Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202104971)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104971

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

19 September 2023

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 response to the resident’s reported sewage leaks.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives with her partner and has occupied the property, a three- bedroom house, on an assured tenancy, since 19 March 2001. The resident has three adult children living at the property; two with learning difficulties and a third with severe learning difficulties and Asperger’s. The resident has been paying the landlord a water and sewage charge, since May 2018.
On 23 January 2018, a report was made to the landlord, that human waste was coming up through a drain outside the kitchen window. The following day, a drainage company attended the property, and found a blockage. Its job sheet records that flow was restored.
Around August 2018, the resident said her next door neighbour had building work done at their property, which resulted in the waste pipe being broken, and led to sewage backing up and overflowing in to her back garden. This was reported to the landlord on 15 August 2018. The landlord noted that the neighbour had arranged for a private contractor to fix the problem. It also checked the resident’s water was running clean, and told her to make contact again, if there was an issue with their water.
An out of hours call was made on 18 August 2018, in relation to this issue, and the job was referred to a drainage company, who confirmed that the drain was plunged.
A further report was made about sewage leaking from a drain in the back garden, on 13 December 2018. It was logged as an emergency repair the same day, and referred to a drainage company. On 14 December, the drainage company attended and its job sheet states, “Investigated for blockage found all facilities working manhole empty. Signs of manhole blocked but free flowing now. No blockage found. Flow restored.”
The resident reported an issue with the drain again, on 25 January 2019. The drainage company attended the following day, and the flow was restored. A further report was made on 5 April and someone attended the same day, with the following being recorded, “Plunged to clear. Possible defect. Flow restored.”
On 15 May the resident reported that the drain in the back garden was spilling sewage. It was noted a drainage company had attended on numerous occasions and had recommended a camera be used. However, nothing had happened since. The landlord recorded it as an emergency job, for the drainage company to attend, but asked a named member of staff to follow up on arranging for a camera to be used. The following day, the resident told the landlord that the drainage company had attended and found a fault, but needed to reattend with a stronger camera. This was confirmed by the drainage company with the landlord; however, a further visit with a stronger camera was not arranged.
On 30 July, the resident reported an ongoing issue with the drainage at the neighbour’s property, which was causing problems with their drains. The resident said she had contacted Environmental Health, and it had said the issue should be reported to the water company. Environmental Health noted the water company was trying to get on to the neighbour’s land to serve a notice, and if this could not be achieved, it would need to obtain a warrant. The resident asked if the landlord could provide some support. There is no evidence the landlord responded.
The water company visited the property on 12 August 2019, to carry out a CCTV survey. The water company attended the property again on 7 September 2019 and noted that the blockage had cleared. However, it was recorded that there was clear evidence of there having been a blockage, and it was likely caused by a severe defect in the pipe “about 5.8m downstream”. It said nearby sewers needed to be checked and it was rodded to clear with a defect at 9m. A “daily look and lift job” was raised, although there is no evidence to show this was followed up, or that the resident was updated.
On 8 October 2019, the resident and her partner gave authority for an advice service to liaise with the landlord and the water company, on their behalf, over the issues they were having at the property. The same day, the advice service made enquiries with the landlord about why the situation was unresolved.
The landlord also received a call from the advice service on behalf of the resident that day, and referred the matter to its legal team. An internal email sent by landlord staff following that call, on 9 October 2019, records the following points were discussed:
1. The issue had been going on since 18 August 2018
2. A drain company was sent out on 25 January 2019, 5 April 2019 and 15 May 2019.
3. Environmental Health had been involved.
4. The drainage company and water company had established the problem originated from the neighbouring private property.
5. The water company had served a notice on the neighbour’s property, either to request that the resident fix the problem or allow access for the water company to fix it.
6. No action had been taken to date and the resident was still getting sewage in the garden.
7. If no action was taken, the resident would go to the press.
8. The resident had a disabled daughter who was in distress because of the issue.
9. It was felt the landlord was responsible for ensuring the resident’s garden was free of raw sewage; therefore, it should push the water company for a resolution.
