Leeds City Council (202335122)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335122

Leeds City Council

25 November 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of repairs needed to the communal drainage.
    2. Requests for reimbursement of costs.

Background

  1. The property is a two-bedroom, tenth floor flat. The resident is a leaseholder, and the lease agreement commenced on 28 May 2021.
  2. On 7 June 2021, the resident informed the landlord of drainage issues. It arranged for an operative to attend, who found there were no issues with the communal drainage.
  3. On 26 September 2022, the resident made a report to the landlord about issues with blocked drains. The landlord arranged for an operative to attend the following day. The operative found the washing machine and sink were blocked and cleared this. There was no mention of issues concerning the communal stack.
  4. Throughout 2023, the resident had plumbers attend her property to clear the drains on three occasions, each time incurring the cost. As a result of the ongoing issues, the resident also arranged for a plumber to install new pipes and taps, and replaced her washing machine twice.
  5. On 23 September 2023, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She explained the ongoing issues which she had experienced with blockages and expressed she was unhappy that she had previously been told this was her responsibility. She explained that she had the property’s internal pipes checked but found these were clear, therefore she believed the issue was concerning the communal stack. She was seeking to be reimbursed for costs incurred.
  6. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 5 October 2023, it apologised to the resident for the issues experienced and explained that it had arranged for a CCTV drain survey on 10 October 2023 to enable it to see if a repair was needed.
  7. The CCTV survey inspected 22 sections of the drain, stating there was no major defect with the majority of sections. Minor repairs were required for four sections of the drain, this included installing a reline or patch lines. The landlord has stated to this service none of this would have affected the drainage.
  8. The contractor’s customer care officer emailed the resident on 11 October 2023, apologising that a drain survey had not been conducted sooner. It stated it believed there was a full blockage in the drains which was causing the issues to the resident’s property.
  9. On 19 October 2023, the resident submitted a claim for costs incurred because of the ongoing issues. This was for the cost of plumbers, replacing pipes, taps and her washing machine twice. As this type of cost was not covered under the landlord’s insurance, her claim was redirected back to the complaints process for consideration.
  10. The resident escalated the complaint on 13 November 2023 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 December 2023. It acknowledged the resident first complained about water not draining from her sink on 26 September 2022 and, at the time, it arranged for this to be cleared on the following day. It was unaware of any further issues until the resident’s complaint on 23 September 2023. The landlord explained it had arranged for an extensive CCTV inspection of the drains which was completed on 10 October 2023. The report found several drains to be in good condition, however minor repairs were identified and a partial blockage. To resolve this, the drains were relined, and the partial blockage was jet washed on 6 November 2023. The operative found that there were no issues to blocked drains which would have affected the resident’s flat. The landlord explained it had also arranged for an inspection of the stack to check for any blockages, which was booked for 21 December 2023.
  11. As no evidence of a blockage to the communal stackhad been found, and the landlord found no service failure on its part, itdeclined the resident’s claim for costs incurred and did not uphold her complaint.
  12. The inspection was conducted and on 29 December 2023 the operative confirmed to the landlord there was no blockage with the stack.
  13. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response, noting that she was seeking reimbursement and for it to acknowledge fault. As she remained unhappy, she brought her complaint to this service for adjudication.

