Teign Housing (202328331)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328331

Teign Housing

13 June 2025


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 response to the resident’s concerns about rainwater drainage issues affecting the property and garden.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy of a 1-bedroom flat on the ground floor. She has a number of medical conditions and has limited mobility, which the landlord has records of.
  2. On 19 January 2023, the resident reported issues with the external drainage system at the property. The landlord completed repairs and noted that it had closed the resident’s complaint as she was satisfied with the outcome. There is evidence referring to the resident contacting the landlord on 28 April 2023 about the ongoing drainage issues. However, the landlord has not supplied a copy of this correspondence to us.
  3. On 19 September 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the ongoing drainage issues. She said the bungalow had recently been surrounded by water 3 inches deep and expressed concern that the problem had not been resolved.
  4. On 10 October 2023 the landlord requested a full drain survey to be conducted at the property.
  5. On 17 November 2023 the resident chased a response with the landlord and approached us. She said the landlord had only offered temporary solutions, her belongings had been ruined from the flooding, and she had not heard back from the landlord. We forwarded her complaint to the landlord on 8 January 2023.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 10 January 2024. It said that it had misclassified the complaint as a repair and apologised for this. It explained the resident had initially contacted it on 20 September 2023 and it had sent a drainage surveyor on 26 September 2023. It said it had asked the local water company for an update about re-routing the storm water to the foul water which would resolve the issue. It acknowledged the delays in dealing with this and asked her to confirm which belongings had been damaged from the water.
  7. In correspondence to us, the resident escalated her complaint in February and April 2024. This was because the landlord had not committed to what it said it would do or provide regular updates.
  8. On 30 May 2023 we requested the landlord to progress the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints handling process. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 July 2024. The landlord upheld the complaint and said that it was still working with its subcontractor and the water company to obtain permission to use the sewer drain to channel water away from the property. It said it wanted to look at other solutions and arranged a site visit. It also said it was important that it learnt from the experience, and as such it would need to implement a process for the use of utility services and to include timeframes.
  9. The landlord arranged for the roof and gutters to be cleared by 2 August 2024. The resident reported to the landlord on 21 August 2024 that the actions to date were not effective and the drain was overflowing with water once again. She also added that the contractors left the area untidy.
  10. On 6 February 2025 the landlord wrote to us and acknowledged it should have offered compensation. It said it had since offered her £400 which was the highest level for inconvenience it could offer. It explained that due to the complexity of the issue and the third party’s involvement the issue was still ongoing and it had not taken any decision as to the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In contact with us the resident raised issues about moss being left on the path around the property following the work to the roof and gutters from August 2024. This matter occurred following the landlord’s final response of 4 July 2024 and as such was not part of the original complaint addressed during the landlord’s complaint’s process. Therefore this issue has not been reviewed by this investigation as it has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint handling process. Any further issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
  2. The resident advised that she had been reporting drainage issues for 7 years. There is evidence of works previously being raised and a complaint with the landlord which was closed and the resident informed in February 2023. It is understandable that the resident raised further concerns due to the reoccurring nature of the issue and requested a long-term solution. The landlord also acknowledged the ongoing issues. While we will not look into the historical events due to length of time passed, we will use them for context. This investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues leading to her formal complaint in September 2023 that were considered in the landlord’s final response.

