Hyde Housing Association Limited (202317272)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317272

Hyde Housing Association Limited

28 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a sewage leak in the resident’s property and associated repairs.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord for a property owned by the landlord, which is a 2-bedroom ground-floor flat. The resident lives with her child 2 cats and 1 dog. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the landlord confirmed it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The resident reported a sewage leak from her toilet to the landlord’s out-of-hours service on 28 May 2022. On 31 May the resident told the landlord she had been unable to live at the property and had been “sofa surfing” since reporting the issue. She said she had been waiting for a call from the landlord from 28 May. The landlord inspected the property on 1 June. If found the following was needed to rectify the issue:
    1. Descaling of the property’s pipework. This was completed on 6 and 14 June 2022. The contractor completing it found “heavy scaling” and residents living above the resident flushing “wipes and non-biomaterial” as the reason for the back flooding.
    2. Contaminated floor coverings needed to be replaced throughout the property. This was completed by the landlord’s contractor on 28 June 2022.
    3. Contaminated fire doors needed replacing in the property. It found “no issue” with the doors during an inspection on 18 August but found contaminated skirting boards needed to be removed and replaced throughout the property. The resident said the skirting boards had not been replaced in correspondence with the Ombudsman on 20 September 2023.
    4. An environmental deep clean of the property needed to be completed. The landlord raised this on 20 September 2022 and attempted to complete it on 29 September. However, the resident rejected this as she stated she had replaced her bathroom and already completed a “deep clean of the property.
    5. The resident’s damaged personal belongings needed replacing. The resident provided the landlord with a list of damaged items at its request on 20 June 2022. On 21 and 23 June it said it could not reimburse for damage to the resident’s possessions and she should raise a formal complaint to “get some money back.”
  3. The resident duly raised a complaint on 18 July 2022. She said the following:
    1. There was a lack of empathy and urgency from the landlord. Nothing had been done about her ruined belongings, skirting boards, flooring, or doors. She believed she should not have to claim for damage to her belongings as the leak was due to the landlord’s failure to properly maintain the property. She also raised the landlord had called her a “liar” regarding the damage to her possessions.
    2. Her mental health was in “rapid decline,” and she had been “homeless for four weeks” with her child living on sofas. She had received no payments from the landlord, and she could not “run two homes” on a part-time wage.
  4. The resident would return to the property around 10 August 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 25 October 2022. It stated the following:
    1. It should have told the resident she could move back in on 27 June but did not do this until 15 July. The resident was able to stay with friends whilst it completed works in her property. It did not provide her with disturbance payments between 28 May and 28 June but would pay these up to 15 July.
    2. It had tried to replace skirting boards in the hallway and kitchen but could not get access. It confirmed it would still arrange this and found no issue with the doors. It said the resident needed to claim for any damage to her possessions on her own content’s insurance.
    3. It agreed it could have completed repairs sooner and was sorry it let the resident down. It offered compensation of £300. This was £200 for its complaints process and £100 for delays in completing repairs with time and trouble caused. The landlord would later apply this to the resident’s rent arrears on 8 November 2022.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 May 2022. The landlord responded to this as follows:
    1. On 9 August it reviewed the compensation it awarded to the resident on 25 October 2022. It offered an additional £350 bringing its total offer to £650. It decided to do this as it said it did not fully consider the delays and inconvenience caused.
    2. On 10 August it provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed it would not change its stage 1 complaint decision. This was because it believed it gave a “fair reply” and there was “no new information” from the resident for it to change its decision.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 20 September 2023 and her complaint was accepted for investigation on 8 February 2024. The resident said there was outstanding works in the property including skirting boards and doors. She felt the landlord did not sufficiently compensate her for the upheaval to her and her child and animals. It is unclear if the resident progressed a claim through her own insurance. In correspondence with the Ombudsman on 20 August 2024, the landlord said it replaced the skirting at the property on 15 November 2022 and it fitted a new kitchen on 29 June 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment.

  1. In the resident’s correspondence, she referred to a sewage leak 2 years before the one she reported on 28 May 2022. Paragraph 42 (c) Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not 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. Given the time periods involved in this case, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events before 28 December 2021. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made on 18 July 2022.