The landlord’s internal email concluded by acknowledging it owed “a duty to its tenants to ensure that the property is in good repair and to take any necessary steps to assist a tenant where possible”.
The landlord received a further email from the advice service on 9 October 2019, which said:
1. The resident had been contacted by Environmental Health the day before and it had “once again put a camera down the pipes”. It said the blockage was worse than when it was inspected four weeks earlier.
2. The resident had been contacted by someone linked to the water company. They had advised that they had contacted the resident’s neighbour, and that they needed access to her pipes. The resident was unsure as to why.
3. They had been told a legal resolution could take about six or seven months.
4. The situation was causing the resident stress; that her partner’s blood pressure medication had been increased and her daughter, who has Aspergers, was being affected as she could not go into the garden as it was not fit for use.
5. The resident was told by the water company in July 2019 that although the neighbour was ignoring their correspondence, eventually it would be able to access the property and fix the pipes. Since then, the water company had not told the resident anything due to date protection regulations and they were unhappy as they were paying rent and water bills but not receiving a full service.
The landlord sent a brief response to the advice service, on 9 October, and a full reply on 10 October 2019. In the email, it said:
1. It had contacted the water company, and it said the last report received for the resident’s property was on 3 June 2019.
2. At a visit on 7 September 2019, it noted a blockage caused by a severe defect in the pipe approximately 5.8m downstream, so access was needed from the neighbouring property. This was refused, so attempts were made to try and gain access from another neighbour.
3. The water company had posted a data protection check and a S159 Notice to the other neighbour, and it had scheduled to issue the S159 on 18 October 2019 to both the neighbouring properties, giving seven days’ notice to access the property under its statutory powers.
4. If responses from the neighbours were not received in time, the water company’s legal team would look in to the matter, and it had a turnaround time of 30 days.
5. It had enquired whether the water company could expedite an injunction to access the neighbouring properties. However, it advised that the court would not grant an injunction if the above process was not followed first. In the mean-time it could carry out temporary fixes as needed, on the basis of a 72 hour turnaround.
6. It sympathised with the resident’s position, but as the neighbouring properties were privately owned, its hands were tied in respect of access, and it was the water company’s role to enforce access; however, it would continue to liaise with the water company.
On 7 November 2019, an internal email was sent by the landlord’s staff, which mentioned that the resident was meant to meet with the advice service again on 22 October, but it had not heard anything further. In the meantime, it had updated the local council and it was noted that as landlord, it should carry out any temporary fixes needed. Either that, or it should refer issues to the water company, as it was the water company that responsible for rectifying the issue, but it was its resident that was being negatively affected.
The landlord discussed the matter internally over 14 and 15 November and noted:
1. The resident had attempted to obtain an update from the water company; however, they had been told no information could be provided, due to data protection regulations.
2. The resident felt they should not have to pay full rent for a property that they were unable to fully use.
3. The landlord called the water company that morning and was told it had gained access to the neighbouring property on 6 November 2019. A CCTV survey was carried out and had not identified any defects, damage or blockages in the pipe. The landlord informed the water company that this contradicted previous visits, and the matter should be referred to a technical specialist at the water company, and its legal team notified.
4. It considered the resident was concerned about a lack of contact. As such, it proposed to contact the resident that day to update her, and explain what it intended to do.
5. It noted that while the water company was responsible for the repair, the resident was suffering with sewage. It recommended having regular contact with the water company to get a swift resolution and to carry out temporary measures, such as monitoring and cleaning the area until the water company could carry out a permanent fix.
The landlord tried to speak with the resident soon after; however, it was noted that it was unable to make contact. The landlord had agreed to raise works to remove raw waste from the garden, and would push the water company to resolve the issue and monitor the situation via visits.
On 19 November 2019, the advice service attempted to speak with the landlord but was unsuccessful. The landlord spoke with the drainage company on 25 November and was informed it was due to visit the property, the following Wednesday, and would send a copy of its report, once completed. The visit took place on 27 November 2019 and a copy of the drainage company’s report, was sent to the landlord, on 2 December 2019. It said there was a defect on the bottom of the pipework at 3.55 metres and at 8.16 metres, there was broken pipework. It noted no further access could be gained. The report recommended an excavation to renew the damaged pipework. It said the repair at 8.16 metres was located in the next property, which it believed was private.
