Plymouth Community Homes Limited (202421163)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421163

Plymouth Community Homes Limited

16 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the drains in her previous property.
2. Handling of the resident’s mutual exchange.
3. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour in her current property.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Between 2012 and 2023 she lived in a 1-bed bungalow owned by the landlord. She then moved by mutual exchange to a 1-bed flat also owned by the landlord.
The resident is in her eighties and has anxiety as well as several physical health issues.
The resident’s bungalow was at the end of a row of similar properties. The manholes for the drains serving the bungalows were in the resident’s garden. Shortly after moving into the property in 2012 the resident reported issues with the drains. Between 2012 and 2023 she regularly reported that the drains had backed up. This caused sewage from the bungalows to overflow out of the manholes in her garden and to backflow within her property rising to the top of her toilet bowl.
In January 2019 the resident reported that the landlord’s contractors were using her water supply to clear the blockages. She said her property was on a water meter and this had caused high water bills that she could not afford. The resident explained the water company was sending her court warning letters and that bailiffs had been visiting her property. She said this was causing her to experience panic attacks.
In May 2023 the resident moved by mutual exchange to a flat within a supported living scheme. The scheme contains several communal areas including a guest room and library. The resident’s flat is situated away from the other flats in the block. It is in between the communal library and a guest room.
In September 2024 the resident made a complaint. She explained that she was unhappy with the following issues:
1. Drains:
  1. She experienced issues throughout the time she lived in the bungalow.
  2. She was on a water meter and the contractor’s use of her water supply to clear blockages resulted in her paying “excessive” water bills. She had to cut down of baths and use of her washing machine because of this.
  3. This had caused her stress and impacted her mental health.
2. Mutual exchange:
  1. She felt she was not listened to during the mutual exchange process.
  2. She had told the landlord that she no longer wanted to move but it told her she could not ‘cancel’ the move.
3. Antisocial behaviour (ASB):
  1. She felt her privacy was being invaded by other residents who sat in the entrance hall.
  2. The day before she moved there were police and security guards present due to an incident involving people staying in the guest room. This had upset her.
  3. She had been disturbed by 2 “alcoholics” who had been staying in the guest room. They had “rattled” the handle of the out of use door between the library and her bedroom.
  4. On another occasion a resident had slept in the library leaving the fire door open.
  5. The landlord advertised the guest room for use by “anyone” on social media with no background checks. She felt it should only be for the use of friends and family of residents of the scheme.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 September 2024. It said:
1. Drains:
  1. The issue had been “very complex”.
  2. Many members of staff worked to help resolve the issue with the drains and associated high water bills.
  3. It paid £650 of her £800 water bill in 2021.
  4. There had been no further issues with blocked drains after early 2021.
  5. It apologised for the stress she had experienced and offered to signpost her for support.
2. Mutual exchange:
  1. In October 2021 she told it she wanted to move to be closer to her son.
  2. She found a property she wanted to exchange to in February 2023 and in April 2023 said she was looking forward to the move.
  3. She moved in May 2023 and in July 2023 had said that the move was a mistake.
  4. It was sorry she felt it had not listened to her during the process.
  5. It would be happy to support her to move again.
3. ASB:
  1. Some residents liked to sit in the entrance to wait for lifts or guests, to rest, or to chat. It could not stop them using this space as it was communal and open to all.
  2. The police and security attended due to reports that people staying in the guest room had behaved “inappropriately”. It had called the police and took “robust and swift action” to address the issue.
  3. It had no record of her reporting an issue with 2 “alcoholics” staying in the guest room.
  4. It believed another resident became confused when trying to leave the library and this resulted in them “rattling” her door handle. It would consider removing the redundant door between her property and the library.
  5. A resident had slept in the library due to a problem in their flat. It resolved the issue when the resident reported it.
  6. Only residents of its sheltered schemes could book the guest room. It did not advertise the room anywhere.
  7. It could not carry out background checks as it had no powers to do so. It did advise all guests that it would remove them from the scheme if they did not act appropriately.
  8. It would consider her suggestion that the guest room should only be for use of guests of residents of the scheme.
The resident escalated her complaint on 24 September 2024. She said she had experienced “raw sewage from other people” in her toilet and garden for 8 years. She said this had impacted her health causing her to suffer panic attacks and a heart attack. The resident disagreed that the landlord had helped her with the issue, she asked if this was the case why it had remained unresolved. She asked the landlord to provide evidence of the help it had provided.
The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 15 October 2024. It said:
1. It understood she remained dissatisfied with its response to the issues she had experienced with the drains. She was also unhappy in her current property.
2. As a resolution she wanted it to move her to a property similar to the bungalow she had left. She also wanted it to compensate her for the distress caused by the drainage issues and for her excessive water bills.
3. In addition to the remedies it had offered at stage 1:
  1. It would pay her outstanding water bill in full.
  2. It offered her £750 compensation.
  3. It would find her a ‘direct match’ of a property similar to her previous property.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. The matter became one we could consider in February 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident’s stage 1 complaint to the landlord included issues with communal cleaning, staff conduct, and an electrical issue which damaged a kitchen appliance. However, she did not escalate these issues to stage 2 of its process. As such, we have not considered these matters within our investigation.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints as soon as possible after the events. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
While we accept that the resident’s drainage issues took place more than 12 months prior her complaint, the landlord considered the issue within its complaint responses. We have therefore also considered its handling of the issue.
The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she has experienced several serious health issues because of the repair issues in her previous property. She suffered a heart attack and contracted a blood infection around the same time as the drainage issues. We acknowledge the resident’s comments. However, while we can consider the likely distress and inconvenience any identified failings may have caused, we cannot determine liability for personal injury. We are not qualified to make an assessment as to how the landlord’s actions might have caused a medical condition. Any such claim would be more appropriately progressed through insurance or as a personal injury claim through the courts. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim, she should seek independent advice.

Handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the drains in her previous property.

The landlord does not dispute that the resident experienced issues with the drains for most of the time she lived in her previous property. Nor does it dispute that this resulted in sewage backflowing into her toilet and out of the manholes in her garden.
The evidence shows that the resident first reported issues with her drains shortly after she moved into the property. The repair log shows that she reported 20 occurrences of blockages and backflow between June 2012 and October 2021.
The resident described that when the blockages occurred, the only toilet in her property filled to the top of the bowl with sewage. This sewage came from all of the bungalows in the row. This caused her evident and understandable distress.
Following each report by the resident the landlord’s contractor attended within 24 hours. This was reasonable. The repairs policy in place at the time of the events investigated did not contain target timeframes for completing repairs. We note that the landlord has since updated the policy and it now provides timeframes. We consider this is a positive move and will assist in monitoring the effectiveness of its repair service and managing residents’ expectations.
While the landlord responded to each report within a reasonable timeframe, it failed to offer a permanent solution to the problem which continued until at least October 2021.
In August 2012 the landlord wrote to all the residents in the row of bungalows which the drains and manholes served. It said that it believed the blockages were caused by people flushing sanitary products down the toilet. It said that the issue was causing the resident “serious concern” and asked residents to stop flushing such items. It was reasonable and proportionate of the landlord to write to residents.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord sent any further letters to the neighbouring residents despite blockages recurring regularly for the following 9 years. It is not clear whether it did not send any further communications or if it did not keep a record or such or provide them to this Service. Either way, this was a missed opportunity to show it was taking proportionate action to prevent further blockages and the subsequent impact on the resident.
We accept that in some situations, it may take more than one visit to resolve a repair issue. It is not unreasonable for the landlord to carry out more than one visit, in order to resolve matters, particularly where the issue is complex and the root cause is unknown. However, where a repair issue is persistent and ongoing, we would expect the landlord to put in place an action plan to identify the underlying cause of the issue. This would include carrying out all reasonable investigations required in a timely manner and monitor the outcome and any further repair reports.
The records show that the landlord instructed its contractor to carry out CCTV surveys of the drains in October 2014, March 2015, and October 2021. This was appropriate. However, it has not provided us with any reports relating to these surveys and it is not clear what the outcomes were. This indicates that there are gaps in the landlord’s record keeping.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. That it has not done so in this case is a failing.
Given the frequency of the resident’s reports, the severity of the issue, and the distress it was causing the elderly resident, the landlord has not demonstrated that it investigated with the urgency required.
In early 2019 the resident told the landlord that its contractor had been using her water supply to clear the blocked drains. She said this had resulted in high water bills and court warning letters from the water company. The resident said that she was “scared to use her water” and was having panic attacks.
Internal landlord emails in February 2019 suggest that the landlord accepted it had some responsibility for this issue and discussed paying her compensation. We have not however seen any evidence that it provided her with any support, contacted the water company, or paid her any compensation at this time. Given the impact the issue was having on the resident, this was inappropriate.
A year later, in January 2020, the resident again reported that her water bill was “exceptionally high” due to the contractor using her supply to flush out blockages. Again, she explained to the landlord that she was scared to use her water, was experiencing panic attacks, and felt “unable to lead a peaceful life”. That the landlord had not supported her in addressing this issue in the previous 12 months was inappropriate. This caused the resident to experience distress and inconvenience for an extended period.
It is unclear what occurred over the following 5 months however the evidence shows that in June 2020 the landlord began supporting the resident in relation to the water bills. It then communicated with the water company to try to have the bills written off or for the resident to be moved onto a cheaper tariff. This action was reasonable albeit delayed.
In August 2020 the landlord spoke to its contractor which stated it had its own water supply in its vehicles for clearing blockages and did not use the resident’s water supply. That the landlord made these enquiries was reasonable. However, it is not clear why it did not make these enquiries as soon as the resident raised her concerns in early 2019. That it did not do so was a failing.
Also in August 2020 the landlord provided the resident with information about a scheme run by the water company to assist in repaying her outstanding water bill. It said that in some cases a resident could get a grant to clear the debt in full. The resident responded and said she had already applied for the grant but had not had any response. She stated that she felt it was the landlord’s responsibility to clear the debt.
The landlord’s records show the last report made by the resident about the drains was in October 2021. However, the evidence shows it did not fully resolve the issue until approximately a year after the resident moved out.
In 2021 the records show the landlord paid £650 towards the resident’s water bill. In 2024 it cleared the outstanding amount of approximately £875. The resident states she has paid approximately £3,000 in “excessive” bills herself. While it was positive that the landlord paid some of the resident’s outstanding water debt, it is unclear how it went about calculating the amount offered. We cannot therefore determine that it’s offer was reasonable and proportionate. We have ordered that, on production of suitable evidence by the resident, the landlord must consider whether it is reasonable for it to reimburse her for some of these costs. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision in relation to this order she can raise a new complaint with the landlord. She may then bring this to us if she remains unhappy after the landlord’s internal complaint process.
The landlord has also offered the resident compensation of £750 in relation to the issues with the drains. While the landlord’s offer was not insubstantial, we do not consider that it is proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident over a considerable period. The resident regularly reported the recurrent issue of raw sewage from other people’s properties in her home and garden. This caused her serious distress. It also impacted on her use of the toilet and having to repeatedly report the issue caused her time and trouble.
The resident has paid approximately £305 per month (taking into account some annual incremental increases) in rental payments (not including service charges) during the period of the landlord’s maladministration. We consider that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time that the resident’s use and enjoyment of the toilet and garden have been interrupted by its failure to find a lasting resolution. Taking into account the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £1,708 compensation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 5% of the total rent during the period in question.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account. The loss of amenity payment is not intended to be a rent refund, or rebate. Rather, rent provides an objective basis for approximating the loss of amenity.
We also consider that, in relation to this issue, the landlord should pay the resident £50 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of this issue.
Overall, the landlord failed to resolve recurring blockages in the resident’s property for a period of 9 years. This resulted in her repeatedly experiencing sewage from others backing up in her toilet causing her serious distress and inconvenience. We therefore find severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the drains in her previous property.

