Manchester City Council (202437805)

Background

1. The resident reported that his property was flooded with sewage due to a back surge through the toilet, bath and wash basin. He contacted the landlord on various occasions to ask for it to deep clean his property and carry out associated repairs. The landlord’s records show that it was advised at the start of the resident’s tenancy that he was vulnerable due to having suffered a traumatic brain injury. The resident’s daughter represented him during much of the contact with the landlord. For ease of reading and brevity, both the resident and his daughter are referred to in this report as ‘the resident’.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of flooding in the property from sewage and its handling of the associated repairs.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of flooding in the property from sewage and its handling of the associated repairs.
4. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. There were serious failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of flooding in the property and in its handling of the associated repairs. However, it offered fair and proportionate compensation and took other action to put things right.
6. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. However, it used its revised stage 2 response to apologise for its failings and offer compensation that was fair and proportionate to put things right.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. In his complaint dated 11 November 2024 the resident referred to 2 separate floods that affected the property. One was in April 2024 and the other was in October 2024. We have focused our investigation on the landlord’s response to the October 2024 incident as this was the focus of the resident’s complaint. However, we have noted that following the flood in April 2024, the resident requested reimbursement for the cost of replacing carpets and flooring, which he said had been damaged by the flooding. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to his request. This was unreasonable as the resident was known to be vulnerable and the landlord was aware there had been a flood in the property involving sewage, which the resident said had damaged the carpets and flooring.
8. On 21 October 2024, following a short absence from the property, the resident returned to find there had been a back surge of sewage through his toilet, bath and sink. In his complaint, the resident said he tried to ring the landlord for 2 days to report the problem but was unable to get through. The landlord’s records show that on the 21 and 22 October 2024 it had long waiting times for callers to get through. In some cases, the waiting time was over 2 hours. This supports the resident’s report that he was unable to contact the landlord on these days and therefore it was unreasonable that he was unable to contact the landlord by phone to report the emergency flooding in his property. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance service standard says that residents can report repairs by phone 24 hours a day.
9. As the resident was unable to ring the landlord, he visited its office on 23 October 2024 and reported the flooding. The landlord raised an emergency order to clear the blockage causing the flooding and the resident was sent home to wait for the contractor. The resident waited until 6pm at the property but the contractor did not attend. It was inappropriate that the contractor did not attend as its repairs service standard says it will attend to emergencies within 3 hours. The landlord was aware of the resident’s circumstances, including his vulnerability and the obvious distress caused by the presence of raw sewage in his property.
10. The resident visited the landlord’s office the next day (on 24 October 2024) to advise that the contractor had not attended. The landlord booked the resident into a hotel for the evening, which was reasonable given his vulnerability and the reported condition of the property. The resident left his keys with the landlord so the contractor could access the property in his absence.
11. The following day (25 October 2024) the resident attended the landlord’s office as he said he needed to access the property to collect his medication. However, the landlord was unable to find his keys. This showed a lack of care and record keeping by the landlord as the resident had left his keys with the landlord and it was therefore responsible for their safekeeping. It meant the landlord had to arrange for a locksmith to attend the property to gain access. This caused additional distress and inconvenience for the resident and delayed him accessing his medication.
12. A drainage contractor attended on Friday, 25 October 2024 and cleared obstructions from 2 manholes, however, it was unable to completely remove the blockage from the soil pipe and therefore said it would return to complete the job on Monday (28 October 2024). The landlord booked the resident into a hotel until 28 October 2025, which was reasonable as the contractor had not completed the job of removing the blockage and the property had not been cleaned to remove the sewage from the property.
13. The landlord advised the resident on 28 October 2024 that the contractor had completed the clearance of the blockage. The resident returned to the property and was told that a cleaning team would attend that day. However, when he returned home, he found that sewage was still coming into the property through the toilet. Given the distress already experienced by the resident, it was unreasonable that the landlord and its contractor had not adequately checked the pipes and sewers to ensure the problem had been fully resolved. The contractor attended again on the same day and cleared the blockage.
14. The landlord had booked the resident into a hotel again from 28 – 29 October 2024, which was reasonable while it was still trying to clear the blockage and the property had not yet been cleaned.
15. The landlord’s cleaning team cleaned the property on 29 October 2024. However, when the resident returned to the property on 30 October 2024, he advised the landlord that, in his view, it had not adequately cleaned the property. The landlord therefore booked the resident into a hotel for a further night on 30 October 2024 and arranged for the cleaning team to return on 31 October 2024 with a surveyor to inspect the property. Given that the resident still had concerns about the condition of the property, it was reasonable that the landlord had booked him into a hotel for a further night and arranged for the cleaning team and a surveyor to attend on the next day. This would give the cleaning team the opportunity to identify any areas that still needed cleaning and the surveyor would be able to check whether the property was habitable.
16. The cleaning team carried out further cleaning on 31 October 2024 and the surveyor advised the resident that in her view the standard of cleaning was “very good”. She said there were no bad smells in the property and that the resident would be expected to stay in the property. She did, however, note there were still some outstanding repairs and the cleaning team had disposed of the resident’s sofa and bed as they were contaminated.
17. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the surveyor’s assessment that the property was habitable, in our view it was unreasonable that the landlord did not extend the hotel booking to enable the resident to obtain some basic furniture. This showed a lack of customer care, particularly given the resident’s vulnerability and the distress he had already experienced. As a result of the landlord’s decision not to extend the booking, the resident said he slept on the floor of the property on 31 October 2024 as he had no furniture.
18. The landlord purchased a bed and sofa from a local charity shop and delivered these to the property on 1 November 2024. It also arranged for an emergency payment of £300 to be transferred to the resident’s account. These were helpful gestures by the landlord to assist the resident to move back to the property and to help him financially. However, the resident did not move back to the property and instead stayed with his daughter.
19. The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 November 2024 and said he had not heard anything about the outstanding repairs nor his request for compensation for the damaged flooring. It was unreasonable that 11 days after the surveyor’s inspection, the landlord had not contacted the resident about the outstanding repairs and his request for compensation.
20. One of the outstanding repairs mentioned by the resident in his letter of 11 November 2024 was that the landlord had disconnected the bathroom light in 2022 following a leak from the flat above and had not reconnected it. The landlord’s repairs log shows that it had raised an order on 13 June 2022 to reinstate the light fitting. We have not seen any evidence from the landlord disputing that the light had not been reconnected and therefore it was unreasonable that the landlord had not followed up the outstanding repair to the bathroom light since 2022.