  2. The resident said that her mental health suffered because of how the landlord handled her reports of the sewage leak at her property. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced because of the landlord’s handling of the situation involving her property.
  3. The landlord directed the resident to complete a claim for damage to her possessions on her own content’s insurance. It said the resident was unable to claim through the building insurance. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of an insurance claim as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of her possessions and its overall approach to the matter.

The sewage leak in the resident’s property and associated repairs.

  1. The tenancy agreement between the resident and landlord confirms the landlord is responsible for all fixtures and fittings for water being “kept in repair and in working order.” Its Responsive Repairs Policy clarifies it is responsible for any non-stick flooring it has provided and any flooring in the bathroom and kitchen. It is also responsible for internal walls, toilet flushing systems, waste pipe leaks, blocked toilets, and water leaks.
  2. The Responsive Repairs Policy confirms it operates an out-of-hours (OOH) service where calls are transferred to its OOH customer contact centre. Any repairs during OOH, are to make the issue safe and further remedial works will be carried out as an anytime appointment. The policy prioritises repairs as follows:
    1. Emergency repairs which are required to “sustain the immediate health, safety or security of the resident” or that “affects the building adversely.” It will not make an appointment for such repairs but will attend within 4 hours to make the property safe. Follow-on works will be completed as an ‘anytime repair.’
    2. Anytime repairs are any responsive repairs that are not emergency repairs. It will complete these within its contractor’s working hours within 20 working days.
    3. Major repairs are non-emergency and complex work. It will complete this work as per its stock investment procedures.
  3. The resident reported the sewage leak to the landlord’s OOH service on 28 May 2022, which was a Saturday. It is unclear from the landlord’s records if the landlord attended within 4 hours as an emergency. The landlord’s OOH surveyor would later confirm on 1 June it asked for a plumber to attend the same day. The surveyor said the plumber “verified” the resident’s reports and said it was “best for her to leave the property.”  This suggests the landlord acted in accordance with its emergency repair procedure in its policy. A request was made for the resident to be decanted on 28 May. However, there is no evidence this took place. The landlord’s OOH surveyor stated on 1 June they “presumed this had not happened.” The landlord’s response to decanting the resident is assessed later in this report. Between reporting the issue on 28 May and 31 May there is no further evidence of communication from the landlord to the resident. The landlord attended on 1 June 2022 and took the appropriate action of removing any carpet and polysafe affected by the overflow. The wet room was cleared, cleaned, and sanitised by the landlord. It raised a “schedule of works” that needed to be completed. In accordance with its Responsive Repairs Policy, it should have completed further “anytime repairs” in 20 working days from 1 June.
  4. Its contractor descaled the pipes at the property on 6 June 2022. This was in accordance with its 20 working days timescale. A full descale was completed by the contractor and they felt the scaling was the reason for the “recent back flooding.” The contractor also advised the landlord to write to all other residents in the building advising them not to flush “non-biomaterials and wipes.” The landlord took steps to complete this on 15 June. This was an appropriate step at this stage in complying with the contractor’s recommendations and limiting the potential cause of further “back flooding.”
  5. The landlord raised the work to replace the flooring on 8 June 2022. On 15 June, the resident reported the contractor told her they were “too busy to complete the work”. The landlord acted proactively the same day and arranged for a further contractor to complete the work. The new contractor completed the replacement of the flooring on 28 June 2022. This was equivalent to 27 working days and exceeded the 20-working day timescale in its policy. When the resident returned to the property in August 2022, she said the flooring contractor had “piled up” her belongings and “chucked them into a room.” The landlord had raised a work order for the contractor to return belongings to their original place on 25 June. It queried why the contractor had not done this on 22 August. It was told the operative responsible no longer worked for the contractor. In the absence of this information, it should have apologised to the resident for its failure to do this and the inconvenience it caused to her.
  6. The work order to remove and replace skirting boards in the property was raised on 8 June 2022 but was cancelled in error which the landlord was unable to find the reason for, by 15 July 2022. The landlord re-raised the order on the same day. It would go on to remove the skirting on 5 September 2022, this took the equivalent of 96 working days and far exceeded its 20-working day timescale. This was only part of the work order as the skirting was not replaced on this date. It told the resident in its stage 1 reply of 25 October it would replace the skirting. Its records show it replaced the skirting boards on 15 November. However, in correspondence with the Ombudsman in May and September 2023, the resident said her skirting had not been replaced. The landlord will be ordered to further investigate if skirting at the property was replaced on 15 November 2022. If it is unable to specifically confirm this, it must take appropriate action to renew skirting at the property.
