Regenda Limited (202209783)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209783

Regenda Limited

15 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:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of sewage smells in her home.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and her tenancy began in early 2009. The property is a 2 bedroom bungalow. The resident is wheelchair dependant and has a number of disabilities. The property has been adapted for her needs. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
3. She first reported foul smells from the property’s internal drains in 2012. The reports became more frequent from 25 May 2021. In response, the landlord arranged for inspection of the pipework in the home. The landlord arranged for a series of drain surveys to try and identify the source. Many of the surveys found no defects. They suggested the problem was caused by the internal pipework around the sink. One found that the external drain was broken/damaged. The contractor recommended excavation work to repair the issue.
4. The resident complained to the landlord on 8 August 2022. She was unhappy about the time it was taking to resolve matters. She called the Ombudsman on 9 August 2022. She said:
   1. She had complained to the landlord about a sewage smell for 6/7 years.
   2. The landlord had been out to the property and said the smell was caused by her washing machine. She replaced her washing machine twice as a result.
   3. The landlord sent a contractor who found broken sewage pipes and was investigating how it would fix the problem.
   4. She said that she had made several reports and complained to the landlord but had not received a stage 1 response.
5. The landlord called the resident on 9 August 2022 and discussed decanting her to allow it to conduct excavation works. It attempted to arrange a convenient date. The parties eventually agreed works could be completed in September 2022, when the resident was on holiday.
6. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 18 August 2022 and asked it to consider the resident’s complaint under its internal complaints procedure. The landlord was asked to provide a response by 2 September 2022.
7. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 24 August 2022. It addressed ongoing drain issues that were unresolved after 6 years. It said:
   1. It was sorry it had not considered major work sooner.
   2. It had contracted surveyors to determine the required works. They would confirm if the resident needed to be decanted.
   3. It agreed to flag this case for review.
   4. If offered £100 as a good will gesture for the inconvenience caused.
8. The resident called the landlord on 13 September 2022. She asked to escalate her complaint. She said the landlord’s goodwill did not reflect the detriment caused. The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the resident the following day. It noted that the resident accepted the goodwill gesture at the time as this was done as an apology. It had not offered for payment as compensation for the past 6 years. It was unsure when the foul smells became apparent and what caused them. The landlord felt it needed to resolve the issues and discuss the decant with her.
9. Between 13 September and 29 October 2022, the landlord explored the scope of the required works. Its communications included the landlord, its contractor, and the resident. In summary, the contractor felt excavation work was required and it would be highly disruptive to the resident. There were discussions around suitable dates for the resident. The landlord investigated the logistics around decanting the resident. The resident was concerned about the landlord’s preferred contractor. On the basis the property’s kitchen had been specially made for her, the resident disputed it needed to be replaced.
10. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 10 October 2022. She said:
    1. She had not been given a stage 2 response.
    2. She refused the landlord’s offer of compensation.
    3. The landlord was planning to start repairs without arranging where she could stay while the works were ongoing.
11. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 25 October 2022 and asked it to consider the resident’s complaint under its internal complaints procedure. The landlord was asked to provide a response by 8 November 2022.
12. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 8 November 2022. It said it had met the resident on 18 October 2022 to discuss her complaint. It listed the following outstanding issues:
    1. It had not understood the resident’s health issues and the difficulties involved with a decant.
    2. Its contractor had been unclear about the necessary repairs.
    3. The resident had lost confidence in the contractor.
    4. The resident was concerned her kitchen would be damaged.
    5. The resident wanted to direct and monitor the work, as well as stipulate the contractor used in relation to her kitchen.
13. The landlord set the following proposals to resolve the complaint:
    1. It agreed to postpone the works “until spring” as the resident had a planned operation.
    2. It would fully investigate the available decant options, which included moving the resident to one of her carer’s homes. If possible, the landlord would complete the work without moving the resident.
    3. Once it had established what work was required a programme would be put in place. It would consider compensation once work was complete.
    4. It would investigate how it could store and refit the kitchen once work was complete. Its own contractor would do this work.
    5. It could not allow the resident to manage the contracted work. However, it would consult and communicate with her.
    6. There were delays identifying the underlying issues. The landlord increased its compensation award to £250 to acknowledge the inconvenience caused. It said that it would review this offer once the outstanding work had been agreed and completed.
    7. It said it would contact the resident once the work was agreed to ensure that she was comfortable with the proposals.
14. Following the stage 2 response the landlord arranged a further drain survey in November 2022. It asked the contractor to complete a camera survey and report back any issues causing the smell. The results from the survey stated, “the drains are definitely not damaged or collapsed” and they “wouldn’t have been causing the smell the lady keeps reporting”. After speaking to the resident about the survey, it agreed to put on hold further work until after April 2023.
15. On 10 May 2023 the landlord spoke to the resident about the drain survey. She said she was fed up and was “spending a fortune using a bottle of drain cleaner weekly”. She referred to the previous agreement and was anxious about the work required.
16. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s actions and raised a case to the Ombudsman on 24 May 2023.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedures

17. The landlord’s repair policy shows that it is responsible for internal services, including plumbing. It provides timescales for repairs which include:
    1. Non-emergencies:
       1. Appointment made based on availability and the convenience of the resident, within 60 days. Where a repair requires extensive work and or replacement of components. It is likely to require a further appointment which will be arranged directly with the resident. It could be an additional 60 days or longer to complete.
    2. Major Repairs:
       1. Where the extent of a repair is significant, requires extensive investigation, high value and/or replicated across many properties. It may elect to undertake the work as part of a planned programme under its investment policy. Where Major works are undertaken these will be completed where possible within 120 days.
18. The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. It acknowledges complaints within 2 working days and provides response at stage 1 within 5 working days and stage 2 within 15 working days. It may extend each stage by 5 working days with the agreement of the complainant.