21. Also in his letter of 11 November 2024, the resident said he had suffered from severe gastroenteritis as a result of staying in the property following the flooding. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through insurers or the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if he wishes to pursue this option.
22. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 and 7 January 2025 to say that no one had contacted him about the complaint he had made on 11 November 2024. He said he had not been able to move back to the property because it was in disrepair. The landlord’s complaint handling is considered below, however, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not followed up the outstanding repairs that the surveyor had identified at the beginning of November 2024. The lack of contact from the landlord added to the resident’s distress.
23. The landlord raised orders on 17 January 2025 to carry out repairs to the toilet pan, the toilet cistern and the soil vent pipe in the hallway cupboard. The landlord’s repairs log shows that the contractor completed the repairs on 23 and 24 January 2024 after first carrying out some preparatory joinery works. As the landlord had to carry out joinery works, before completing the repairs to the toilet and soil pipe, it carried out the repairs within a reasonable timescale. The resident was known to be vulnerable and had advised the landlord he had not returned to the property due to disrepair. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord had not arranged a joint inspection with the resident. A joint inspection would have given the resident the opportunity to explain his concerns and enabled the landlord to consider them.
24. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord approached other residents in the block to discuss the possible causes of the blockages, such as using the toilet and sink to dispose of inappropriate items. Given that the resident had experienced floodings in April and October 2024 as a result of blockages in the soil pipe and/or the sewer, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not engaged with other residents in the block to help prevent future blockages.
25. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply to the resident on 14 February 2025 in which it apologised for the delay in carrying out the repairs and the distress and inconvenience caused. It advised the resident that it had made arrangements for the bathroom sink to be unblocked and for new vinyl flooring to be laid in the bathroom. It offered compensation of £1,050 and said it would carry out a full review of the case. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not arranged a home visit to check the condition of the property and to discuss the resident’s concerns with him directly. It was also unreasonable that it did not use its stage 2 response to address the resident’s request for a transfer, which he had raised in his complaint in November 2024.
26. Following further contact between the resident and the landlord in February 2025, the landlord decided to review its stage 2 response and issued a revised stage 2 response on 26 February 2025. Although it is unusual for a landlord to issue a revised stage 2 response, we consider it to be fair and reasonable for us to treat the revised stage 2 letter as its final complaint response because:
    1. The landlord issued the revised stage 2 response less than 2 weeks after it had sent the original version.
    2. The resident had asked the landlord on 24 February 2024 to review its offer of compensation.
    3. The landlord decided to review the stage 2 response prior to us accepting the case for investigation.
    4. In its revised stage 2 response, the landlord clearly explained the reason it had reviewed its response, which it said was to ensure that it offered any support to the resident without delay.
    5. The landlord had not issued a stage 1 response and therefore the revised stage 2 reply allowed for a review of the case at a more senior level.
27. As part of its review of the stage 2 response, one of the landlord’s senior managers visited the property on 25 February 2025, which was reasonable so the landlord could assess the condition of the property and fully understand the resident’s needs. The manager in question was also a chartered surveyor and he advised the resident that in his view the property was habitable, despite there being some outstanding repairs. As the manager had inspected the property and was qualified to assess the condition of the property, the landlord was entitled to rely on his findings.
28. Overall, we have found there were a number of failings in the landlord’s response following the flooding from sewage and these failings had a significant detrimental impact on the resident due to his vulnerability. The failings included:
    1. Delays and a lack of follow-up in relation to outstanding repairs.
    2. A lack of response to the resident’s requests for reimbursement for reported damage to furnishings.
    3. Significant difficulties in the resident contacting the landlord.
    4. Missed appointments by the contractor.
    5. A failure to ensure the resident’s keys could easily be located for access.
    6. A failure to adequately check that all blockages had been removed from the waste system.
    7. A lack of clear ownership and point of contact for the resident.
    8. Poor communication and a reliance on the resident to chase the landlord for updates.
    9. A lack of engagement with other residents in the block to prevent future floodings.
    10. A lack of due regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities.
29. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
30. In this case, the landlord acted fairly by using its revised stage 2 response to acknowledge its multiple failings in responding to the flooding and associated repairs. For example, it accepted that the resident had “suffered an unacceptable level of inconvenience and distress” and its service offer had “fallen well below an acceptable standard”.
31. Having acknowledged its failings, the landlord sought to put things right in the following ways:
    1. It gave a sincere apology for its failings.
    2. It inspected the property and gave a commitment to instruct its contractors to return to the property to complete all outstanding repairs.
    3. It offered to provide temporary accommodation to the resident until it completed all outstanding repairs. This would include covering all reasonable costs, such meals.
    4. It agreed an urgent management transfer for the resident to permanent alternative accommodation.
    5. It agreed a compensation package of £14,199 which was made up of:
       1. £5,740 for damaged belongs, which was the full amount the resident had requested.
       2. An emergency payment of £300 that it had already issued to help the resident with immediate expenses.
       3. £2,109 to recognise the time he had been unable to live in the property. This was equivalent to 6 months rent.
       4. £1,050 it had offered in its previous stage 2 response for service failures.
       5. £2,500 to recognise the impact on the resident’s mental and physical health.
       6. £2,500 to cover the cost of moving into permanent alternative accommodation and to assist with new furnishings.
32. In terms of learning, the landlord said it would arrange for one of its senior managers, who was independent of the case, to review the case and identify service improvements. The landlord has provided us with evidence that it carried out this detailed review in March 2025 and identified several learning points. It offered to share the outcome of the review with the resident.
33. Our investigation has shown there were serious failings by the landlord and these had a significant impact on the resident. It was therefore right that the landlord should offer considerable compensation to the resident to reflect this impact. We have considered the amount of the landlord’s offer, along with its other actions to put things right, and we consider that the landlord’s offer was fair and proportionate. For example, we consider it was fair for the landlord to pay the resident the full amount he had requested for damaged items and for it to pay the equivalent of 6 months rent to recognise that since the flooding in October 2024 he had not been living in the property.
34. In our view, the landlord’s offer appropriately reflected the impact of its failings on the resident and was in line with its compensation policy for cases where there have been failings leading to “a significant long-term effect on the customer…and/or the presence of any aggravating factors that…the landlord has failed to act upon appropriately”. In this case, we consider the landlord’s failure to appropriately take account of the resident’s vulnerability was an aggravating factor. Therefore, taking all the circumstances of the case into account, we have made a finding of reasonable redress in terms of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of flooding in the property from sewage and its handling of the associated repairs.
35. The landlord has provided evidence that it paid the full amount offered to the resident and he was permanently rehoused in July 2025.