  7. By 31 May 2022, the landlord had not completed an environmental deep clean of the resident’s property. It recognised the urgency of completing this and stated internally it “expected it to be scheduled in already.” It took no action for a considerable amount of time and did not raise for this to be done until 20 September. By this time, the resident had already moved back into the property. It attempted to complete the deep clean on 21 October and found that the resident had cleaned the property herself and replaced her bathroom. This was equivalent to 142 working days. This was inappropriate, as the landlord should have taken steps to complete this before the resident moved back in, in August. Its failure to take these steps caused inconvenience to the resident and concern over how seriously it was taking the situation.
  8. The resident would go on to raise in her complaint escalation of 1 February 2023 that she believed sewage had “entered her wall cavities and brickwork.” The landlord failed to respond to this point in its stage 2 complaint response or otherwise. This was a legitimate concern raised by the resident and the landlord should have used its complaints process to address this. Its failure to respond left the issue unresolved for the resident causing concern about the potential impact on her health. An order will be raised for the landlord to investigate this matter and take any appropriate action, as necessary.
  9. The resident raised throughout her complaint but in particular in her escalation of 1 February 2023 that she felt the sewage leak was a persistent issue, having previously taken place in 2020. The Ombudsman can find no evidence of the landlord considering a long-term approach to the issue. The contractor confirmed in its visit on 6 June 2022 that the issue was caused by scaling and non-flushable items from residents living above the resident causing blockages. Although it was an appropriate step to write to other residents this is no guarantee that the issue is resolved. With no long-term approach to the issue, the landlord can only tackle any prospective further issues reactively rather than proactively. An order will be made for the landlord to consider monitoring the resident’s pipework on an annual basis to consider any proactive works to clear build up before they become blockages. Had it done this previously, it could have offered some reassurance to the resident it was serious about tackling the issue before it affected her property.
  10. The landlord’s Decant Policy confirms it has different options for temporary decants, including staying with friends or relatives or in a budget-priced hotel for a maximum of 14 days. The resident is liable for utility costs at the temporary property, but it will pay the utility costs of the decanted property until the resident returns to their property. It states communication is “key to successful management” of a decant process. It offers disturbance payments when a resident is displaced temporarily or permanently. It can offer allows the following amounts:
    1. Hotel allowance of included breakfast plus £10 meal allowance per day.
    2. Staying with friends or family allowance of £40 per day per household paid weekly.
    3. Accommodating cats and dogs, the total is £10 for a cat per day at a maximum of £40 per day.
    4. Storage of £14 per week.
  11. The resident reported on 31 May 2022 she was waiting for someone to get back in touch with her about a formal decant from her property after her report of sewage in her property on 28 May. She confirmed on the same day she had accommodation, it is believed with family, until 31 May but nothing further. On 1 June, the landlord established it had requested for its OOH to arrange for the resident to formally decant the resident on 28 May. However, this was not raised correctly and as such no further action was taken at this time. This caused the resident to manage a stressful situation alone without support from the landlord.
  12. When the landlord visited the resident on 1 June, she confirmed she was able to stay with her family until 3 June. There is no evidence at this point it considered supporting her from 3 June onwards. She provided it with an invoice for a cattery to care for her cats on 5 June. However, there is no further evidence the resident boarded her cats. The landlord did not take any action until 6 June when it approved a decant for the resident, suggesting after speaking to her she wished to stay with relatives. It is unclear if the resident continued to stay with relatives between 3 and 6 June. The resident provided her bank details to the landlord for disturbance payments on 8 June 2022. Weekly payments of £280 were approved by the landlord on 13 June and it asked internally to back pay this from 27 May. This was in accordance with the landlord’s Decants Policy. This was an appropriate step to take, to cover the resident’s expenses from the start of the issue.
  13. There is no evidence from 13 June 2022 that the landlord communicated with the resident about the decant or the disturbance payments it had approved. The evidence does not confirm it paid the disturbance payments to her either. Its approach was not in accordance with its Decants Policy which states communication is “key.”  Disturbance payments were not arranged by the landlord until 20 June and its records show it released this payment. The resident would later confirm on 5 August she received disturbance payments for the period 28 May to 25 June 2022.