Handling of the resident’s mutual exchange.

In her complaint to the landlord the resident said she felt it had not listened to her during the mutual exchange process. She said she had told it prior to the move that she had changed her mind but that it told her she could not ‘cancel’ the move.
While we acknowledge the resident’s statement that she changed her mind, our assessments must be based on evidence. We have not seen any evidence that the resident asked to withdraw from the mutual exchange prior to the move taking place.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states that residents are responsible for “making their own checks” of a property to “satisfy themselves” of the local area they are moving to. This is a reasonable expectation. In this case the evidence shows the resident visited the flat and the scheme several times prior to the exchange. It is not clear whether these visits took place before or after she had applied for the move.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response stated that in April 2023 the resident told it she was looking forward to the mutual exchange. We have not seen evidence of this conversation. It is unclear whether the landlord did not keep a record or if it failed to provide the record to the Ombudsman for the purposes of this investigation. We would expect the landlord to keep records of communications with residents, particularly when as it has relied on this in its complaint response. This was an example of gaps in its record keeping.
In its final complaint response to the resident the landlord said it would find her a “direct match” of a property similar to her previous property. We consider that this was a reasonable and proportionate response. The resident has stated both to the landlord and the Ombudsman that she does not enjoy communal living. That the landlord has therefore agreed to move her to a more suitable property is positive. We have recommended that it work with the resident and move forward with this as soon as possible.
Overall, we have seen no evidence that the resident raised concerns about the move before she completed the mutual exchange. We therefore find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange.

Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour in her current property.

