Thurrock Council (202016111)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016111

Thurrock Council

29 April 2022

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 regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of a roof leak.
2. Reports of a drainage issue in her kitchen.
The Ombudsman has made a finding regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a Local Authority. She had resided at the property since February 2012.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy outlines the different response target times for repairs that it deems to be ‘Emergency’ (24 hours), ‘Urgent’ (five working days) or ‘Routine’ (twenty working days).
At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a three-stage complaints procedure. However, it is noted that this was changed to a two-stage complaint process in 2020 and any new complaints received after October 2020 were now responded to under the new procedures.

Summary of Events

The landlord wrote to the resident to provide a Stage One complaint response on 25 September 2020, which it stated was in response to complaint form submitted by the resident on 16 September 2020. This Service has not seen a copy of the form or details of the resident’s original complaint.
The landlord wrote that it understood the resident’s complaint to be about “water ingress in to your property” and advised it had “thoroughly investigated” her complaint. It made the following findings:
1. Its repair records showed that a surveyor had inspected her property in December 2019 following reports of “ongoing water ingress in to the kitchen”. It advised it could not find any “viable indicators” during the inspection and the surveyor had told the resident that a further visit would be needed from its contractor’s plumbing service who would “attempt to trace and rectify the reported leak”.
2. A joint inspection was arranged for February 2020, but the landlord and its contractor were reportedly unable to gain access and left a card requesting the resident contact to rearrange the inspection. However, it noted “no further contact was made in relation to this matter until receipt of your complaint”.
3. Following her complaint, the landlord noted it had arranged a further joint inspection (between the landlord and a plumber from its contractor) for 7 October 2020, when it would “inspect the affected area, and attempt to identify the causes of the issues being experienced”. It advised it would raise any “remedial repairs required” following the inspection.
Records show that the landlord provided a further complaint response at Stage Two of its complaints procedure on 8 December 2020. Again, this Service has not seen details of any escalation request from the resident or when this was made. After conduction a further review, the landlord noted the following:
1. The inspection it had referred to in its Stage One response, due to take place on 7 October 2020, had been rearranged due to concerns over a member of the resident’s family contracting Covid-19. The inspection was rearranged for 17 November 2020.
2. It advised that, following the inspection and “enquiries and further review by our Technical services team”, it determined the “issues being experienced” appeared to be down to her washing machine being located too far from the main soil pipe and this caused problems with waste water not draining away. It noted the resident and her representative disputed these findings.
3. It stated that a “request” for a CCTV survey to “confirm the above findings” had been raised and that its contractor would contact the resident to arrange an appointment. It clarified that, once it received the survey results, it would raise any additional works identified as being required.
4. It clarified that it not upholding the resident’s complaint as it had not been able to “identify a service failure”.
On 22 March 2021, this Service wrote to the landlord following contact from the resident, who had advised that she had submitted several complaints regarding a leak from her washing machine that was affecting her kitchen. She outlined that she wanted to “not have her washing machine moved” or for there to be a “big gap in her kitchen”, and to have her kitchen repaired and “the drainage resolved”. Records show that the landlord issued its Stage Three complaint response on 14 April 2021. In its response, the landlord noted that it understood the resident had raised concerns “in relation to your washing machine leaking and the effect this had had on your kitchen” and a “delay in roof repairs”.
In its response, the landlord noted that:
1. The resident’s complaint had been “rejected at Stage Two” but that it had now “reviewed the history of your case together with any additional information” she had provided.
2. It believed its actions had been “robust”, that her complaint had been dealt with appropriately and therefore concluded that there were “no further concerns…which justify the need for an independent investigation at Stage 3”.
3. Regarding the roof repair, it advised the resident had “raised the issue with the Surveyor”, although it did not specify when, and that the Surveyor had been “proactive in arranging the repairs” and they would “arrange for a works order to be raised to investigate the roof leak”. However, it went on to note that “upon investigating…further, it was identified that (our contractor) had already attended on 16 November 2020 to assess the roof”. It stated that “repairs identified as required” were then completed in December 2020.
4. The landlord advised that its surveyor “categorically denied” advising the resident to use an umbrella indoors in regards to the roof leak. It noted that the resident had advised the surveyor that “this incident arose from interactions with someone previously attending the property” but that she could not provide further details. It advised it was “therefore satisfied with the actions of the authority and the surveyor” regarding the roof repair.
The resident contacted this Service the following day to advise she considered the landlord had not addressed the concerns she had raised, specifically in relation to the drainage issues affecting her washing machine.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a roof leak