  14. The landlord completed all necessary repairs to the resident’s flooring by 28 June 2022 to allow her to move back in. There is no evidence it or its contractor informed the resident of this. She chased this with the contractor on 5 July and had no response until 15 July when she was advised by the landlord she could move back into the property. This was another example of the landlord failing to communicate effectively, not in accordance with its Decants Policy. The resident remained decanted from her property between 28 June and 15 July, unaware she was able to return to her property. It would go on to apologise for this failure in its stage 1 complaint response.
  15. On 5 August 2022, the resident told the landlord she was still not back in the property as “no one had contacted her” to confirm she was allowed back in. The resident disputed the landlord had told her she could return on 15 July and said she had received no disturbance payments since 25 June. The landlord responded to these points as part of its stage 1 complaint response. It reiterated it had told the resident she could move back in on 15 July, she would later confirm this was correct. It took the appropriate step of increasing disturbance payments by an extra two weeks and 3 days from 29 June to 15 July. It was delayed in taking further action and on 27 October 2022 found it should pay £640 (for 28 June to 15 July) disturbance payments to the resident. There is no evidence of the landlord paying this to the resident, however. This would go on to cause her confusion as she believed the landlord was no longer paying this to her and had reduced its compensation offer. An order will be made for the landlord to pay any outstanding disturbance payments to the resident below.
  16. In correspondence with the landlord on 19 June 2022, her complaint of 18 July 2022 and her complaint escalation of 1 February 2023 the resident mentioned the impact on her mental health and low mood and the effect it was having on her child. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident’s points. As a responsible landlord it should have taken the resident’s reports seriously and considered referring her or signposting her for further support. A risk assessment could have also been an appropriate option to investigate the impact on the resident and where it could focus support. It was clear throughout the complaint it was focused on the core issue and outstanding repairs. However, in correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident said she felt “neglected” by the landlord and in her complaint response she said it had shown a “lack of empathy.” Its failure to acknowledge or support the resident’s health were examples of this.
  17. The resident was inefficient in managing the resident’s expectations about whether it could reimburse her for the cost of damage to her belongings. Following its inspection on 1 June 2022 it reported a number of the resident’s items needed replacing. It said it had told the resident to assess further damage and get back to it. The evidence indicates it gave her the impression it would reimburse the costs for her. She chased this on 20 June, and it asked her for a list of damaged items and photos, further giving her the impression it would reimburse her. It would change its stance the following day after obtaining further advice. It said the resident may “get some money back” through a complaint but as there was no service failure this was “unlikely.” It also appropriately told her to claim through her contents insurance which is in line with its Complaints Policy. The landlord should have informed the resident of this much sooner for her to have a clear understanding of what to do and make a claim at the earliest possible opportunity.
  18. In its stage 1 complaint response of 25 October 2022 the landlord offered £100 compensation. This was £50 for time and trouble and distress and inconvenience caused and £50 for delays in having repairs attended. The landlord has not provided a Compensation Policy with a sliding scale for how it awards compensation. Assessing the compensation awarded against the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests the issues to be minimal, a short duration or with no significant effect. This is not in line with the failures identified within this report and failed to acknowledge the total distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  19. The landlord would recognise its failure to acknowledge the detriment caused to the resident in its compensation offer in its compensation review of 9 August 2022. It would increase its offer by £250, an additional £100 for time trouble distress and inconvenience and an additional £100 for delays. A further amount of £50 was awarded for “customer effort.” This meant the landlord offered total compensation of £350. In accordance with the Ombudsman remedies guidance, this would suggest failures that have not adversely affected the resident and of no permanent impact.
  20. The Ombudsman finds the total compensation of £350 offered to the resident to be insufficient. This is due to the total detriment caused to the resident and also for the following reasons:
    1. It failed to consider the impact the situation was having on the resident’s health despite receiving prompts from her in correspondence and her complaint and escalation. It did not offer support or consider a risk assessment.