36. The resident made a formal complaint on 11 November 2024. However, despite logging the complaint and acknowledging it appropriately on 13 November 2024, the landlord did not send a stage 1 response. This was inappropriate as he had clearly expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to the flooding.
37. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 January 2025 and said no one had contacted him regarding his complaint. The landlord treated his contact as a stage 2 complaint and acknowledged it on the same day. It was inappropriate that the landlord had escalated the complaint and issued a stage 2 response, rather than issuing a stage 1 reply. The landlord’s decision not to issue a stage 1 reply was not in line with its complaint policy or with our Complaint Handling Code.
38. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 14 February 2025, which was 20 working days after the acknowledgement. The landlord therefore sent its stage 2 response within an appropriate timescale. It offered compensation of £50 for failing to respond to the stage 1 complaint.
39. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will pay between £25 and £100 compensation for “minor issues in areas such as failures in communication and failures in service delivery”. We do not consider the landlord’s failure to send a stage 1 reply to have been ‘minor’ given the distress and lack of communication the resident was experiencing at the time of his complaint. However, we consider the landlord’s revised stage 2 response accurately reflected the severity of its failings and the impact on the resident. In our view, the landlord’s offer of redress had put things right in terms of all its failings, including its failure to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

40. The landlord carried out a detailed review of the case and identified several learning points. Given the seriousness of the failings in this case, it is unlikely that we would have made a finding of reasonable redress had it not been for the landlord demonstrating that it had identified genuine learning from the case.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

41. There were problems with the landlord’s key management system which resulted in it being unable to locate the resident’s keys. It is important that landlord’s have appropriate systems in place to safely store and track keys.

Communication

42. The landlord was not proactive in its communication with the resident, despite his vulnerability. It was left to the resident to chase the landlord on various occasions regarding the condition of the property. In cases where the resident is unable to occupy the property for a period of time and is known to be vulnerable, it is important to identify a main contact person for the resident. We would expect that person to contact the resident regularly to check on their wellbeing and to check that any outstanding issues are being resolved.