Haringey Council (202010916)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010916

Haringey Council

14 September 2021


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 concerns the level of compensation offered to the resident following her reports of upsurges in her kitchen pipes.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord.
  2. The resident explained to the landlord that on 23 August 2020 there was a “back surge incident” that came “up into [her] kitchen sink”. She said that on the morning of 23 August, her kitchen sink was “overflowing with brown water” and she called the landlord to report an emergency repair at around 5pm. According to the resident, the landlord’s operative attended at 7.45pm with a “machine/hoover to suction the water on the floor”. Then, at “around midnight” she heard “banging on pipes in the garages beneath” and the water then stopped “coming out of the machine”.
  3. The resident has explained that she called the landlord on 24 August 2020, and it advised her that it had raised a work order on 5 August “to do with a drainage problem” and that this “was connected to the back surge [she] experienced”.
  4. On 24 August 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to claim compensation. She explained the events as described above and explained what damage the back surge had caused. She said that her washing machine, kitchen flooring, and kitchen sink had all “been contaminated/ ruined”. She said that that the “issue was clearly not [her] fault”, and the problem seemed to have been “brewing for a while”. She expressed her concerns about the health implications associated with contamination from the wastewater. She said that she had not used the sink or prepared meals in her kitchen since the incident.
  5. The landlord informed the resident on 27 August 2020 that it had logged her complaint at stage one of its complaint process.
  6. On 7 September 2020 the resident advised the landlord that she had “another case of the back surge wastewater” in her kitchen and that there was wastewater in her washing machine. She said that the operative sent by the landlord had “opened the drains and said it is blocked solid and needs jetting”. 
  7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 10 September 2020. It apologised for the time taken to resolve the drainage problem which had caused the upsurges. It said that it had also received reports “in the last few weeks” from other neighbours in the resident’s block about drainage upsurge issues. It explained that its operatives had attended to these reports as emergencies, and that they had attempted to “clear the blockages” but were unsuccessful due to “the inaccessible pipelines in the underground garage”. It said that it had faced difficulties accessing the garages from the “security company that rent[ed]” this area from it.
  8. The landlord apologised for the time taken to access the garages, and the inconvenience this had caused. It said it would confirm a date with her for when it would have access to the garages so that its operatives could “jet the blocked lines and complete all works required to resolve the matter”. It offered the resident £60 compensation in recognition of the time taken to “resolve the matter and the time and trouble cause to [her]”. The offer composed of:
    1. £10 one off payment = £10
    2. £2 per day x 2 weeks = £20
    3. time and trouble = £30
  9. The landlord recommended that the resident take out home contents insurance to cover any damage to personal items, or to contact its insurance department for more information. It concluded by explaining how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  10. The landlord advised the resident on 11 September 2020 that its operatives would visit her property on 15 September to complete the “repairs required” and to “carry out a full descale on all pipelines to resolve this issue”.
  11. The resident emailed the landlord on 15 September 2020 asking it to confirm whether its operatives would be attending that day. She advised it that the “contamination [was] getting worse”. She said that she had spent 14/15 September “bailing out water” during the day and night. The landlord responded the same day stating that the contractors were due on site at 8am that day and advised that they did attend that morning though were unable to access the pipes and that they should be reattending shortly.
  12. The landlord emailed the resident further during the afternoon of 15 September and said that its operatives were “on site clearing the lines to all the stack pipes servicing the properties in the block”. It said that misuse of drains had led to the issues she had been experiencing. It said it would contact her “to arrange a clean-up” in her home, and that it would reconsider its compensation offer “to reflect [its] failure in service”.
  13. On 16 September 2020 the resident confirmed with the landlord that its cleaner had attended the previous day.
  14. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 October 2020. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s compensation and said that it had failed to “service the communal drains” even though it had been aware of the issue since 5 August. She confirmed the further upsurges that had taken place on 7 September and 14/15 September with the latter resulting in wastewater having to be bailed out during the day and night despite the landlord being alerted to the problem on 14 September. She said the “raw sewage” had contaminated everything it had touched, that she could not “use that sink again” And that she and her son were “confined to [their] rooms”. The resident said that she had “no confidence in the [landlord’s] ability to fulfil [its] obligations to provide the services [she paid] for in service charges”. She said that she would not make a claim through her contents insurance “because this [was] not [her] fault”, and listed the reasons why she sought compensation, which included (but not limited to):
    1. the landlord’s failure to “provide a service”.
    2. the “undue stress and anxiety”.
    3. her loss of the use of her kitchen since 23 August “until the work [had been] completed”.
    4. damaged items.
    5. “risk of contamination”.
    6. loss of earnings and loss of four “days bailing out raw sewage”.
  15. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 17 November 2020. It apologised for not resolving the repair issue in the first instance. It confirmed that on 14 October its operatives had “clear[ed] the drains” and that there had been no further issues since then. It said that it would conduct “monthly inspections and clearances” to prevent any similar future incidents.