An internal email sent between landlord’s staff on 27 November, refers to environmental health making contact, to check if it was completing works at the property. A survey took place that day, which recorded damaged pipe work at 3.66 and 8.16 metres down.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 December 2019. It said:
1. It had received the drainage CCTV from the drainage company who had reported there were no major defects within its property boundary.
2. It was reported however, that there was a defect in the neighbouring property; although the water company had sent specialists to the properties previously and found the drains to be free flowing.
3. If the issues continued, and if there was a continuing problem with sewage, the resident should report the matter to the water company. It provided her with details of how to do this.
4. The landlord also explained it had arranged for any excess waste from the garden to be cleared so it would be closing the complaint. A call was made the same day, to the advice service, to update it of the position.
On 10 December 2019, the resident’s representative from the advice service, wrote to Environmental Health about the problems the resident had been having with the leak at the property. A letter dated 16 December 2019, from the resident’s partner’s GP says, he was “under significant stress due to an issue with the drainage. This had adversely effected (sic) his blood pressure control and diabetes.”
It is unclear what happened in 2020. However, the landlord has it recorded that on 15 February 2021, an emergency job was carried out, due to a drain cover lifting in the garden, as a result of a blocked sewer.
On 23 February 2021, the advice service on behalf of the resident, wrote to the landlord setting out the background to the problem with the drain, and said it was seeking compensation for the resident.
On 13 April 2021, the resident’s representative from the advice service, made a complaint to the landlord, on behalf of the resident. It set out the background to the issues at the property, and said:
1. The resident’s complaint was that “if the landlord had helped her and not insisted the responsibility of [the water company] two years ago a lot of time and stress could have been saved.”
2. As the resident paid the landlord for sewage, she could not claim compensation from the water company.
3. It felt that legal action could have been taken against the neighbour. Alternatively, the landlord could have worked with Environmental Health and issued the appropriate Notice to the neighbour, in order to get the pipe repaired.
4. The resident and her family were vulnerable; that two children had learning disabilities and a third had severe learning disabilities. They found it hard to understand why they could not use the garden. In addition, the resident was dyslexic, and her husband had had to have his blood pressure medication increased due to the stress.
5. An offer of £500 compensation had been made by the landlord, (which the landlord does not deny but has no evidence of) but the resident was rejecting it.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response, on 19 May 2021. It is noted that the resident did not receive this letter. However, within its correspondence, the landlord said it had reviewed its actions at stage one, but its offer of £500 would not be increased. It went on to say, “One of the overarching factors is the damage which was caused by next door. This damaged wasn’t caused by [landlord], and when the damage was caused, [landlord] acted appropriately.” It said it could not be held accountable for sewage from the neighbouring property and it did request updates from the water company, but due to date protection regulations, its request was denied.
The landlord has records showing on 30 June a blockage in the drain at the property was explored, but the work could not be completed. A job created for the following day was cancelled by the resident, and it was rearranged for 2 July 2021. A further blockage was reported/treated, on 9 July 2021.
On 19 July 2021, the landlord received an email from the resident’s MP’s Office, acknowledging the offer made, and asking it to work with the resident in order to reach a solution. It acknowledged the correspondence on 22 July and explained a stage two response to the complaint, had been sent to the resident in May, and it provided a copy.
On receipt of the MP’s correspondence, the landlord made the decision to re-open the complaint.
The landlord wrote to the MP’s office on 30 July 2021 and explained:
1. The issue with the sewage had been going on for a number of years and while it accepted it affected the resident, the issue originated from the neighbour’s property which it did not own.
2. Despite repeated efforts to get information from the water company, it could not provide updates due to data protection regulations, as the property with the issue was owned by someone else. This was the same issue the resident had.
3. Although it had no control or influence over the repair, it acted appropriately by arranging for sewage to be dealt with when it did overflow in to the resident’s garden.
4. It offered a payment of £500 as a good will payment for disruption caused, although the liability lay with the neighbour.
