Grainger Trust (202111324)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111324

Grainger Trust

31 January 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 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 standard of the landlord’s repairs and redecorating work following a leak into the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s handling of and response to the resident’s reports that his property’s toilet does not flush and drain properly.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant residing in a property of the landlord.
The landlord’s records showed that its contractor completed remedial works for plumbing and then the toilet at the resident’s property on the same dates that these were reported on 15 May and 13 June 2018, respectively. It subsequently recorded that it received a report to carry out drainage works there on 20 September 2018 that its contractor completed on 22 September 2018, and to unblock the drains on 9 November 2018 that the contractor carried out on 11 November 2018. The landlord also received a report for a CCTV survey of the resident’s property’s drains on 19 December 2018, which its contractor completed on 21 December 2018.
Internal emails from the landlord’s contractor’s records dated 20 and 27 August and 11 October 2019 mentioned that they had been to the resident’s property to repaint the ceiling following a leak suspected from the property above, and had also looked at some damp and other issues there by 27 August 2019. The landlord’s records showed that redecoration works after the leak were completed on 27 August 2019, although its contractor then sought to discuss or book further works for this in the week of 16 October 2019 at the resident’s request.
Neither party could provide records of subsequent contact between them regarding the above works until 12 August 2021, when the landlord emailed the resident and explained that the contractor’s work there had been reviewed by it and pictures had been taken for a second review of this by it. This was following the landlord’s visit to the resident’s property on 29 July 2021.
The pictures had then also been reviewed by the landlord, and a decision had been made in relation to its contractor’s previous painting of the resident’s kitchen and living room ceiling. The landlord advised the resident that its contractor was instructed to carry our remedial work to make good the left side of the ceiling following a leak from the property above, which appeared from the landlord’s records to relate to the above leak and work in 2019.
The landlord explained that the entire living room and kitchen ceiling were painted as a gesture of goodwill by its contractor in agreement with the resident and, while this was not up to the resident’s standard, the landlord would not be able to send out a contractor to complete further decoration works. The landlord concluded that the level of work completed was of an acceptable standard, and that the resident was free to carry out his own decorative works to the property if he wished to.
The resident then emailed the landlord on 16 August 2021 to make a stage one complaint regarding the above work carried out at the property. He explained that the property above had previously had a leak, that the landlord’s contractor had subsequently attended to look at the damage to the resident’s kitchen ceiling, and that he was advised that, as it was an open plan kitchen and living room, the whole space would need to be painted. The resident explained that the ceiling then looked worse than before, and that the work done on some of the walls was of a poor standard.
The resident explained that his complaint was also about the continuous blocking of the toilet at his property. Workmen and builders were described as having attended the property with drawings of the pipework, and they reportedly discovered that there were 90-degree bends in the pipework that were causing the toilets to block. He further explained that this was embarrassing when he had visitors or his daughter staying with him.
The resident received a response from the landlord to his stage one complaint on 17 August 2021. The landlord explained that it appreciated that the above work may not have been done to the resident’s standard, but this was viewed as an appropriate repair by the landlord. The resident was advised that redecorating was the resident’s responsibility and, as he had been in the property for five years, this would not be something that the landlord would have to do, with its contractor having painted the whole ceiling instead of just the damaged part to ensure that this would match. As a goodwill gesture, the landlord offered to pay for the paint in recognition of the reasons that the resident wanted to redecorate.
The resident was advised, regarding the issues with his property’s toilet, that the landlord had used CCTV in the property’s drains, and the drainage designs showed right-hand bends which it expected were part of the reason for the blockage issues. He was further advised that this was nevertheless within building regulations, and was a completely permissible drainage design, it could have forced the developer to put this right as a latent defect, no matter how big the job would have been. The landlord explained that the main cause of the problem was misuse and baby wipes etc. going down the toilets, which then caused a blockage at the bends, but that the bends themselves were a design weakness and not a builder’s error.
