Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202105681)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105681

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

20 July 2023

 

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 handling of:
    1. sewage leaking into the resident’s property from the drainage system; and
    2. the associated decant.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident has told us she has medical conditions, including a weak immune system and agoraphobia.
  2. On 26 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and reported that there was sewage overflowing from her toilet and flooding the property. The landlord sent its contractor to attend the property to repair the issue. Whilst works were being carried out, it decanted the resident to a hotel.
  3. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord by telephone on 26 May 2021. She stated there was constant raw sewage overflowing from the toilet and spreading throughout the flat. She also stated that the landlord’s contractor attended the property to rod the drain outside but did not seem in a rush to resolve the sewage issue.
  4. The landlord conducted a CCTV survey on the drainage system. The report (dated 27 May 2021) found that scale and debris were causing a restriction to the flow. It said this would cause regular blockages to occur. The CCTV survey was completed whilst the resident was staying at a local hotel. The landlord’s contractor also carried out works to unblock the drain.
  5. After the drain was unblocked in May 2021 and the resident moved back into her property. The resident experienced further issues with the drain and had to call out a plumber on 8 June 2021 and 28 July 2021, due to experiencing blockage/overflow issues with the drainage system.
  6. The landlord emailed the resident on 22 June 2021, and provided its stage one complaint response. The landlord stated it initially believed that the issue with the drainage system was a onetime occurrence. However, it stated the issue became a much larger scope and further works were required. It also offered to replace the resident’s flooring as a good will gesture. The compensation offered and paid to the resident for the flooring was £801.70.
  7. The landlord had an additional CCTV survey carried out on the drainage system by a different contractor. The report dated 16 July 2021 stated that there was a very ‘severe belly’ in the pipe, suspected because of constant back surging. A severe belly in a pipe is a dip in the pipe which can lead to pipe erosion and blockage.
  8. On 24 June 2021, the resident escalated her complaint. On 29 July 2021, the landlord responded with its stage two complaint response. It apologised for the experience she had gone through. The landlord also stated, because of the frequency of recent blockages, it had hired a specialist contractor to assess the drainage system/pipework at the property. It also offered the resident an additional environmental clean to her property.
  9. In August 2021, the landlord confirmed it would arrange for the drains to be jet washed every two weeks until it could identify the issue and provide a permanent resolution. The resident also reported further issues to the landlord on 5 October 2021 and 14 December 2021 because of overflowing sewage.
  10. The resident has also stated that she made a successful insurance claim with the landlord’s insurer. The claim was for items damaged from the sewage flooding the property. In addition, the landlord has also stated that it paid the resident £6000 via her solicitor for repair issues related to this case.
  11. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident stated her desired outcome is for remedial works to be carried out to stop the recurrence of sewage flooding. She has also stated that she would like compensation for the distress and anxiety caused.
  12. The landlord has stated that it has completed works on the drainage system since the resident submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. It stated the drains were jet washed in January 2023. Also, there was a full internal inspection of the drainage system at the resident’s flat in March 2023. The landlord has stated that quarterly jet washing will be required going forward to ensure that the drains do not back surge. It stated no other repairs are required.

Assessment and findings

  1. In correspondence from the resident, she has stated that there had been issues with the drains for a significant period prior to her submitting her complaint to the landlord. The resident submitted her stage one complaint to the landlord in May 2021; therefore, this investigation will focus on the events leading up to that.
  2. The resident also mentioned in her communication that she fell ill and had to be admitted to the hospital. She has stated that this was because of the exposure she had to raw sewage from the flooding of the property. This Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, it would be more appropriately suited for a court to investigate a personal injury claim. As they can award damages in a different way to the Ombudsman and review medical evidence. But this Service can consider any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