On 3 August 2021, the resident’s MP emailed the landlord. They explained the resident’s main concern was that when the issue was referred to the water company, and she tried to claim compensation from them, she was told they were not liable. That was because she had not been paying for sewage/waste. Had that been established earlier, the landlord could have taken action sooner, rather than just refer it to the water company to resolve. The landlord said on 5 August 2021, that it would look in to this point.
The landlord notified the MP, on 18 August 2021, that it was looking in to what charges had been made, in relation to sewage. This was acknowledged by the MP, the following day.
The MP chased an update on 8 September 2021, and the landlord responded to the resident’s MP on 10 September 2021, and said although the resident had paid a sewage charge, it did not believe it owed her compensation, as the issue did not lie with her own water supply. That the issue was outside of its control and it took steps to mitigate the damage and affect the resident. It would not therefore, increase the compensation offered.
On 13 September 2021, the MP wrote to the landlord. They said, time and stress could have been saved, had it not insisted that the problem was the responsibility of the water company. That was because the water company would not speak to the resident about the issue.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 September 2021, acknowledging correspondence from their MP. It said:
1. It did not assume any liability for the cause of the interference with the use of the resident’s garden. However, it was willing to offer the sum of £750.
2. This sum was offered as a gesture of goodwill in “exceptional circumstances”.
3. It considered it had acted swiftly and correctly in response to the resident’s reports and therefore believed it had offered a good service throughout.
The offer was sent to the MP, in order to put to the resident. She was given 28 days to make a decision.
On 30 September 2021, the advice service, wrote to the landlord. It said the resident was minded to accept the offer; however, there had been further flooding at the property and a maintenance company had said the sleeve of the waste pipe needed replacing. If the sleeve was replaced, the resident would accept the offer of compensation.
The landlord responded the following day, and confirmed that it was looking into the matter to see whether a quote could be obtained for the works. It agreed to keep the resident updated. It added that it was also in discussion with its legal team regarding the works to the neighbouring property.
A letter from the drainage company to the landlord dated 7 October 2021, refers to it having visited the resident’s property on 4 October, to carry out a CCTV survey of the drains. It said, “The survey revealed a blister and an open joint. The engineer was unable to push camera to the manhole next-door due to a displacement. We recommend that two engineers return to site to remove the blisters from the pipe work & then install a structural liner to repair the pipe.” The estimated cost was £1,200 plus VAT.
The landlord considered the quote provided by the drainage complaint. It also wrote to the resident to explain that the drainage company would need access to her property as well as her neighbour’s to complete the work. It added that its legal team was still considering what options were available to it, and it would keep the resident updated. The landlord subsequently wrote to the neighbour towards the end of November and explained that it would be willing to arrange the repair and would contribute 40% towards the cost.
On 8 December 2021, engineers returned to site to remove the blisters from the pipe work and then install a structural liner to repair the pipe.
On 16 May 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and explained it had reviewed its previous stage two complaint response. Having done so, it noted:
1. The resident’s frustration at the situation and that their children could not use the garden.
2. The drainage company attended the property five times, before identifying the issue originated from the neighbour’s property. The water company also attended five times before it said a legal route was needed in order to obtain access to the neighbour’s property, and that could take seven months.
3. The resident had contacted an advice service and Environmental Health for assistance who both said a Section 159 Notice could have been served by the water company, in order to obtain access to repair the pipe.
4. Although it had limited powers to act, it did try and find a resolution to the matter, and looked at alternative access routes, as well as offering to pay 40% of the neighbour’s costs to fix the pipe; which was refused by the neighbour.
5. In December 2021, it arranged for the pipe to be repaired at its own expense, having been granted access by the neighbour.
6. The resident had already been paid £750; however, it was prepared to pay a further £750 as a gesture of goodwill, and to reflect the time the resident was impacted by what happened.
7. It could have been firmer in persuading the water company to issue the Section 159 Notice and it had noted this in order to improve in the future.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The Tenancy Agreement and relevant statute

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Tenancy Agreement state the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair, the structure and exterior of the property, including drains, gutters and external pipes.