The landlord also mentioned that, as the resident’s drains were shared with a few neighbours and he was on the ground floor, this meant that the resident was impacted the most. The landlord acknowledged that it was not the resident causing the drain to become blocked. It explained that the best thing that it could do was to educate and speak to the neighbours to make sure that only toilet paper was ever disposed of in the toilets instead of baby wipes and kitchen grease etc. that all modern drains struggled with. The landlord explained that it would write to residents in the building again to explain the issue and the importance of not misusing the drainage system. The resident was advised to contact the landlord if the blockage occurred so that jetting could be done.
On 23 August 2021, the resident replied to the landlord to explain that he was still unhappy with the work that it had done to his property and with his toilet, and so he asked it to either escalate his complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure or permit him to refer it to this Service. We then contacted it at his request on 13 September 2021 to report that he had not yet received an acknowledgement of his final stage complaint from it, and that he remained dissatisfied with the condition of the property’s ceiling and the 90-degree bend in his toilet waste pipe, to which we requested a response.
The resident subsequently received a response to his final stage complaint from the landlord on 15 September 2021. The landlord explained that its records showed that remedial work had been carried out by it to redecorate his property following a leak at the resident’s upstairs neighbour’s property. The landlord reiterated that its property manager’s attendance of the resident’s property, and the head of the landlord’s assessment of their photographs of this, had found that the work that was completed was to a sufficient standard.
The landlord therefore reiterated that a goodwill gesture would be offered to the resident for it to purchase paint for him, if he wished to redecorate his property himself. The landlord explained, however, that it had not received a response from him to the goodwill gesture. The landlord further explained that there were historical issues with the toilet blockages in the property in 2018, which it had attended on four occasions to resolve, and that the last reported issue with the drainage for the block as a whole was in 2019. It confirmed that there were no reports of any ongoing drainage or blockage issues from any neighbouring blocks or properties.
The resident was further advised by the landlord that previous drainage and toilet blockages had been cleared and jetted at the time following builders’ rubble and dirt collecting from continuing construction at his block. It added that the block’s drainage design was permissible and not a building defect, and that all drainage designs proposed for the development must be signed off and approved by the building regulatory authority, building control and the local water authority or board before the drainage could be implemented on the site.
The landlord explained this meant that the drainage design had been approved as suitable and acceptable for the development by three separate bodies, and that its records showed that this had not caused any ongoing issues. The resident was therefore informed that the findings of its complaint investigation showed that the complaint had been resolved and that no further action was required.
Following a request from this Service on 21 September 2021 that the resident receive clarification as to whether he had exhausted the complaints procedure, the landlord contacted the resident via email on 23 September 2021. It explained that this was to follow up with him, as it had not received a response from the resident after it had offered him a remedy with regard to redecorating the ceiling of his property on 15 September 2021. The landlord once again offered to purchase the paint for the resident for him to do so.
The landlord further explained that, as the pipework at the resident’s block had been deemed as non-defective and there were no ongoing issues, it would not be able to offer any further remedial works in relation to the issue with the toilet drainage at his property. The resident was asked to respond to confirm acceptance of its offer, or to decline the proposed actions in relation to the paint work. The resident was advised that, if he was dissatisfied, he could complain to this Service.
The resident then complained to this Service about the landlord’s “big job” to the 90-degree bend in his toilet’s pipework, to which its operatives had attributed the toilet’s frequent blockages and failure to flush properly, remaining outstanding. He also complained that there had been ongoing issues with blocked toilets in most of the properties on his estate, and that he and his other neighbours were “fed up” of reporting this to it, as it blamed them and the use of wet wipes for this, despite him finding that even thicker pieces of toilet paper could cause blockages. The resident explained that this, and the fact that it could take 30 minutes to an hour to flush everything down his blocked toilet meant that he did not report this to the landlord anymore, which affected his ability to receive visitors and that he asked it to resolve the pipework for.
The resident added that the landlord’s previous painting of his living room and kitchen ceiling for damp patches left by the earlier leak from the flat above had led its operative to apologise to him at the time for “the poor job”, which “wasn’t the finish [they] had hoped for” and left the ceiling looking worse than before this. He therefore requested that it repaint the ceiling properly to an acceptable standard in order to resolve the matter.

