Harlow District Council (202122759)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122759

Harlow District Council

6 June 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 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 report of blocked drainage at her property.

Background

  1. The resident is the tenant of the landlord. She called it on 23 September 2021 to report that her sink was blocked. She subsequently raised a stage one complaint about the conversation as she found the staff member she had dealt with to be “rude and unhelpful” when she was discussing her disability and her repair. The landlord ended the call and the resident was left unaware of her next steps in dealing with the blocked sink. The landlord attended the property on 24 September 2021 and found no blockage in the pipes but replaced some pipes which were dated.
  2. The resident went on to escalate her complaint to the second and final stages of the landlord’s complaints procedure as she had employed a private plumber to carry work out to address the blocked sink and wanted it to reimburse her for this. She asserted that there was an issue with drainage in the entire block she lived in, which had caused her plumbing problem. In her final complaint escalation, the resident added that her white goods had been damaged and the landlord had given her conflicting information about whether it would carry out a rechargeable repair to the plumbing or if this was her responsibility.
  3. The landlord’s final complaint response on 22 December 2021 explained that, when it had attended in September 2021, it had found no blockage in her pipes. It confirmed that a single blockage in a property was a resident’s responsibility to resolve. The landlord relayed that its attendance at the property had found no blockages but did discover a burst underground pipe which it repaired. It clarified that this was not linked to any blockage within the property. It did not uphold the complaint as it had found no blockage when attending, but it agreed to partially clear her soil stack as a gesture of goodwill. The landlord referred the resident to her home contents insurer for any damage to her white goods and confirmed that it would not be reimbursing her for the cost of her plumber.
  4. The resident informed this Service on 8 March 2022 that she continued to be dissatisfied as the landlord had noted that her pipes were old on its attendance. She therefore felt that the responsibility for reimbursing her for her plumber costs and replacing her white goods lay with the landlord.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement confirms that it is obliged to repair and maintain the installations in the property for providing water and sanitation, in line with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Its repair responsibilities webpage clarifies that it is, however, the resident’s responsibility to clear a blocked sink or bath and it is only responsible for clearing total blockages of pipework. It was therefore appropriate for it to inform her that it would be her responsibility to unblock the sink when she reported the repair on 23 September 2021. Furthermore, a resident would be expected to occupy a property in a ‘tenant-like manner’. This would include the unblocking of a sink when blocked by their waste.
  2. When there is a dispute over the responsibility for a repair, it would be reasonable for the landlord to inspect the issue to determine whether it would be required to carry out a repair. Given that the resident mentioned that she had a disability, in her telephone call with it on 23 September, this was particularly important. The landlord attended the property within a reasonable period, the following day, and inspected the plumbing in the property. While it is noted that it found that some pipework was dated, which it replaced, it is significant that its contractor found no blockages. This demonstrated that it acted in accordance with its obligation to keep the pipework in good repair. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors; therefore, it was reasonable for it to conclude that it was not responsible for the unblocking of the resident’s sink as no total blockage, or blockage at all, was found at the property.
  3. The resident said, in her stage two complaint on 15 October 2021, that the blocked sink was a result of drainage problems within her block of properties and her blocked sink was not a single blockage but affected her entire property. The landlord said in its stage two complaint response on 25 October 2021 that it had checked its records and found no other reports of drainage issues from her. It noted that the only repair it had from her recently was its attendance on 21 October 2021 to partially clear the bathroom soil stack pipe to assist with drainage. The landlord therefore declined to reimburse the resident’s costs in employing a private plumber to unblock her sink. Again, given that there was no evidence of a total blockage, and no evidence of a failure on its part, this was a reasonable response from the landlord which was in accordance with its procedure.
  4. In the resident’s final stage complaint escalation on 1 December 2021, she raised that her white goods had been damaged by “the leak”. A landlord may consider referring a resident to its insurance team if they incurred loss or damage due to a failure on its part. As there was no evidence that the landlord had failed to act in accordance its obligations, it was appropriate for it to refer the resident to her insurers in its final complaint response on 22 December 2021.
  5. The resident’s original complaint was with the manner of the staff member she spoke to on 23 September 2021. When a landlord receives a complaint about staff conduct, its first action should be to examine any records of that conduct. It explained to the resident in its complaint responses that it did not have access to the call recordings to assess the staff member’s handling of the discussion. It however interviewed the staff member.
  6. The resident was unhappy that call recordings were not available, which the landlord explained in its final stage complaint was due to technical issues. In the absence of independent evidence of the calls, the landlord took a reasonable and proportionate approach in interviewing the staff member, reiterating to them the standard of customer service expected and acknowledging that the standard of service could have been improved. Given that the terminated call did not impact on the resident receiving an inspection from the landlord, and therefore did not impact on the substantive complaint, its response was reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of blocked drainage at her property.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Review its call recording systems to ensure that these can be produced in future, in event that the content of a call is disputed.