the landlord rather than an essential repair, this lack of follow-up would not have had a substantial negative impact.
Following the report of the blockage occurring on 16 March 2020, the landlord responded promptly and in line with its “emergency” repairs timeframe set out in its policy by sending a contractor to the property that same day to examine the blockage and the external drainage system. An investigation was carried out, the necessary repairs established and it was noted that there no immediate problem of sewage backing-up/leaking from the drainage, with the contractor’s report describing the issue as “contained” within the drain. A drainage specialist attended the property to unblock the external drain shortly afterwards. Further works were carried out on 25 March and 31 March 2020 which resolved the issue and were all well within the landlord’s 28 calendar day timeframe for routine repairs. The landlord has therefore acted in line with its policies and responded to the resident’s reports in a reasonable manner.
The landlord offered to meet with the resident on various occasions in response to the concerns he raised about the handling of the sewage and drainage repairs. The landlord demonstrated its engagement with the resident’s concerns and an attempt to resolve the situation via a variety of possible avenues, including the finalising of any other repairs the resident wished to report and the potential of a transfer.
In response to references the resident made to other outstanding but non-specific repair issues, the landlord requested on 30 September 2020 that these be clarified so that they could be addressed. The resident communicated these to be a number of issues including the pooling of water at the bottom of an outside ramp, blown windows, mould and maggots. As set out in the landlord’s subsequent complaint response, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the resident raised the issues prior to this date. Therefore the landlord acted appropriately by communicating that it would arrange for an inspection to be undertaken to establish what additional repair work was necessary for these issues.

Enactment of safeguarding policy and contacting emergency services

The landlord’s safeguarding policy clearly sets out that in circumstances where there is concern about the wellbeing of a vulnerable resident, particularly if there is an immediate risk of harm to the individual. The policy specifically notes that an ambulance, and possibly the police, must be called if there is an injury/if medical attention is needed.
The evidence available demonstrates that the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its policy when the resident contacted it to report the incident that had occurred with the burst pipe. Knowing the vulnerabilities of the resident’s mother, and being made aware of her level of shock, distress and pain, the landlord reacted appropriately in contacting the emergency services to attend the house.
While the resident has raised concerns that the landlord made false allegations to the emergency services about the cause of the incident and the injury to his mother, the evidence available does not support this position but rather that the landlord was acting reasonably to address the incident which had resulted, to the best of its knowledge, in an injury to a vulnerable resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord regarding the complaint about the landlord’s handling of report of a sewage leak and concerns about drainage in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord regarding the complaint about the landlord’s decision to enact its safeguarding policy and contact the emergency services.

Reasons

The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports of a sewage leak and problems with drainage in the property. It arranged for its contractors to attend multiple inspections to ascertain the cause of the issue, which was partly established to be the presence of sanitary products that had been improperly disposed of through the drainage system. The investigation process was extensive and the repair work that was undertaken on 31 March 2020 resolved the issues.
The landlord responded appropriately to the reports of the burst pipe and the impact it had on the resident and his mother. Given the report that was made to the landlord which noted that the resident’s mother was in significant shock, pain and distress following the incident, it was appropriate that it contacted the emergency services particularly given its awareness of her vulnerability. The landlord relied on the evidence available to it to make this decision.