Assessment and findings

Agreement, policies and procedures

In relation to repairs, the resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will not repair anything at the property which the resident is responsible for repairing.
In respect of decorating the property, the tenancy agreement states that the resident “must not change the inside or outside of the premises in any way apart from decorating the inside of the premises to a good standard in a colour we or our managing agent approve in writing before you carry out the work.”
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep the structure of the resident’s property in repair, for which case-law requires it to make good any damage to decorations as a result of its repair work or failure to carry out repairs.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the installations in the premises including sanitary ware such as toilets.
The tenancy agreement also states that the resident is responsible for unblocking and keeping the gutters, sewers, drains and toilet bowls in his property free from blockages.
The landlord’s emergency and urgent repairs guide states that a blocked toilet or drain is considered by it to be an urgent repair, but this does not specify a timescale for it to respond to this.

The standard of the landlord’s repairs and redecorating work following a leak into the resident’s property

While the resident has complained about the standard of the landlord’s operative’s painting of his kitchen and living room ceiling in 2019, the scope of this investigation is limited to the events in his case in 2021. This is because this Service cannot investigate complaints about issues that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within six months of the matters arising, and the resident submitted his stage one complaint to it about this on 16 August 2021.
Following the resident’s reports of a leak from his upstairs neighbour’s flat causing damp patches on his kitchen ceiling from at least20 August 2019, the landlord took steps to address the resident’s concerns by redecorating the entire living room and kitchen ceiling as a goodwill gesture on 27 August 2019. The dissatisfaction that was later expressed with the standard of the redecorating of the resident’s property in 2021 was then followed by the landlord’s visit to the property on 29 July 2021 to review the work that was previously carried out by a contractor to redecorate the property.
The landlord’s actions showed that it prioritised investigating the resident’s concerns about its remedial work and, therefore, that it acted appropriately. This is because it completed the inspection of its redecorating in accordance with its above obligation from case-law to ensure that it made good any damage to decorations as a result of its repair work or failure to carry out repairs.
The evidence provided by the landlord’s above inspection by its property manager, and the assessment of their photographs of this by the head of the landlord, showed that the landlord took appropriate steps to consider the condition of the remedial paintwork to the resident’s damaged ceiling. It was found by it from this evidence that the painting of the ceiling, while not completed to his standard, had been done to a sufficient standard.
The landlord nevertheless still took further steps to try and resolve the matter with the resident, when it offered the resident paint to re-decorate his ceiling on three separate occasions during the complaints process, at stage one on 17 August 2021 and at the final stage on 15 and 23 September 2021, which the resident declined. This was, however, a reasonable offer made by the landlord that took steps to resolve the matter with the resident by seeking to pay part of his further redecorating costs, despite it finding and him providing no evidence that it had failed to make good his ceiling in accordance with case-law.
For the reasons set out above, there was no failure by the landlord, as the landlord previously made good the leak damage to the resident’s kitchen and living room ceiling, and it offered to purchase paint for the resident so that he could carry out the further redecorating work that he sought on the ceiling for his dissatisfaction with this. It has therefore been recommended to re-offer this to him below, although it is of concern that he has continued to seek assistance with repainting the ceiling and might be unable to do so himself, and so it has also been recommended below to confirm whether it is able to assist him with this.

The landlord’s handling of and response to the resident’s reports that his property’s toilet does not flush and drain properly