    2. The landlord was delayed in all but one of its responsive repairs recommended by its surveyor. It failed to communicate or update the resident sufficiently throughout. The failure to complete these promptly prolonged the detriment and the period the resident was away from her home. It did not complete a deep clean of her home and did not return her belongings to where it had found them before she returned causing significant inconvenience to her. It failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about sewage in her brickwork. There is no evidence it considered a long-term approach to the issue to ensure it could react proactively rather than reactively in future.
    3. It failed to appropriately manage the resident’s decant from the property. It was delayed in communicating with the resident and keeping her informed on what action it was taking. The resident was not informed promptly when it completed all repairs, prolonging the stress and inconvenience of being decanted. Although it would go on to award further disturbance payments to the resident, there is no evidence it fully paid these.
    4. It did not manage the resident’s expectations regarding reimbursement of her possessions. Had it provided appropriate advice sooner in line with its policy it would have reduced uncertainty to the resident and allowed her to claim on her contents insurance sooner.
  21. In summary the landlord treated the resident’s initial report as an emergency, attending on the same day, and investigated the property in an appropriate timescale. From the work it recommended following this, it failed to act in accordance with its Repairs Policy for all, but the descaling required at the resident’s property. The failings were exacerbated by the landlord’s insufficient communication allowing required work to not be attempted until after the resident had moved back in or not completed at all. This meant she had to complete a deep clean and return her belongings and furniture to their usual position herself. The resident was required on many occasions to chase the outcome herself whilst managing her decant from the property. She raised a number of times the detriment to her health, but the landlord did not use this as a prompt to support the resident or complete a risk assessment to support any action. The landlord left a number of issues unresolved for the resident and failed to reassure her, by putting a long-term plan into place to manage the issue.
  22. In all the circumstances of the case, a determination of maladministration has been identified. Compensation of £600 has been awarded as the landlord failed “promptly and effectively” to complete repairs. This is £250 more than the £350 already offered by the landlord. It failed to fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of the repairs to the property. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. Further orders will be made for the landlord to consider the failings identified in this report.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy confirms it is “open to receive complaints” about its service. It aims to resolve complaints “promptly, fairly, politely and sorry when it gets things wrong.” Agreement will be made with the resident on how the landlord will inform them through the complaints process.” Residents can choose whether they want an informal response to put things right quickly or an investigation through the landlord’s complaints process. Its complaints process comprises of two stages:
    1. Stage 1 complaints are managed by a complaints officer who will work to understand the complaint and how the resident wants things put right. It will acknowledge a complaint in 5 working days and provide its full response in 10 working days.
    2. Stage 2 complaints are managed by a different complaints officer who will review the stage 1 response and the reasons for escalation. It will acknowledge an escalation in 5 working days and provide its full response within 20 working days from acceptance of the escalation.
    3. Should it need additional time to investigate complaints it will explain this to the resident and give a date for its response.
  2. The resident raised her initial complaint on 18 July 2022. The landlord did not allocate the complaint to a complaints officer until 1 August by which time the 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint had already elapsed. The complaint was then acknowledged by the landlord on 5 August where it told the resident it would reply by 22 August. It took 14 working days to do this which was outside of the timescale. The landlord did acknowledge this in its stage 1 complaint response offering £50 compensation. Its policy confirms compensation awards are paid at the discretion of the investigation officer. This was an appropriate award for “failing to deliver a service to the advertised standard.”