We acknowledge that the incidents the resident has reported have had an impact on her. However, when considering complaints relating to ASB, it is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on whether the incidents themselves have occurred. Instead, our role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable steps to respond to the reports. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
The landlord has explained to the Ombudsman that it did not log the events mentioned by the resident in her complaint as ASB incidents. It has said this is because they did not meet its “criteria”.
The legal definition of ASB (which the landlord also uses) is broad. It defines ASB as behaviour that has caused or is likely to cause “harassment, alarm, or distress” or that is “capable of causing nuisance or annoyance”.
People have differing tolerance levels for different behaviours. Some would be distressed by behaviours that others would find acceptable and vice versa. Therefore, if a landlord were to record every incident which a resident reported as ASB, this would include a very wide range of behaviours which do not constitute a breach of tenancy.
The actions available to a landlord in cases where there has been no breach of tenancy are extremely limited. We consider that it would be unfair to both the complainant and the residents being complained about for a behaviour to be treated as ASB if it is not. If the landlord created an ASB case, a complainant would reasonably expect the landlord to take action against the alleged perpetrator. Therefore, recording behaviour which most people would not consider unreasonable, creates unmanageable expectations and avoidable disappointment.
The resident said in her complaint that she felt her privacy was being invaded by other residents sitting in the communal entrance hall. The landlord explained in its response that this was a communal area and it could not stop other residents using it. We consider that this was a reasonable response. The behaviour reported by the resident was not a breach of tenancy and the landlord explained that some residents needed to use the seats to rest, wait for lifts, or speak to friends. Its advice was therefore appropriate.
The resident also said in her complaint that when she had visited the new flat before moving in police and security guards were there due to an ASB incident. We have seen no contemporaneous notes relating to this incident. We would expect the landlord to keep a record of such incidents, particularly when it deemed it serious enough to call the police. This is a further indication of gaps in the landlord’s record keeping.
However, the landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint response that guests had been behaving “inappropriately” and that its staff had therefore called the police. It stated that this showed the “robust and swift action” it took in such cases. We consider that this was a reasonable course of action for the landlord to take and that its explanation to the resident was appropriate.
The landlord also explained in its complaint response that it had no record of an incident the resident referred to involving 2 “alcoholics” rattling her door handle. Instead, it said it believed that another resident had become confused when trying to leave the library and tried her door handle instead.
We acknowledge that the layout of the scheme and the location of the resident’s flat within it, is unusual. As a result of the layout, in the resident’s bedroom there is a door that leads to the communal library. This door is locked and we are advised there is a notice on the door advising people not to try and use it. However, this is not an ideal situation and is clearly causing the resident understandable distress when people try to open the door into her bedroom.
The landlord said it would consider removing the redundant door between her property and the library. However, the resident has advised the Ombudsman that the landlord has not removed the door and it has told her it cannot remove it as it is a fire door. We have ordered the landlord to confirm its position regarding the door. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s decision, she may raise a new complaint about the matter with the landlord.
The landlord explained to the resident in its complaint response that it did not advertise the guest room and that only residents of its sheltered schemes could book it. It went on to say that it could not carry out background checks as it did not have the power to do so. It said it would however remove any guests who behaved inappropriately. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord agreed to consider her suggestion that the guest room only be for use of guests of residents of the scheme. That it agreed to do so was reasonable. However, the resident states that she continues to experience issues with people using the guest room. We have ordered the landlord to investigate her concerns.
Overall, the landlord did not act unreasonably when it decided not to record the incidents reported by the resident as ASB. It did however fail to keep adequate records in relation to incidents that took place.
We therefore find service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour in her current property.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the drains in her previous property.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour in her current property.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. The Chief Executive Officer must apologise to the resident verbally for the failings identified in this report.
2. The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £2,408 which comprises:
  1. £1,708 for reduced use and enjoyment of the toilet due to its handling of her reports of issues with the drains.
  2. £500 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the drains.
  3. £200 for distress and inconvenience in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour in her current property.
  4. If it has already paid the resident the £750 offered in its complaint response, this should be deducted from the amount ordered.
3. On production of suitable evidence by the resident, the landlord must consider whether it would be reasonable for it to reimburse her for a proportion of the water bills paid during her tenancy of the bungalow.
The landlord must consider its position in relation to whether it will remove the door. It should communicate its decision to the resident and the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of the date of the report.
The landlord must contact the resident to discuss her concerns about issues experienced with people using the guest room. It should communicate the outcome of its investigations with the resident and the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should work with the resident to progress its offer of a direct move as soon as possible.