The landlord’s repair policy outlines that it aims to respond to ‘urgent’ repairs within five working days. Its policy lists “leaking roof” as being an urgent repair.
Landlord repair records indicate that a repair order was raised on or just after 23 December 2019 to “carry out repair to leaking area of roof”, following an inspection at the property. It noted that scaffolding was required to access this area and that the leak was affecting the resident’s bathroom. An order to “cary out repairs to any type of flat roof area as required to ensure area is weatherproof; including repair patch…on felt roofing system or asphalt roof finish” was raised and shown as being completed by 26 March 2020. However, this was three months after the initial inspection. This Service has not seen any further information regarding the repair that was carried out, but this suggests there was a delay in completing the repair as the job was closed outside of both the landlord’s ‘urgent’ or even ‘routine’ timescales. This amounts to service failure.
Repair records show that there was subsequently an emergency Out of Hours call out on 16 November 2020, during which a request to “please make bathroom ceiling safe, bits falling into bath due to leak from roof above” was raised. Records show that a follow-on order was raised the following day to “check roof for defects – leak affecting bathroom ceiling” and on 25 November 2020, further repair orders were raised for a scaffold tower and with codes relating to felt roofing. While the information available indicates that the landlord acted appropriately after receiving the initial report, raising an Out of Hours emergency order and promptly following-up in the days after, specific details of the defect that was identified and the precise repairs that were carried out to the roof have not been outlined in either the information provided to this Service or within the landlord’s complaint responses to the resident. This is not appropriate and means that the landlord is not able to provide a comprehensive explanation of the steps it took to resolve the issue.
Landlord correspondence shows that it updated the resident’s representative on 2 December 2020 and advised that its contractor had “found the defect which is causing the leak” and that the works raised had a target date of 23 December 2020. Records show that the resident’s Local Councillor contacted the landlord on the same day and advised that it was unacceptable to leave the resident that length of time with a leaking roof. The landlord responded the following day and advised the works had been raised as a ‘routine’ repair and therefore had a twenty working day target but that an appointment had been made for 21 December 2020. It advised this was due to “various factors, including subcontractor availability”. However, it is not clear if the resident was also informed of this and kept updated as to the reasons for any delay.
In itself the explanation about contractor availability was reasonable – and this Service is mindful of the fact that, at this particular time, services were affected by knock-on effects from the coronavirus pandemic and association lockdowns – but it is not clear why the repair was deemed ‘routine’ rather than ‘urgent’ as per the landlord’s repair policy. While this might have been reasonable if the roof had been made temporarily weatherproof ahead of remedial repairs, it is noted that the landlord advised the Councillor that, “if in the meantime the resident experiences further water ingress as a result of rainfall” she should report this to its contractor who would “re-attend on an emergency with a view to making safe and containing…water as much as possible, pending the completion of the remedial works”. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the landlord appears to have accepted that the resident’s property was liable to further leaks “as a result of rainfall”, during the winter months, and she was expected to raise an emergency repair order if her property was while she awaited further works. This was not appropriate and amounted to service failure by the landlord.
A different Local Councillor contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident on 9 March 2021 to advise that the resident had advised she had “a hole in her roof” and that her “bathroom gets wet when it rains”. The landlord responded on 18 March 2021 and advised that its contractor had carried out repair works to the roof on 21 December 2020 and since that time, “there have been no further reports of water ingress”. It advised the resident should contact its contractor “in the first instance” if she had “any further issues relating to roof repairs”. While it was reasonable for the landlord to advise of the works it had done, and this Service has not seen any evidence that the resident submitted further reports between December 2020 and March 2021, to be proactive to this situation, the landlord could have considered raising a further inspection after receiving the reports from the Councillor, to check that the repairs it carried out in December 2020 had fully resolved the issue.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of drainage issues in her kitchen