The Tenancy Agreement also says the landlord was responsible for keeping in good repair, waste pipes.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy says “We give all responsive repairs a priority based on urgency and risk. We will always consider a customer’s vulnerability and information given to us at the time of reporting a repair when deciding how quickly we need to respond. A responsive repair is work:
1. generated from contact with a resident, or other interested party, identifying an issue with their home.
2. that’s usually of a minor nature to an existing feature, or element of the home, to make sure it continues to work or function.
3. in some cases, it can become a task to replace a feature or element, and still be undertaken within our responsive repair service.”
For emergency repairs, it says, “We’ll attend an emergency repair the same day where feasible, but always within 24 hours, regardless of the day of the week or time of day. As a minimum, we’ll make safe all emergency and out of hours jobs. Where this occurs, we’ll return to complete any required follow-on works at an agreed appointed time”. It also says, “From time to time, mainly as a result of our responsive repairs activity, we’ll identify major works to individual homes.”
A Section 159 Notice under the Water Industry Act 1991, is given in order for work to be done to “inspect, maintain, adjust, repair or alter any relevant pipe which is in any such land”, and to carry out works.
The landlord’s Complaints Policy up to November 2020 states that the landlord would take steps to resolve the issue “there a then”. It adds that it will not close a case until it had tried everything that it believed it could reasonably have done. It would also look at the cause of the issue so it could stop it happening again. It goes on to say – “If a customer isn’t happy with our response or how we’ve dealt with a problem, we’ll review it to check we’ve been reasonable, and make sure we’ve focused on getting a reasonable solution. We’ll also look at how we handled things and how long it took to reply to the customer.”
The landlord’s Complaints Policy from November 2020 until January 2022 said,
1. “When a customer tells us about an issue, we’ll try to sort it out there and then.
2. We’ll be reasonable and try to make sure it doesn’t end in a complaint.
3. We expect, and empower, everyone to do what they can to prioritise the issues our customers face and to fix them as quickly as possible.
4. We won’t close a complaint until we’ve tried everything that we believe we could reasonably have done to resolve it.
5. We’ll also look at the cause of the issue so we can stop it happening again.
6. If we receive a complaint relating to safeguarding, we’ll follow the steps set out in our safeguarding policy to address it.”
It goes on to say, “If a customer isn’t happy with our response or how we’ve dealt with a problem, we’ll review it to check we’ve been reasonable, and make sure we’ve focused on getting a reasonable solution. We’ll also look at how we handled things and how long it took to reply to the customer. When we carry out reviews, these will be overseen by the Director responsible for the service.”

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of sewage leaks.

The resident has provided a statement from their partner’s GP regarding the impact the situation has had on his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident and GP’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s partner’s health. Therefore, the resident and her partner may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.
The landlord had an obligation to act upon reports from the resident about sewage leaks at the property. The evidence shows it complied with that, by arranging for a drainage company to attend in response to each report that it received. The evidence provided to this service shows that each time the drainage company attended, the blockage had either already cleared, or was cleared. Therefore, it deemed the issue resolved, so there was no further action for the landlord to follow up on. However, after several reports, from August 2018 onwards, it was becoming apparent, there was a recurring issue that needed to be addressed.
When there were further issues at the property, in May 2019, the landlord appropriately raised an emergency job for a drainage company to explore the issue further, using a camera. It also noted to follow this up. The drainage company did attend the property, but it is noted a bigger camera was needed. The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord arranged for this within a reasonable time. However, it is noted that the water company had advised around the same time that it would be investigating the issue. The landlord made the resident aware that the water company may need to serve a Section 159 Notice on the neighbour, in order to access their property and investigate or repair the sewage pipe. It was appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident of the potential action that may be required to complete the repair in order to manage her expectations. While it is acknowledged that the resident was frustrated by the situation, much of it was outside of the landlord’s control.
It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings and proposed course of action of the drainage company and water company. In this case, the water company found defects in the sewage pipe in August 2019 and the landlord accepted it had a duty to the resident to ensure that the property was in good repair and to take any necessary steps to assist the resident where possible.