The landlord’s handling of the sewage leak

  1. The express and implied terms of the tenancy state that the landlord is responsible for maintaining installations for drainage as well as the maintenance of drains, gutters, and external pipes.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy also states that a major water leak, or a broken or blocked toilet, would be an emergency repair. The policy states that the landlord will respond to:
    1. Emergency repairs within 24 hours
    2. Urgent repairs within seven days
    3. Normal repairs within 28 days
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord handled the sewage flooding correctly as an emergency repair. The landlord’s contractor also attended to the issue within 24 hours, which complies with its repair’s policy. The landlord also decanted the resident to a local hotel on 26 May 2021 whilst repairs were being carried out.
  4. Although the landlord’s contractor attended to the sewage flooding issue promptly, it could not permanently fix the issue within a reasonable time. It is acknowledged that the landlord was initially uncertain of the cause of the blockage in the drains. It arranged for contractors to carry out a CCTV survey on the drainage system in May and July 2021. Also, in August 2021, the landlord arranged for the drains to be jetted every two weeks until it could provide a permanent resolution to repair the drain.
  5. Even though the landlord attempted to repair the drainage system. The resident still experienced further issues with overflowing sewage on 5 October 2021 and 14 December 2021. The Ombudsman recognises it must have been a difficult time for the resident dealing with overflowing sewage in her property.
  6. The resident first reported the issue regarding sewage flooding her property on 25 May 2021, however, works to resolve the issue with the drain permanently only took place this year in January 2023. Following the completion of the drain works, the landlord’s contractor inspected the drains and carried out a CCTV survey on 14 March 2023. The CCTV survey report confirmed that the drain was serviceable and there were no recommended works.
  7. The time taken to permanently fix the drainage system was unreasonable. In addition, the number of updates provided to the resident about the progress of the drain works was inadequate. It would have been unclear to the resident when the repair of the drainage system would take place. The delay in fixing the drainage system has caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  8. The resident told the Ombudsman on 10 March 2023 that she was unaware that the drainage system had been repaired. However, this was prior to the landlord’s contractor completing the CCTV survey on 14 March 2023. Therefore, it would be useful for the landlord to provide the resident with an update regarding the drainage system and recent works carried out if it hasn’t done so already.

The landlord’s handling of the associated decant

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will decant a resident if the whole of the property cannot be used while it completes major works. It also states that it will pay a disturbance allowance to cover actual expenses incurred.
  2. Whilst the landlord carried out repairs to the drainage system, it decanted the resident to a local hotel on 26 May 2021 for a few days. This was due to major work being carried out to the drainage system, the landlord correctly decanted the resident to a local hotel in line with its policy. The landlord’s contractor carried out a CCTV survey on the drainage system on 27 May 2021 and unblocked the drains. The contractor checked that the drainage system was left free running and clear before the resident returned to the property.
  3. The resident mentioned that the accommodation she was decanted to was unsuitable, as it did not provide any access to cooking facilities. Therefore, she could not prepare food as part as her special dietary requirements required because of her medical condition. The Ombudsman acknowledges that it must have been difficult for the resident not having access to prepare her special dietary meals. As the landlord was aware of the resident’s special dietary requirements, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to look for suitable accommodation for the resident considering her needs. However, the landlord has acknowledged in its stage two response that it failed to do this and has ensured going forward that it will take into consideration the resident’s special dietary requirements.
  4. The Ombudsman has recognised that the resident did not receive a disturbance allowance when she was decanted to the hotel in May 2021. The landlord has stated that it did not process a disturbance payment due to a clerical error. It also explained that it normally pays a disturbance payment for out-of-pocket expenses such as taxi’s to and from the accommodation, meals, and special dietary requirements. Therefore, the landlord failed to comply with its compensation policy, as it did not pay a disturbance payment to the resident whilst it decanted her.
  5. Although there was a significant delay in the landlord repairing the drainage system and it is evident that the landlord could have handled the decant more appropriately. The landlord has acknowledged this delay and offered and paid the resident compensation. The compensation included £801.70 to replace the resident’s laminate flooring and £6000 compensation. The compensation offered was compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards of £1000 plus where there has been severe failure by the landlord. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the compensation proportionately reflects the impact of the delays on the resident and the poor handling of the resident’s decant to the local hotel, and it amounts to reasonable redress in this case. However, the landlord did fail to pay a disturbance payment to the resident whilst it decanted her.
  6. Also, the landlord did delay providing this redress and for that reason, the landlord is responsible for maladministration in its handling of the works to the drains and the decant.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the works to the drains and the decant.
  2. Whilst the landlord has offered satisfactory redress, the position was left unclear to the resident as later as March 2023. Moreover, the landlord does not appear to have paid the disturbance allowance. Orders

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. pay the resident compensation of £250 to recognise that it had not communicated the works were completed as far as March 2023 and the time taken to offer fair redress;
    2. carry out a further and final CCTV review of the drains to ensure they are likely to remain functional, given the issues faced by the resident;
    3. pay the resident the outstanding disturbance payments for the period she spent in the hotel for meals.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord write to the resident with a detailed update of the works it has completed to repair the drainage/ sewage system.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord check the drains again in nine months to ensure they remain in working order. This is to prevent further instances of sewage into the resident’s home.