Landlord repair logs indicate that it carried out a considerable amount of repair work between July and September 2018 to resolve drainage issues that were affecting the resident’s kitchen. These included carrying out CCTV surveys, re-arranging kitchen units and further inspections and clearances of stacks. However, records show the resident reported similar issues again in August 2019, advising that they were “experiencing the issue again when it rains”. An inspection was carried out on 27 August 2019, following which orders were raised to “check rain water gulleys and clear the WHB (wash hand basin) in the bathroom”. Repair logs show that, following an attendance “for blocked basis and to investigate further leaks into property” a recommendation was made for a further CCTV survey and jetting an internal rainwater stack as the resident advised there was flooding through her floor during heavy rainfall. Notes referred to a previous CCTV survey carried out that had been “inconclusive”.
There are no further repair records regarding the issue until December 2020 when the landlord’s surveyor raised an order to “carry out further CCTV drain survey to establish cause of water backing up in washing machine”. In an email to the resident’s representative the surveyor advised that they were “still trying to work out why the washing machine is backing up” and hoped that the survey would “give a clearer picture”. While this shows that the landlord was taking reasonable steps to investigate the issue, the comments made by the surveyor also suggest that the landlord was aware of the issue and investigating the matter. However, this is not reflected in its repair records, so this investigation is not able to establish a clear chain of events and whether the landlord had responded to the matter appropriately and within a reasonable timeframe. This is not appropriate.
While the repair records provided by the landlord do not include further information about the outcome of the CCTV survey and they are not provided to the resident in its Stage Three complaint response, it is noted that in correspondence with a Local Councillor in March 2021, the landlord notes that the survey “confirmed there were no defects identified to the drainage/pipework”. It also outlined, as it had done to the resident in its Stage Two complaint response, that it believed the issues were due to the location of the washing machine, which was “too far from the main soil stack”. It noted the resident disputed this and that it had attempted to contact the resident to “confirm if she now wishes for the recommended works to be completed” but it had not managed to speak to her.
In correspondence with this Service as part of this investigation the landlord has outlined that, following an inspection in November 2020, details of which are not included in the landlord’s repair records, its surveyor recommended moving the washing machine and reconfiguring the resident’s kitchen. It is not clear however exactly when this was recommended and whether the works were proposed within a reasonable time. It is however noted that the landlord advised the resident declined the work. While it is clear the landlord had carried out further appropriate inspections and considered steps to resolve the issue, the lack of available detail again makes it difficult to establish whether its initial response was reasonable.
However, it is noted that, in correspondence with this Service in July 2021, the landlord advised that “it is evidence there are still issues at the property, in regards to the waste draining in the kitchen area” and it had therefore proposed to “undertake a full replacement of the kitchen…(which) will include a new kitchen design and layout being undertake and…we will ensure that current drainage arrangement is reviewed and renewed appropriately, to fully resolved the issue”.
This Service has spoken to the resident, and she has confirmed that the kitchen refurbishment has been completed, barring a couple of minor issues, and that the drainage issue has been resolved, although she was unable to advise when this work was completed. It is positive that the landlord continued to assess the issue and that, on reviewing the situation, considered further works that appear to have finally resolved the matter. However, it is still noted that, while the issue may have been a complex one to resolve, even if carried out in July/August 2021 at the earliest, there was still a significant period of time of over a year and a half between the resident raising the issue again in December 2019 and it being resolved in 2021. This was not appropriate and amounted to service failure as the unresolved issues would clearly have resulted in the resident experiencing distress and inconvenience during this period.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

