Bristol City Council (202203631)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203631

Bristol City Council

1 May 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repeated flooding at his property.
2. Claim for compensation for damage to his possessions.
3. Complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s claim for compensation for damage to his possessions is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
As part of his complaint, the resident stated that his personal possessions were damaged by repeat flooding at his property. This included flooring, and other possessions. The landlord provided an insurance claim form for the resident to make a claim on its insurance for damage to his possessions.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion “concerns matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
It is not the role of this Service to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. Considering the above, this aspect is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate. It is noted that the resident submitted an insurance claim to the landlord for the alleged damage to his possessions. The landlord told this Service that the resident had not responded to its request for further information. If the resident wishes to pursue the insurance claim, he may wish to contact the landlord to establish what further information it requires.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, in a 1 bedroom ground floor flat in a block. The resident’s tenancy started in November 1999, and the landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for him.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 5 June 2020 and reported that water was overflowing out of the outside drain, and his kitchen had flooded. The landlord attended on the same day, cleared the blockage, and requested a CCTV survey of the drains.
The resident reported the drain was blocked again on 18 June 2020, and the landlord attended on the same day to unblock the drain.
The landlord’s notes state it completed a CCTV survey of the drain on 1 July 2020, the outcome is unclear.
The resident reported the drain was blocked again on 24 July 2020, and the landlord attended the same day and unblocked the drain.
The resident wrote the landlord a letter on 1 August 2020, and said he had reported the external drain was “regularly” blocking, and had done so on 6 occasions since 2019. He said that he was unhappy that he had to mop sewage from his floors and asked the landlord to cover the cost of “remedial works” which he detailed as replacing his damaged floor coverings and redecorating the “skirting boards and lower walls”. It is unclear if the landlord responded to the letter.
The landlord completed a CCTV drain survey on 18 September 2020 and found “no major defects” in the drain. Based on the findings of the survey, it raised works to descale the drain, and replace the drain cover. Its notes show the job was marked as complete, but the exact date the works took place is unclear.
The resident contacted this Service on 23 May 2022 and said that he had raised “numerous” written complaints with the landlord and never received a response. We contacted the landlord on 24 May 2022 and asked it to open a complaint investigation into the resident’s reports of repairs, and the associated damage to his possessions. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint acknowledgment on 7 June 2022, and said it would sent its response by 16 June 2022.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 28 June 2022 and said:
1. It had sent the resident’s claim for compensation for damage to his possessions to its insurance team to consider.
2. The team would be in touch with the outcome of the claim.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 August 2022 and said he was unhappy with the landlord’s ongoing handling of the matter, and it had “fail[ed]” to inform him of the actions it had taken in relation to the flooding. He said that for “several months” he was “effectively tied” to his property, as he was worried the property would flood while he was out. He had found the situation “stressful” and experienced “sleepless nights”.
The landlord raised a job to do a further CCTV survey, and ‘jet’ the drain on 16 September 2022. The notes reflect the job was marked as complete, the exact date the works took place is unclear.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 30 September 2022 and said:
1. It had attended on several occasions to unblock the drain and investigate further.
2. The blockages appeared not to be caused by the “same issue” and drains get blocked from “time to time” based on “usage”.
3. It had carried out CCTV surveys and found the drain to be in “sound condition”.
4. It was “sorry” for the resident’s experience, but it was not at fault for any of the blockages.
The resident contacted this Service on 10 December 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said that he had “never received” the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, and felt it had never given him a “substantive response” to his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies, and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
The landlord’s emergency repairs policy states that a blocked/leaking foul drain is treated as an emergency repair. It says it attends emergency repairs within 1 working day. It says that an emergency repair will “make safe” the issue, and a “follow up repair” will almost always be needed.
The landlord operated a 2 stage complaint procedure, at the time of the resident’s complaint. Its policy stated it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days, and send the response within 15 working days. Its policy said it would sent stage 2 complaint responses within 15 working days.

Reports of repeated flooding of his property.