Handling of repairs to remedy a sewer smell coming into the property

19. The evidence shows that the resident reported foul smells from 2012. The reports were infrequent until 25 May 2021 when the landlord began a more extensive investigation into the cause. It responded timely to each report in line with its policy. The reports centred around the kitchen and bathroom sink areas.
20. Email and call logs show the resident became increasingly frustrated with the landlord and its contractors. The number of appointments and conflicting advice she was given caused unreasonable distress and inconvenience. She replaced the washing machine twice and began pouring drain cleaner into the waste regularly. She took considerable time and trouble reporting the repair and providing access to the property.
21. The repair history shows that the landlord initially considered the internal pipework as the cause of the smell. It referred to issues with the kitchen pipes and the plumbing around the washing machine waste. Most operatives felt the problem related to the pipework around the kitchen sink. The records are unclear if the landlord conducted any work to replace or repair the pipework under the sink. They do show the landlord referred to officers being unable to witness the smell and made offers to keep the jobs “on call” so that it could. This was reiterated at several stages by the landlord and reportedly refused by the resident. The records show the landlord responded to reports each time they were made and offered reasonable adjustments to identify the cause.
22. Although there was considerable time taken to investigate and find a solution to the issue, the landlord appropriately sought assistance from qualified sources. It arranged for CCTV drain surveys that provided contradictory advice. Some found the drain was clear and had no defects. Some found broken sewage pipes underneath the property. One made recommendations to excavate inside the property to investigate the problem. The landlord acted on the advice given each time and communicated regularly with the resident regarding the findings. It treated the resident fairly and made reasonable adjustments to allow it to complete work suggested by contractors.
23. The landlord frequently told the resident throughout its investigation that it would review the compensation offer once it fully understood the level of repairs. It contacted the resident following the involvement of the Ombudsman in September 2023. It arranged to meet her on 6 October 2023 and agreed to a further survey of the drains. The final survey on 24 October 2023 did not detect a foul smell, but it noted some points that could cause one. It offered to pay the resident £2000 in compensation. This was £500 plus the costs incurred buying washing machines and a bottle of bleach per week for 7 years. It determined that work could be done to rectify the issue without excavation of the kitchen. It scheduled the work to start on 3 January 2024 to eliminate any potential cause.
24. The Ombudsman finds the offer of redress made by the landlord resolved the handling of repairs to remedy a sewage smell satisfactorily. This determination is made in view of the actions taken by the landlord to put things right for the resident. It worked to identify and resolve this issue when reports became more frequent in May 2021. It provided responses in line with the timescales set out in its repair policy and worked with the resident accounting for her vulnerabilities. Its offer of compensation is reflective of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

25. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure, good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.
26. The landlord’s complaint response at stage 1 provided a reasonable amount of detail. It offered an apology for the time it took to consider if major work was required and £100 as a good will gesture. The compensation offered was not proportionate of the time and trouble caused to the resident.
27. The resident had to take additional time and trouble seeking help to resolve her complaint at both stages. She sought assistance from the Ombudsman and we wrote to the landlord each time before responses were sent.
28. The stage 2 complaint response was sent on 8 November 2022. This was 14 working days after the Ombudsman wrote to it on 25 October 2022. This was also 56 working days after the first request was made. This was an unreasonable delay, as it was more than 41 days over the targets set by its customer feedback policy.
29. The Ombudsman recognised that there was some confusion on behalf of the landlord regarding the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord was in regular contact with the resident following the stage 1 complaint. The records show there were conversations with her about the good will offer it had made. The landlord’s policy states that an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord will be recorded as a complaint. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. Its response to 2 was outside those timeframes.
30. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
31. The stage 2 response was comprehensive and demonstrated areas of learning from outcomes. It offered £250 compensation for inconvenience caused to the resident because of the repair. It said it would review compensation after all work was agreed and the problem resolved. However, it did not refer to the time taken to respond in its complaint handling. It should have addressed the delay in its response.
32. There are gaps in the records related to the complaint handling. There is reference to a visit on 18 October 2022. The Ombudsman has seen no written account of the details discussed during this visit. The landlord should keep clear and accurate records following visits to the resident.
33. The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling. It failed to keep accurate records related to the complaint and did not provide the stage 2 response in line with its own policy and procedures. Additional compensation of £150 should be provided by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling failures
34. The landlord has since acknowledged its failings in correspondence with the Ombudsman. It said that it failed when following up the outstanding actions from the complaint. It has apologised to the resident. It has increased staffing “to ensure closer monitoring of the action plan process.” It has also introduced weekly monitoring meetings to prevent any recurrence.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the failings in its handling of the residents reports of sewage smells.
36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

37. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £150 in compensation for its complaint handling failures.
38. Provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

39. The landlord should:
    1. Review its complaint handling procedures and ensure that its frontline staff can recognise complaints appropriately.
    2. Pay the resident the £2,000 it previously offered for its delayed repairs and the impact of its delays on the resident.