Records show that the landlord issued its Stage One complaint response on 25 September 2020. Although this Service has not seen a copy of the resident’s original complaint form, the landlord noted that it was submitted on 16 September 2020, meaning that it responded to her complaint promptly. However, as noted above, as this Service has not seen the details of the resident’s original complaint, it is not possible to establish if the landlord addressed the complaint appropriately.
The landlord’s complaint response advised it understood the complaint to be about “water ingress in to your property”. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the information given by the landlord to outline how it responded to these reports is vague and non-specific. It referred to the inspection carried out in December 2019, off the back of which orders were raised for a roof repair and a further inspection was recommended to check the drains regarding the resident’s reported concerns over plumbing and water backing up in her washing machine. However, it confusingly stated that “no viable indicators” could be found during the inspection and that a plumber therefore needed to carry out a further inspection. This is not reflected in the landlord’s repair records and the landlord appears to be conflating the two issues – the roof leak and the reported drainage issues – in its complaint response. This is not appropriate and would likely have left the resident confused and feeling that her concerns had not been properly considered or understood.
The landlord’s response went on to advise that an inspection was booked for 7 October 2020 during which it would “inspect the affected area, and attempt to identify the causes of the issues being experienced”. However, the landlord’s use of language here is vague and does not provide the resident with a clear outline of the issues it would be investigating during the inspection. It would also likely fail to give the resident confidence it fully understood the issues. While it was positive that the landlord did confirm it would carry out a further inspection, the lack of detail regarding the appointment was not appropriate. The landlord should consider the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, which outline the importance of ensuring that decisions made are “clear” and that responses clearly set our reasons for “decisions and any further action to be taken”.
Although it is noted that there was a period of three months between the landlord’s Stage One and Stage Two responses, as noted above, this Service acknowledges it has not seen the resident’s escalation request. As a result, it is unclear when the escalation request was submitted and there is therefore no evidence the landlord delayed in providing its response. However, the landlord should have provided this investigation with details of when complaints were submitted by the resident, and the details of those complaints, so as to allow this investigation to establish whether it responded reasonably and addressed the complaints appropriately. That it did not do so was not appropriate.
Additionally, the lack of detail and use of vague language in its complaint responses was a theme of the landlord’s subsequent replies to the resident at Stages Two and Three of its procedure. It is noted that while, in its Stage Two response, the landlord referred again to the planned October 2020 inspection (landlord repair records indicate the inspection was reasonably moved to November 2020 for Covid-19 related reasons), it mentioned it here solely in relation to concerns over water ingress into the resident’s washing machine and drainage issues, without making any further reference to the roof repair here or elsewhere in its response. This is despite its response acknowledging that the roof repair was one of two issues raised by the resident and its repair logs showing it had carried out further investigation of the roof leak and arranged follow-up repairs for later that month. While it confusingly notes that the resident’s Stage Two complaint had been “rejected”, it is not clear if this is why the landlord did not refer to this within its response. It would have been preferable for it to do so, even if it were in the context of demonstrating the actions it had taken, or otherwise use clearer language to explain that it would not be addressing the matter further in its Stage Three response.
Considering its response to the resident’s reports of water ingress in her kitchen and drainage issues, it advised it did not uphold the complaint as it had not identified any service failure. It was positive that it confirmed it had requested a further CCTV survey to “confirm” its position that issues with the resident’s washing machine were caused by its location away from the main soil pipe. However, although the landlord advised the resident it would be in touch to arrange an appointment, it should have provided a timescale for when the survey would take place.
Conversely, the landlord’s Stage Three response, sent in April 2021, solely refers to the reported roof leak and makes no mention of the concerns raised by the resident over water ingress and drainage in her kitchen. Regarding the roof repair, the landlord advised that it was satisfied its actions had been “robust” and outlined that its contractor had completed repairs to the roof in December 2020. However, it did not address the fact that the resident had submitted further concerns over a leak from her roof via her Local Councillor in March 2021. While it was reasonable for the landlord to outline the steps it had taken to resolve the issue, it was again light on detail, referring to “repairs identified as required” rather than explaining what the issue had been and outlining the repairs it had completed in response, and this Service would have expected to see evidence that the landlord had considered these further reports once they had been sent in by a Designated Person. That it did not do so was a service failure.
While the landlord was within its rights to determine that there was no requirement for an independent investigation as per its third complaint stage, as above it is noted that it did not provide any further response to the drainage issue that the resident continued to report. This is despite this being the main outstanding issue that was referred to the landlord by this Service in March 2021 following contact from the resident. As its Stage Two response had advised it would carry out a further CCTV survey of the drains at the property and it had been highlighted to the landlord that the resident felt the matter was unresolved, the landlord should have addressed it and provided further detail of the steps it had taken to get to the bottom of the issue, such as sharing details of the subsequent CCTV survey. That it did not do so meant it did not address the resident’s complaint appropriately and amounted to a service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of drainage issues in her kitchen.
2. The landlord’s handing of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with Paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak.

Reasons

The landlord has not been able to suitably evidence why it treated the resident’s roof repair as a routine repair, rather than an ‘urgent’ repair as per its Repairs Policy. There appeared to be a delay of around three months between the inspection it carried out in December 2019 and repairs completed in March 2020 for which this Service has not seen any explanation.
Additionally, when further issues were raised in November and December 2020, while the landlord initially responded appropriately, the landlord then appeared to leave the resident with a leaking roof for a period of several weeks during the winter months and it was not appropriate that it advised her representative that she should contact the Out of Hours service to make the roof safe and effectively mop up water if rainwater came into the property while waiting for further repairs.
There was a significant length of time between the resident re-raising the drainage issue in December 2019 and it finally being resolved sometime after July 2021.
The landlord did not fully address the resident’s complaint, particularly within its Stage Three response, when it did not address the drainage issue, despite the resident, and this Service, highlighting this as the main outstanding issue. The landlord also used vague language throughout its responses, failing to provide clear and detailed information on its findings, actions it had taken and steps it would take to address the repairs going forward.

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this report, pay the resident £450 compensation consisting of:
1. £250 for the failings identified in its handling of reports of a roof leak.
2. £150 for the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues in her kitchen.
3. £50 for failings in its handling of her complaint.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence it has complied with the above Orders by 27 May 2022.