Assessment and findings

Reports of repairs needed to the communal drainage

  1. We recognise the resident feels that she was treated differently to other tenants because she was a leaseholder. It is important to note the landlord’s obligation for its leaseholders are set out in the lease agreement and the repairs handbook. In accordance with the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property. The repairs and maintenance handbook stipulates the leaseholder is responsible for blockages to their kitchen and bath waste system. This service would therefore not expect the landlord to maintain the leaseholder’s private drains, it is however responsible for the shared communal drains.
  2. The resident has experienced issues on separate occasions concerning the drains since she first moved in. The blockages were cleared each time during 2021, 2022 and 2023. This service has considered the recent incidents reported in 2023, which are relevant to the landlord’s formal responses. This service has looked at the landlord’s actions when the resident reported issues, and whether it acted in accordance with its policies and procedures.
  3. The Ombudsman has reviewed the repairs history and correspondence between the landlord and resident. It shows that when the resident raised concerns about the drains to the landlord on 26 September 2022, the landlord arranged for an operative to attend on 27 September 2022 and the drains were cleared.
  4. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy categorises repairs as “Emergency” (respond within 24 hours), when there is “immediate risk to safety, security or health”, “Priority” (respond within three working days) or “General” (respond within 20 working days). With regards to drain reports, these would generally be considered to be a priority repair as they could affect the resident’s comfort or cause damage to the property. In this instance it is clear the landlord took the appropriate action and attended to the matter within a reasonable timeframe.
  5. The evidence shows that when the resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 23 September 2023 about experiencing repeat issues with the drains during 2023 and about her suspicions that it was related to the stack, the landlord requested for a CCTV drain survey to be carried out on the external drains.
  6. The Ombudsman agrees that it was correct for the landlord to investigate the matter further via CCTV survey inspection. This service has reviewed this report and CCTV footage and can see that there was no blockage within the stack. Minor repairs were needed; however these were deemed as minor and preventative repairs.
  7. We have reviewed an email from the contractor’s customer care officer to the resident in which it apologised that the resident had to source her own survey and stated a plumber should have been arranged. It also stated it believed there was a full blockage in the drains which was causing the issue to the property. On reviewing the information, we have not seen evidence to suggest there was a full blockage to the stack. This service has also reviewed the repairs records history for the block and have not seen reports from other neighbours about similar issues with the drains blocking for the duration of 2023. It is likely that if there was an issue with the communal stack, then this would have affected other residents.
  8. We asked the landlord to comment on the contradicting information, it informed us that the information relayed to the resident was incorrect and sent by a customer care officer working for its contractor who did not have technical experience. It reiterated that the communal stack was inspected by a technical officer and was clear. It further states that there was no possibility that the issue related to the resident’s property was a result of the drains and suspected it may have been related to plumbing within the property. Whilst it is of concern the resident was provided with contradicting information, and we understand this would have caused confusion for her, we can see that the landlord explained its position on the drains to the resident and arranged a further post inspection to ensure they were still clear.
  9. The Ombudsman recognises repeat issues with the drains must have been difficult for the resident. However, and with no evidence to support this was a result of a communal blockage, in accordance with the leaseholder’s agreement, it would have been the resident’s responsibility to maintain her private drain. Overall, this service has found the landlord acted reasonably, by taking appropriate and proportionate actions and it responded within a reasonable timeframe when the reports were made.

Requests for reimbursement of costs

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states that public liability claims for personal injury or property damage caused by its negligence are dealt with by its corporate insurance. It would only be held liable if injury or damage could have been foreseen and avoided by prior action. Claims relating to financial loss only will be considered by the landlord on a case by case basis.
  2. In this instance the resident is seeking reimbursement for costs which she incurred as a result of issues with the drains. These expenses were for plumber costs, two washing machines, new pipes and taps. The landlord has declined to reimburse this on the basis that there is no evidence of a blockage to the communal stack prior to the resident incurring the costs.
  3. The Ombudsman agrees it was appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s claim alongside her complaint.
  4. In accordance with the repairs and maintenance handbook, the resident is responsible for her own appliances and their maintenance. Whilst we acknowledge the resident replaced her washing machine twice and says the cause of her issues with the washing machine was because of the drains, the resident chose to replace this without consulting the landlord to see if there were any underlying issues with drainage or plumbing. There is no record to support that she informed the landlord that her washing machine had been damaged as a result of the stack prior to her replacing it. Therefore, there is no way of knowing if something was wrong with the appliances or what the cause was without a survey or diagnosis. As we have not seen any evidence to suggest that the landlord would be responsible, and are satisfied that it responded appropriately to the resident’s reports, by checking the drains and arranging a CCTV survey, it was reasonable for it to decide not to reimburse this cost.
  5. In regard to the cost of private plumbers, pipes and taps, these would also be the resident’s responsibility under the lease agreement. As this service has not seen any evidence to suggest these costs were incurred because of any failings by the landlord, its decision not to offer reimbursement for these costs. was reasonable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs needed to the communal drainage.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of costs.