The evidence shows that the landlord continued to liaise with the water company and was committed to finding out what the cause of the problem was, and what could be done as a solution. The evidence also shows that the landlord was transparent when relaying its findings and proposed course of action with the resident. On the whole, the landlord took a proactive approach in working with the relevant agencies to try to establish the cause of the sewage leak. However, it is noted that the landlord did not always communicate with the resident and keep her updated. As a result, there were periods when she was not always aware of what action, if any, was being taken to try and permanently remedy the problem. That the landlord did not do so was a failing in its handling of the matter. This was particularly important as the water company would not share information with the resident, due to data protection reasons, and this was a vulnerable family with children that had health issues, and they were prevented from being able to use their garden. Something the resident’s representative, an advice service, had made the landlord aware of.
It is unclear why the landlord did not liaise with the water company sooner. However, it is noted that this may not have resulted in the matter being resolved any sooner owing to the issue of obtaining access to the neighbouring property. There is little available information to establish what, if anything, happened between December 2019 and February 2021.
From February 2021, through to when the repair was completed in December 2021, the landlord was proactive in its communication with the resident. It liaised with the resident’s representative and her MP, and kept each party updated about the action it was taking. It recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident and offered a goodwill payment to the resident of £500, which was then increased to £750. It also arranged for the drainage company to visit the property again in October 2021. The survey identified how the pipe could be repaired and on 24 November 2021, and attempted to get the neighbour to again contribute to the cost of the work, but managed to fix the problem in December 2021.
The landlord responded to the resident’s reports promptly, and it is noted that there were aspects relating to the situation that were outside of its control. However, it would have been reasonable for it to adopt a proactive approach. It allowed the water company to take responsibility for dealing with the matter, when the drains and any private sewers which carry household waste are normally the householder’s (or the landlord’s) responsibility, up to the point they connect with the public sewers. It also did not keep the resident regularly informed about what action was being taken to resolve the problem. Even if data protection regulations were a stumbling block, this should have been explained to the resident and a plan put in place in order to ensure the repair was still going to be addressed. That said, it is recognised that the landlord acknowledged during the complaints process, that it could have done more to chase up the Section 159 Notice and been firmer with the water company.
Although the issue was ongoing for three years, in 2018 the landlord attended each report of a blockage and took action to satisfy itself that it had cleared. Towards the end of 2019 it was considered that the problem may lay within next door’s boundary. There was subsequently an absence of reporting in 2020 and the situation then escalated in 2021 and the resident began to liaise with the advice service. At this point the landlord began to engage more frequently with the water company and attempts were made to access next door’s pipework.
Overall, the repair was not the landlord’s obligation as the issue lay within the neighbouring property’s boundary. However, it paid for the works in their entirety to resolve the issue and it therefore resolved the situation for its resident. It also acknowledged the impact on the resident and offered compensation of £750. The landlord then offered an additional £750 compensation in May 2023, having identified areas it could have improved upon. Therefore, making the total compensation offered, £1,500.
The basis on which the landlord made its offers of compensation, could have been clearer; therefore, its communication in that respect fell short. Providing a breakdown of how it had reached its figure would have helped the resident to understand the factors that had been taken into account and how the figure had been reached. A recommendation has been made in relation to this below.
The final amount of compensation offered by the landlord is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s levels of redress. It also takes in to account the time things took to be resolved and recognition of the landlord not having engaged more proactively with the water company earlier. However, it is noted that the final offer was only made after the resident referred her complaint to this service, and a year after the works were completed. Therefore, the Ombudsman is not satisfied the landlord gave adequate and timely consideration to its compensation policy.
Given the failings identified by this investigation, the landlord should pay an additional £200 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The resident raised her complaint, via the advice service on 8 October 2019. The landlord responded on 9 and 10 October. It set out the action it had taken and would be taking. The advice service made further enquiries about the repair in November; and in December 2019 the landlord advised what it would be doing next and said it would be closing the complaint.