While the tenancy agreement states above that the resident is responsible for unblocking toilets and drains at his property, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to attend to urgent repairs for blocked toilets and drains, in line with its emergency and urgent repairs guide above. This is where the resident has been unable to do so in order to resolve the issue. Although the landlord’s guide does not specify timescales for unblocking toilets and drains, a reasonable timescale for such repairs is expected to be within 24 hours of when they are reported, as it is good practice to consider such repairs as emergency repairs.
In this instance, the evidence provided by the landlord showed that the last report for a toilet blockage at the property from the resident was in 2018, and that a further search carried out by the landlord for drainage issues for the whole block in 2019. These reports, along with the issue with drainage and toilet blockages caused by builders’ rubble during the early stages of the housing development, referred to by the landlord in the stage one response of 17 August 2021, were in relation to historical reports.
This assessment will, therefore, focus on the events in the resident’s case from 2021, which are within six months of the formal stage one complaint of 16 August 2021. This is because, as outlined above, this Service cannot consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
There has been no evidence provided to this Service to show that there was a recent blocked toilet or drain reported to the landlord in 2021, and the resident has confirmed to us that he and his neighbours have not been making reports to it for blocked toilets or drains to it. He explained that this was because it had attributed these to their behaviour and not addressed the 90-degree bend in his toilet waste pipe to permanently resolve this.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 17 August 2021 acknowledged that it expected the right-hand bends shown in the drainage design of the property’s pipework were part of the reason for the cause of the issue raised by the resident, but that the design was permissible and could not be a latent defect. Ultimately, the landlord relied on the findings of its qualified contractors who carried out the CCTV investigation of the drains in 2018, and further search of these in 2019, and concluded that the design of the drains was not the main reason for the blockage, which was reasonable in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary. This is also because there were no more recent reports to give it the opportunity to complete an up-to-date investigation of the drains.
The landlord, therefore, complied with good practice and the above tenancy agreement and emergency and urgent repairs guide. It did so as it took adequate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns about his toilet and drain blockages, and to seek to resolve these, by considering the evidence available to it about this at the time of his above complaint fully.
The landlord additionally advised the resident, in its above stage one complaint response, that it would speak to other residents to provide them with guidance on the appropriate use of the drainage system. This was because it was aware that the resident was being impacted by the inappropriate disposal of baby wipes and misuse of the drain by other residents because his property was on the ground floor. The landlord further communicated to the resident, in its final stage two complaint response of 15 September 2021, that the design of the drainage was permissible, signed off and approved by the building regulatory authority, building control and the local water authority or board, suggesting that it was not obliged to change this.
The landlord also took steps to reassure the resident in its above stage one complaint response that, if he experienced any toilet or drain blockages in the future, these should be reported to it as soon as possible, and jetting of the drainage would be arranged by it. In doing so, it demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns into consideration, acted fairly by taking appropriate action to make sure that the matter was investigated, and it provided the resident with information to resolve the matter. Therefore, there was no failure by the landlord in this instance.
It is nevertheless concerning that the resident reports that he and his neighbours have continued to experience toilet and drain blockages, which the landlord has not been contacted about because they consider that its above actions and previous steps have not permanently resolved this. As a result of this, and its lack of up-to-date information about the condition of the drains, it has been recommended below to consider re-investigating the drains at the resident’s block to determine how best to address blockages of these permanently, and to inform him of the outcome of this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. The standard of the landlord’s repairs and redecorating work following a leak into the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s handling of and response to the resident’s reports that his property’s toilet does not flush and drain properly.

Reasons

Following the resident’s report of his dissatisfaction with the previous remedial decorating work for the leak in the upstairs property which led to the kitchen and living room ceiling in his property being stained, the landlord appropriately advised the resident after inspecting this that the decorating had been done to a sufficient standard. A further offer to purchase paint to address this was made by the landlord after the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the initial decorating to try and resolve this with him, which was appropriate.
The landlord took reasonable action when it addressed the resident’s dissatisfaction with its handling of his earlier toilet and drain blockage reports by considering the evidence from when its contractors previously attended the resident’s property and block to investigate the issue with the drain. It then advised the resident regarding the steps that it would take to address the problem in the long-term by providing all residents with information regarding the proper use of the drainage system, as well as by offering to unblock this with jetting in response to future reports of blockages by him.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Contact the resident to re-offer him the purchase by it of paint to redecorate his kitchen and living room ceiling, if it has not done so already, and confirm whether it is able to assist him with repainting the ceiling.
2. Consider re-investigating the drains at the resident’s block to determine how best to address blockages of these permanently, and inform him of the outcome of this.
The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that whether it will follow the above recommendations.