The evidence seen for this investigation shows that each time the resident reported the drain as blocked/overflowing, the landlord treated it as an emergency repair and attended within its policy timeframe. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and evidence it took the resident’s reports seriously.
On becoming aware it was an issue that kept reoccurring, the landlord completed a CCTV survey of the drain, on 1 July 2020, according to its notes. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence the landlord sought to understand whether an issue with the drain was causing the repeat issue. The outcome of the CCTV survey of July 2020 is unclear, as it is not recording within its notes. This is a shortcoming in the landlord’s record keeping.
There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord inspected the resident’s property, after attending to the emergency repair. Given the resident had reported on at least 2 occasions that water from the drain had flooded his property, it would have been reasonable to inspect the property to identify any possible follow up repairs. That it did not do so was a failing in its handling of the matter, and evidence it did not adhere to the approach set out in its emergency repairs policy. This caused the resident an inconvenience, as the landlord was not proactive in identifying possible repairs it was responsible for.
The resident made a complaint about its handling of the drain issue in August 2020. He advised the landlord “remedial works” were needed after the water ingress from the drain. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord responded to this letter, or sought to inspect the resident’s property when he put it on notice about a possible repair. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was inconvenienced by not getting a response to a specific request for a repair he had made. It is, however, noted that the landlord did conduct a further CCTV survey shortly after receiving the letter, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of June 2022, was silent on its handling of the repairs to the drain, and the resident’s request for remedial works. The resident’s letter of August 2020, and our request to open a complaint investigation in May 2022, explained the resident was unhappy with its handling of the repairs. That it did not address its handling of the repairs in the complaint response was unreasonable. It is noted that it advised the resident it had passed his claim for damaged possessions to its insurance team, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
The outcome of the CCTV survey it completed in September 2022 is not recorded within the notes provided for this investigation. This is a further shortcoming in the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response went some way to put right the shortcomings of its stage 1 response by addressing its handling of the drain issue. It explained what steps it had taken, and its position on the condition of the drain. This was reasonable in the circumstances and is evidence it sought to reassure the resident that it was satisfied the drain was not defective. The resident was evidently distressed that his property had flooded. The fact his property flooded was outside of the landlord’s control. However, that it took so long to try and reassure him, and reduce his distress, about the condition of the drain was a failing in its handling of the matter.
Again, the stage 2 complaint response was silent on the request the resident made in his original complaint for it to complete remedial works following the water ingress. This was a further shortcoming in its handling of the matter. We have seen no evidence to indicate the landlord sought to inspect the resident’s property to identify any possible follow up repairs it was responsible for. As such, an appropriate order is set out below.
When providing evidence for this investigation the landlord told this Service that it could not “police” what residents put down drains. It is noted it could not control the actions of individuals that may have contributed to blockages. However, we have seen no evidence that it was proactive in reminding its residents of what items should not be flushed/washed down drains. Given the repeated blockages, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to take such a proactive step to try and reduce reoccurrences.
The landlord appropriately logged the blockages as emergency repairs, in line with its policy. It attended to unblock the drain, on each occasion, within an appropriate timeframe. It was not proactive in following up to identify any possible repairs needed after the water ingress, this was unreasonable. It did not respond after the resident made a request for remedial repairs, which was a further failing. Its records in relation to the inspections of the drains, and outcomes of visits were poor.
The resident was evidently distressed by the leaks, which were outside of the landlord’s control. However, he was also distressed by the condition the water ingress had left his property in, the landlord’s silence on his concerns increased the detriment he experienced. Its initial response did not reflect on its handling of the issue or set out its position in relation to the drain. It did not give a substantive response to the concerns raised about the handling of the issue until 2 years after the resident expressed dissatisfaction with its handling of the matter. Given the above failings, a series of orders are made below.

Complaint Handling

The resident tried to make a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue in this complaint in August 2020. As outlined above, there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord responded to his concerns. This was not only a failing in its handling of the substantive issue, but also in its complaint handling. The resident was inconvenienced by the fact he tried to raise a complaint, and the landlord did not respond. The evidence shows the resident was cost time and trouble by needing to seek assistance from this Service, in order to get the landlord to open a complaint investigation.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint acknowledgement 8 working days after we asked it to open a complaint. While not an excessive delay, this was outside of the timeframes set out in its policy, and the Ombudsman Complaint Code (the Code). This was a further shortcoming in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent 23 working days after it was made, and indeed nearly 2 years after the resident first tried to complain about the issue. Its response was 8 working days outside of the timeframe set out in its policy, which itself was not compliant with the Code at the time. This was a failing in its complaint handling, and the resident was inconvenienced by a protracted complaints process that was unfair, and hard to access. That the landlord sent the response outside of the timeframe set out in its acknowledgment, but offered no apology for the delay, was a further failing in its complaint handling. The resident experienced a disappointment of not getting a response within the timeframe in which the landlord said it would respond.
The resident’s comments about not receiving the landlord’s stage 2 response are noted. While we do not seek to dispute his claim, on the evidence we have available, it is not possible to determine whether or not he received the response at the time the landlord claimed to have sent it. What it is possible to determine is that the resident has had sight of the landlord’s final complaint response.
The resident experienced a hard to access, and protracted complaints process. He did not get a complaint response for nearly 2 years after first trying to complain about the substantive issue. The landlord’s poor complaint handling, contributed to the detriment caused by its handling of the substantive issue, as the resident was waiting a long time to get answers. Its stage 1 response did not address the issue complained about in the appropriate level of detail. The landlord offered no apology or acknowledgment for the delay in sending its complaint response. As such, a series of appropriate orders are set out below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repeated flooding at his property.
In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s claim for compensation for damage to his possessions is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord appropriately logged the blockages as emergency repairs, in line with its policy. It was not proactive in following up to identify any possible repairs needed after the water ingress. It did not respond after the resident made a request for remedial repairs, which was a further failing. Its records in relation to the inspections of the drains, and outcomes of visits were poor.
The resident experienced a hard to access, and protracted complaints process. He did not get a complaint response for nearly 2 years after first trying to complain about the substantive issue. The landlord’s poor complaint handling, contributed to the detriment caused by its handling of the substantive issue, as the resident was waiting a long time to get answers. Its stage 1 response did not address the issue complained about in the appropriate level of detail. The landlord offered no apology or acknowledgment for the delay in sending its complaint response.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £450 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £275 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of repeated flooding at his property.
  2. £175for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. In line with its repair obligations, meet with the resident at his property to identify any possible follow on repairs following the leaks.
4. Considering the failings identified in this report instruct its staff:
  1. Responsible for overseeing repairs, to complete our E learning on Knowledge and Information Management.
  2. Responsible for investigating complaints, to complete our E learning on Dispute Resolution.

Recommendation

It is recommended that, when there are repeat drain blockages at a block, the landlord writes to the residents in the block to advise them of common causes of blockages, and remind them of what items should not be flushed/washed down drains.