  16. It said that the resident should have been compensated for the period between 23 August and 14 October and offered her a further £190 compensation. This composed of:
    1. priority repair not being resolved = £60 (it said it had already offered the resident £30 for this aspect)
    2. time and trouble pursuing the issue = £50 (it said it had already offered her £30 for this aspect)
    3. discretionary award for exceptional circumstances = £80
  17. It said that as the resident was a leaseholder, it could not approve of remedial work to repair the damage caused by the water or reimburse her for the cost of a replacement washing machine. It advised her to make a claim against its insurer “for any associated costs of repair” and for damage to her belongings. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied with the outcome.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the repair of “the sewers drains channels watercourses gas and water pipes”. Its repairs policy says that emergency repairs may include burst pipes, major water leaks, or “leaking waste pipe from a sink”. It aims to attend within 24 hours of such emergencies and will “attempt” to complete the repair on the first visit. Also, its discretionary compensation policy suggests that in instances where it has failed to carry out an emergency repair it should offer residents £15 per week until the issue is resolved. For a delayed Priority A repair, it suggests a £10 one-off payment, £2 per day up to three weeks, and then £10 per week until the issue is resolved. It suggests a payment of between £5-£10 per week in instances of “time and trouble” and in “exceptional circumstances” it suggests £10-£40 per week of failure and awards at the officer’s or complaint’s panel discretion.
  2. From the evidence provided for this investigation, it is apparent that when the resident reported the upsurge on 23 August 2020 the landlord attended within the emergency repair timeframe. The resident reported a further upsurge on 7 September and explained that the landlord attended the same day. On these occasions the upsurges were halted. In respect of 14/15 September the landlord, when responding to the complaint, did not challenge the resident’s confirmation that the upsurge had been reported on 14 September and that she had to bail out wastewater for over 24 hours until the drains were cleared during the afternoon of 15 September. It identified there were further access problems which delayed the works until the afternoon, which was a failure in the service.
  3. The resident explained to the landlord that she was informed that it was aware about the drain issue from at least 5 August and failed to repair it. The landlord did not challenge this assertion in its complaint response. However, it also did not clearly address the point. While the landlord acknowledged it had received reports of issues from other residents “in the last few weeks” it did not explain when it became aware that there was an issue which required clearance of the drains in the garage areas. This is likely to have been frustrating for the resident and should also have been an issue that should have been considered in the landlord’s assessment of compensation.
  4. The landlord explained that some delay had been caused by its inability to access the pipes it needed to complete the repairs. The pipes are the landlord’s responsibility, and so it should have been be able to access them as part of its repair obligations. In its final response it clearly acknowledges the failure to carry out the repair required although does not explain if there were other reasons apart from the access problems. The landlord was aware of the potential impact of failing to carry out the investigation/clearance of the drains and therefore the delay was a significant failure.
  5. The resident raised concerns about the quality of cleaning the landlord provided on 15 September. The landlord failed to respond to this its final complaint response. However, the lease states that the resident is responsible for cleaning, and so this is not something the landlord was obliged to do. If the resident had engaged their own contractor to assist with this, it may have been an insurance claim issue. Insurance matters are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. 
  6. In its assessment of compensation, the landlord was not clear on how it was interpreting delays in respect of the category of repairs. The reports by the resident were treated as emergency repairs though the compensation provided by the landlord related to the delay in a Priority A repair, and this was not explained. In addition, the resident raised in her complaints that she was seeking to be compensated for loss of facilities as her kitchen could not be used and there was also an impact on her hallway and living room. The landlord’s compensation policy does identify the potential for compensation in this respect though payments suggested are identified as a proportion of a tenants rent which would not be applicable to leaseholders. The landlord should have explained it’s approach to leaseholders in this respect.      
  7. The resident explained that she did not want to claim on her home contents insurance “because this [was] not [her] fault”. Generally, insurance claims are appropriate in instances where damage has occurred which was not the homeowner/occupant’s fault. It was therefore reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to consider making a claim for her damaged items. It did also identify in its final response that the resident could seek to claim on its insurance policy for damage to goods and associated costs of repair.
  8. The landlord has sought to apply its discretionary compensation policy in response to the resident’s complaint. However, in view of the issues explained above the Ombudsman believes the compensation does not reflect the full level of the distress and inconvenience caused. The combined failures mentioned above do constitute a service failure and adequate redress was not offered for the problems that occurred. The Ombudsman has used its remedies guidance in applying the level of compensation awarded in the order below.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident reports of upsurges in her kitchen pipes.  

Reasons

  1. There were delays in investigating/clearing drains causing upsurges of wastewater in the resident’s home. The landlord’s complaint response did not address all the issues raised in the resident’s complaint. The level of compensation offered did not provide adequate redress.  

Order

  1. The landlord to pay compensation of £600 for any distress/inconvenience experienced by the resident. This includes the £250 already offered by the landlord which can be deducted if already paid. The landlord to confirm compliance to the Ombudsman within four weeks.