Newham Council (202107750)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107750

Newham Council

7 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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s personal information
    2. A leak into the resident’s kitchen and his request for compensation for the damage caused
    3. The associated formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s personal information

  1. This is because the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion falls properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. Potential breaches of data protection regulations fall under the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). It is therefore advised that the resident contacts the ICO for further information if he wishes to pursue this element of the complaint.

 

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is local authority. The property is a flat, within a block of flats.
  2. According to the landlord’s records, its engineers carried out repairs to the resident’s neighbour stack pipe (used to drain off waste water) on 2 April 2021.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint (this Service has not seen a copy of the actual complaint) and the landlord’s records suggest that it was raised on 7 May 2021. The resident complained that on 2 April 2021, the landlord’s contractor sent a pipe blockage from a neighbouring flat to his. He described a pungent black liquid grease spouting through his kitchen sink pipes that splattered all over his kitchen windows, walls, floors and appliances. He said the sludge had flowed through his pipes, damaged his washing machine and ruined his clothing in the cycle which subsequently had to be thrown out. The resident said he had invited the engineers to his property that same day and they had witnessed the damage. He said the incident caused him distress and inconvenience as he had to wait in his property for the blockage to be removed from his pipes and had to deep clean the area because the engineers were not equipped to do this.
  4. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 9 June 2021. The landlord said that once its engineers were aware of the issue, they cleared the blockage from the pipes. The engineers confirmed there were “dirty splashes” on the worktop and tiles of his kitchen but no sewage involved; they tried to clean the splashes but the resident asked them to leave stating that he wanted to properly clean. The landlord noted that the engineers advised that nothing appeared to be wrong with the washing machine; they had left the resident’s home with no blockages and “very little mess” and there was no permanent damage to his property. The landlord explained that the resident’s machine repair company confirmed that he was having issues with his washing machine prior to the incident and therefore it refused his claim for damage to the washing machine. The landlord noted that the resident held an insurance policy, whereby any machine repairs would be carried out free of charge. It said the engineers had followed company procedure clearing the blockage however pushing the blockage further down sometimes occurred within blocks of flats, and there was nothing they could have done to avoid the incident. The landlord told the resident how to claim through its liability insurance for damage to her personal items.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied and disputed the landlord’s version of events.  He questioned how the landlord obtained details about his insurance policy and raised concern about the breach of his personal information.
  6. The landlord advised it would respond by 12 July 2021. It later extended this deadline until 16 July 2021. This Service wrote to the landlord on 3 August and again on 1 September asking that it provide the resident with a response within 5 working days. The landlord issued the resident with a final complaint response on 9 September 2021 and apologised for the delay and explained that it was because its investigation involved third parties. The landlord maintained its decision that its engineers were not at fault for the damage to the resident’s washing machine and other possessions.
  7. The resident passed his complaint to this Service in September 2021 explaining that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint responses and noted that its final response was delayed a day past the deadline set by this Service.

Assessment and findings

  1. The tenancy agreement advises that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property including drains, gutters and outside pipes.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states that its decision to pay compensation is contingent on if there has been clear service failure, delay, injustice, effect or costs incurred.

The landlord’s handling of a leak into the resident’s kitchen and his request for compensation for the damage caused

  1. It is not disputed that a leak occurred in the resident’s kitchen as a result of work being carried out by the landlord’s contractors elsewhere in the building. The leak resulted in dirty liquid entering the resident’s kitchen and causing some level of mess to the area. The engineers were able to clear the affected pipes, which stopped the leak.
  2. There is a dispute concerning the extent of the mess and also the resident has said the contractors were not equipped to clean the kitchen whereas the contractors have said they attempted to clean it but the resident asked them to leave before they do so. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony, but where there are conflicting accounts of what happened without sufficient evidence to support either account, it is not possible for the Ombudsman as an independent and impartial arbiter to establish which account is correct. Therefore, we cannot say that the landlord’s contractors were at fault for not cleaning the kitchen.
  3.  The landlord explained that because the resident had issues with his washing machine prior to the engineer’s attendance, it was unable to establish evidence to confirm the engineers were responsible for the damage. It advised that the engineers had followed company procedure and had cleared the blockage using approved equipment, however there was nothing they could have done to avoid the incident. As explained above, it is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate potential data protection breaches and therefore we would not comment on the resident’s concerns about how his landlord obtained information about his washing machine insurance.
  4. The landlord apologised to the resident for the inconvenience and advised him to claim through its liability insurance. Landlords are entitled to have insurance to cover claims for damage to residents’ possessions as a means of managing these costs. The landlord would not be expected to pay for such damage outside the insurance process and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to refer the matter to its insurer. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome or handling of insurance claims as we can only assess the landlord’s actions and we cannot assess the actions of its insurer. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot comment on this issue further.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint procedure advises that its stage one complaint response should be provided within 20 working days, and its final complaint response in 15 working days. The resident raised a formal complaint on 7 May 2021 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint and responded on 9 June 2021. The resident escalated his complaint on 21 June 2021, and the landlord initially advised it would respond by 12 July 2021, however it did not issue its final complaint response until 9 September 2021, following intervention from the Ombudsman. In this case, the landlord has not followed its complaint procedure and it failed to manage the resident’s expectations as it did not adequately explain the reasons of the delays.
  2. This delay would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and the landlord should pay £200 compensation to the resident in view of this. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which suggests awards of £50 to £250 for cases where the Ombudsman has found that there has been service failure by the landlord which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint. Examples include failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact, such as failure to respond to complaints in a timely manner.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of an up surge in the resident’s kitchen and his request for compensation for the damage caused.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Order

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in issuing its final complaint response.
  2. The compensation should be paid within 28 days of the date of this decision.