Drainage issues

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in a good state of repair. This includes drains, guttering and pipes.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy does not capture how it approaches repairs to external drains or timeframes involved in responding to such repairs.
  3. It is clear that the drainage issue has been ongoing and the landlord made previous attempts to resolve this which proved not to be effective. It had acknowledged this in its complaint responses. It is also understandable that the resident sought reassurance that a long term solution is explored and provided rather than responsive action on each occasion of heavy rain and flooding around the property.
  4. We acknowledge that the repairs in these circumstances are complex and multifaceted. The potential solutions to this issue involved investigatory and diagnostic work, and the involvement of numerous professionals. It also involved seeking planning permission from the water company, who manages the water systems in the area.
  5. Given these complexities, it took the landlord some time to explore solutions to this problem. While we will not refer to any set timeframes for repairs, we will focus on the reasonableness of the actions of the landlord in responding to the resident’s complaint. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect to see that a landlord has taken a proactive approach, maintained effective communication, and considered the impact of the situation on the resident and took appropriate interim measures.
  6. After receiving the complaint on 17 September 2023, the landlord acted to request a surveyor’s appointment on 26 September 2023 to assess the external drains. The drainage surveyors report of 23 October 2023 notes that they cleared the gullies, but that they were not capable of taking heavy rain water flows due to the clay soil. Given the specialist inspection was arranged just about a month from the report, this did not cause any unnecessary delays and also ensured the landlord took some interim measures to unblock the drains.
  7. The surveyor recommended to re-route the storm water to the foul sewer, but in order to do so will require notified permission from the water supply company. This was a reasonable first step for the landlord to take to investigate the issue and its cause. However, its further steps did not show that it had appropriately monitored the progress or communicated it with the resident.
  8. We have not seen evidence that the landlord provided any further updates or contacted the resident in relation to her complaint. As such she requested assistance from us. In its stage 1 complaint response of 10 January 2024 the landlord apologised for the delays and lack of updates to the resident. It also said it had asked for permission from the water company on 29 November 2023 to complete necessary repairs to the drainage. However, this information was not supported from the file, which shows that an application was submitted to the water company in June 2024, 6 months later. Even then the landlord’s notes of 12 June 2024 only refer to the subcontractor putting in an application and not that it had been submitted by itself. This was inappropriate and contributed to the overall delays. Furthermore, the landlord as such provided misleading information at stage 1.
  9. In its response the landlord also requested the resident clarify what items had been damaged due to the flooding. It was appropriate to recognise the delays, lack of communication, and to request evidence of damaged goods. However, it is not apparent from the evidence what actions the landlord took in respect of the damaged goods following this. Therefore it is not clear from the evidence that the landlord assisted the resident in making a claim for these goods or that it sought to restore the resident to her original position.
  10. While we have seen evidence of the landlord updating the resident, these updates do not appear to be proactive and were regularly prompted by the resident contacting the landlord. The resident approached us 20 working days after receiving the stage 1 complaint response, where the landlord agreed to provide regular updates, and said she had not heard from the landlord. This lack of communication was not appropriate particularly after it had acknowledged it at stage 1 and committed to improve this.
  11. Following the escalation request from May 2023 the landlord made an improvement in its communication. It updated the resident on 12 June, 28 June and 1 July 2024. Although the updates were a step in the right direction, it still did not explain timeframes for the work or set a clear plan moving forward. This caused ambiguity as to how long it would take to find a solution, and caused further distress to the resident.
  12. The landlord in its stage 2 complaint response of 4 July 2024 advised that it had learned from the complaint to implement a process for the use of utility services and to include a timeframe. However, there is no evidence of the landlord applying these learnings. The landlord did not supply a timeframe in its complaint response for the permission or provide evidence that it was trying to obtain a timeframe to supply some more clarity to the resident. This was not reasonable and illustrated the landlord had not applied the learnings it had identified.
  13. This failure was further evidenced on 28 October 2024 when the landlord said in an update to the resident the application form remained with the water company. It was not made clear to the resident why there was such a prolonged delay in making an application for permission when the processing timeframes for an application to obtain a new water connection on the water company’s website is 28 working days from receipt of application. Additionally, the landlord had not provided any evidence to show that during this time it had actively chased the water company or the contractors who had submitted the application. This was not a proactive and customer focused approach.
  14. On 6 February 2025 the landlord acknowledged it missed an opportunity to offer compensation for its handling of the drainage long-term repair and told us it had recently offered £400 to the resident. While this was a positive step, its offer was considerable time following its final response. As such it missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident during its complaints process. The landlord also did not justify why it had offered this amount to the resident. While the amount was within the expected range for maladministration as per our remedies guidance (£100 – £600), the landlord did not fully acknowledge the detriment to the resident resulting from its lack of communication and/or proactively seeking solution. It also did not learn from its failings and only sought to put things right 6 months after its complaints process had already elapsed.
  15. Given the above reasons, we consider that the offer of £400 was not proportionate to the seriousness of the failings identified by our investigation. The Ombudsman requests the landlord to pay additional compensation of £200 for its failure in communication about the drainage issues affecting the resident’s property and garden and for the lack of proactively seeking a resolution.

Complaint handling

  1. On 19 September 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the drainage issues. The resident informed us on 16 November 2023 that she had not heard back from the landlord since making her formal complaint. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to acknowledge the complaint or contact the resident about it across this time.
  2. On 8 January 2024 we requested the landlord issue its stage 1 complaint response in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord issued its response two days later, which was 78 working days after the resident had raised the complaint. This time period was well beyond the landlord’s complaint policy timeframe, which sets out 10 working days for response at stage 1. This was not reasonable and meant the resident was further impacted by the delays and lack of clarity around the handling of her complaint.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response it apologised and explained that it had misclassified her complaint as a repair but it had since corrected this error. This illustrates the landlord did not have appropriate triaging and record keeping practises in place. Additionally, it did not show what learning it can implement to ensure no similar failures happen in future.   
  4. The resident said to us she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response in February and April 2024. However, we have not seen evidence of her escalation being raised directly with the landlord before our contact with it in May 2024. We requested the landlord issue its stage 2 complaint response on 30 May 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 July 2024. This was 26 working days after it was notified of the resident’s escalation of her complaint, and was not in accordance with its complaint policy timeframe of 15 working days.
  5. The landlord did not acknowledge any of its complaint handling failures in its complaint responses or at a later date, which was a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident. This meant the landlord failed to consider the impact that these failures had on the resident and consider appropriate redress. 
  6. Given the above failings and the lack of proactivity or willingness of the landlord to learn from these failings, we find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the drainage issues affecting the property and garden.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Contact the resident to discuss her compensation claim and if necessary, assist her with raising it with its insurers or consider it under its internal process.
    3. Pay directly to the resident a total of £750 made up of:
      1. £400 the landlord has already offered (if not paid already).
      2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings in handlings the drainage issues affecting the property and garden.
      3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  2. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to us.