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 25 October 2022. This was equivalent to 70 working days. It did update the resident that its response would be late on 22 August telling her it would reply by 7 September. It did not reply on 7 September and on 21 September said it would reply by 21 October. Therefore, it failed to keep the resident updated between 7 September and 20 September and 21 October and 24 October. It acknowledged these failures in its response offering £100 for its complaint handling failures and £50 for the resident’s patience during the complaints process. This was appropriate and in accordance with its Compensation Policy. It also reflects the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been moderate detriment to the resident.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to address the resident’s concerns its surveyor had called her a “liar”. It should have completed an internal investigation to ensure it was completing a “fair and impartial investigation.” This would have enabled it to address the miscommunication it had provided the resident about whether it could reimburse her damaged possessions (previously assessed in this report) Its failure to do any of this caused the resident to believe it was not taking her concerns seriously. The resident also said the landlord had not acknowledged her issues until her MP contacted it. The landlord did not address this point and should have explained its delay in taking action to dispel the resident’s belief this was only due to MP correspondence. Finally, the complaint response failed to address the resident’s concerns about how her health had been affected. The landlord had the opportunity to offer or signpost to support but failed to evidence having done so.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 May 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged her complaint in 5 working days in accordance with its policy. On 9 August 2023, it wrote to the resident to review the compensation it awarded in its stage 1 complaint response. It is unclear why it took this approach as its policy does not reference this. Furthermore, it would go on to provide its stage 2 complaint response the following day. It should have included its compensation review in its stage 2 complaint response to limit any confusion on its approach to the resident. It offered additional compensation of £50 for “complaint handling failure” and £50 for the resident’s patience during the complaints process. It is unclear if these awards were in relation to just the stage 1 complaint response or how it had handled the escalation too. Had it provided the compensation award in its stage 2 response it could have made this much clearer.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint on 10 August 2023 which was equivalent to 57 working days, far exceeding the 20 working days in its policy. There is no evidence the landlord managed the resident’s expectations at any point to explain it would be delayed or provide her with a prospective reply date. The stage 2 response did not refer to the compensation review it had provided to the resident the day before, adding to the confusion caused to the resident. Its overall response was inefficient for the following reasons:
    1. It said it found that its stage 1 complaint response was a “fair reply.” This was incorrect for the following reasons:
      1. It had failed to complete an internal investigation about its surveyor at stage 1 or investigate any potential miscommunication. It did not recognise or address this at stage 2.
      2. It stage 1 response failed to address why it was delayed in addressing the issues at the resident’s property and MP contact. The response also failed to address concerns about the detriment to the resident’s health. It failed to acknowledge or address this at stage 2.
    2. It said the resident had provided “no new information for it to consider.” This was incorrect as the resident raised further information in her escalation as follows:
      1. She raised further information about the misinformation about claiming on her content’s insurance for her damaged possessions. She said the landlord should have informed her of this sooner.
      2. She was worried sewage had entered her wall cavities and brickwork and confirmed repairs to her skirting had not been completed. It had not attempted to complete the deep clean of the property until after its stage 1 response and the resident asked why it had been delayed. She felt the sewage leak was due to a “maintenance issue” by the landlord. It also failed to address concerns about the issue being a long-term problem and how it would tackle this.
      3. The resident raised further concerns about her health. The landlord had the opportunity to support her in its response but did not do so.
    3. Its failure to address all of the above points and complete a comprehensive stage 2 complaint response meant it failed to comply with its policy. Its approach was inappropriate and denied a review of its standards and the opportunity to rectify any outstanding points of concern for the resident.
  7. A landlord’s complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own Complaints Policy in its stage 1 and 2 complaint response times. Its inefficient communication and divergence from its policy caused uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident. A determination of maladministration has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £500 compensation has been ordered. This includes the £300 previously awarded by the landlord. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred over a protracted period with moderate impact on the resident throughout that period.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of a sewage leak in the resident’s property and associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in the handling of the resident’s reports of the sewage leak and its complaint handling failures.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £1100 in compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
      1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s ineffective response to reports of a sewage leak in the resident’s property and associated repairs.
      2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient complaint handling.
      3. The amounts above include the £650 already awarded to the resident by the landlord during its internal complaint’s procedure for the above issues.
    3. The landlord must pay the outstanding disturbance payments of £640 to the resident if it has not already done so. It must show evidence of payment to the Ombudsman in either circumstance. This is separate to the compensation awarded above.
    4. The landlord must carry out an inspection of the property, and if appropriate produce a schedule of works to remedy issues identified in this report. It must provide the outcome of each of these to the Ombudsman and resident. This will include:
      1. A review of the skirting boards at the property and whether this was replaced as its records suggest. It must raise works to renew the relevant skirting boards, if appropriate.
      2. It must also review whether the sewage overspill penetrated the “brickwork or cavities of the property.
      3. It must consider a long-term solution to the monitoring of the resident’s pipework to ensure it can act proactively rather than reactively to the presence of “scaling” or obstruction.
    5. The landlord must carry out a review of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred and provide a report back to the Ombudsman and the resident on this. This should include:
      1. Its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident.
      2. Why it failed to follow or was delayed in completing all work raised by its surveyor within its timescale in its Repairs Policy.