The landlord’s current Complaints Policy provides timescales for responding to complaints, but the policy in place at the time the complaints were made, did not. It also did not specifically refer to there being a stage one or stage two. While the landlord’s 10 October 2019 response to the advice service was detailed and said it was treating the issue with importance, it was not clear that it was a response to the complaint. The landlord sent a further response on 4 December 2019, after it was chased for an update. This referred to results from an independent drainage company, and said it was closing down the complaint. However, the letter made no reference to the landlord being open to reviewing the complaint, as per its Complaints Policy, so the resident was left with no idea what she could do, if she remained unhappy.
In addition, the landlord’s Complaints Policy at the time, said it would not close a complaint until it had tried everything that it believed it could reasonably have done to resolve it. However, this is not reflected in the approach it took in December 2019, when it closed the complaint down. The landlord told the resident to report further issues to the water company; but it should have monitored the situation more closely.
Between February and April 2021, the landlord offered the resident £500 compensation. There is a lack of evidence relating to the offer and the landlord has not been able to provide any evidence setting out when it was made or what factors were taken into consideration in reaching the figure. This was inappropriate. It would be reasonable for the landlord to keep a clear record of any compensation offers made as resolution to a complaint. That this information has not been retained is indicative of poor record keeping. The landlord should review its record keeping practices to ensure that similar errors do not occur in the future.
The landlord issued a stage two complaint response, on 19 May 2021. It is unclear why the response was labelled as such given that the landlord’s policy did not refer to such stages at the time. It is noted that the resident did not receive this letter, and has highlighted that the postcode was incomplete. It is unclear why the full details were not included on the correspondence. It is also unclear why a copy was not provided to the advice service given that the landlord had been liaising with it. In any event, consideration has to be given as to the reasonableness of the time taken to respond, and the landlord’s reply took 60 working days to be sent, from the 23 February 2021. This is unreasonable, when it was evident the resident remained unhappy and wanted her complaint escalated.
In the letter, the landlord said it had reviewed its actions at stage one, but its offer of £500 would not be increased. This was on the basis that it was not responsible for the damage and could not be held accountable for sewage from the neighbouring, private property. While the landlord was limited in what it could do to resolve the issue, it failed to identify the delay in dealing with the escalated complaint, and consider the impact on the resident.
The landlord was then contacted by the resident’s MP on 18 July 2021. It recorded on 28 July, that the complaint had been reopened under stage two. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to reconsider its position; however, it’s approach was not in line with its Complaints Policy. The landlord then liaised with the MP, but did not contact the resident until 24 September 2021, when it then increased its goodwill offer to £750. According to the landlord’s Complaints Policy at the time, a review was to be overseen by a director; however, an operations manager provided the response, and no evidence has been provided to show that a director did oversee the response. This is a further example of the landlord not followings its Complaints Policy. However, the evidence does not suggest that the resident was inconvenienced or put at a disadvantage because of the landlord’s handling.
The landlord’s overall handling of the complaint was inappropriate. While the landlord did offer the resident some compensation, this not does cover the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified by this investigation. Further compensation has therefore been ordered. An order has also been made to ensure that similar complaint handling errors are not made in the future.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect resident’s concern over the landlord’s handling of reported sewage leaks.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to proactively seek input from the water company and update the resident on action taken.
The landlord did not deal with the complaint in accordance with its Complaints Policy, or the Code and the resident was caused additional inconvenience, time and trouble as a result.
The landlord delayed increasing its offer of compensation to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £2,200 broken down as follows:
  1. £1,500 compensation that was offered prior to the Ombudsman’s investigation (if not already paid).
  2. Pay a further £200 compensation due to its failure to consider offering additional compensation promptly.
  3. £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its complaint handling.
2. Carry out training for all staff that deal with complaints, to ensure they are aware that any action taken when dealing with complaints, is in accordance with its policy.

Recommendations

Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Review its Complaint Policy against the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and provide training to relevant staff, in order to recognise when a complaint is being made and the timescales it should be adhering to, when acknowledging and responding.
2. Review its compensation policy to ensure both its staff and its residents understand how compensation is calculated.
3. Review its record keeping, when it comes to dealing with complaints, and provide staff training to all staff involved in managing complaints.