Notting Hill Genesis (201915709)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915709

Notting Hill Genesis

16 July 2021


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:
    1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a blocked sink.
    2. how the landlord responded to the resident’s formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident’s property is a flat that is owned and managed by the landlord. However, the property is within a block for which the landlord is not the freeholder. The freeholder employs a managing agent for the building.

Policies and Procedures

  1. Repairs: If a resident has a repair request with the building, they are to raise it first with the freeholder’s managing agents and to notify the landlord’s housing officer so that it can check issues are being dealt with by the agents. Internal repairs to the resident’s property including blocked sinks and drainage fall under the landlord’s responsibility.
  2. Under the landlord’s Repairs Policy, an emergency repair is defined as “where there is an immediate danger to a person’s safety, major damage to the property, flooding, major electrical fault, heating (during October to March only) or hot water failure, or the property is not secure”. For routine repairs – defined as non– urgent work to rectify or prevent damage to and ensure the proper working order of the property and its fixtures – the landlord undertakes to arrange an appointment within 20 working days of receiving the request.  With regard to tenant repair responsibilities, the policy states “sink/toilet blockages in the first instance. The resident should attempt to unblock these with drain unblocker/plunger where appropriate”.
  3. Complaints policy:  Under its complaints policy, the landlord undertakes to provide its first (Stage 1) response within 10 working days, and if a resident remains dissatisfied, they can request a (Stage 2) review by an independent reviewer which it undertakes to provide within 20 working days of request. Under its policy the landlord will not treat a first request for service as a complaint.

Summary of Events

  1. On Saturday 22 February 2020 the resident reported a blocked sink and a smell coming from sinks and toilet. The landlord initially made enquiries as to whether there were any upsurges in the toilet and whether other residents were affected similarly, to which the resident said no.  On 24 February 2020 the landlord suggested that the resident use a liquid bath / sink unblocker in conjunction with a plunger to resolve the issue, to which the resident replied that he had. On 26 February 2020, the resident asked for a formal complaint to be raised.  The landlord did not do so as it considered the matter to still be a new repair and on 27 February 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident, in accordance with his communication preference, stating that it had arranged for its contractor to visit.
  2. The contractor’s operative attended on 27 February 2020, without any tools and having to borrow his screwdriver, according to the resident.  The operative attended again on 5 March 2020 and according to the resident, advised him not to use his food strainer.   On 6 March 2020 the resident emailed the landlord expressing his dissatisfaction with the operative first failing to bring tools and then advising him not to use a strainer, even though the sink came with a strainer. He requested that another plumber attend his property. After the resident reiterated his request for a complaint to be registered, the landlord sent a response, with a complaint reference number, on 13 March 2020 and apologised for the contractor not having the correct tools on the first visit and for the poor advice on the second visit. The landlord reassured the resident that he should use the strainer to prevent food entering the pipes. The landlord asked the resident to confirm whether the blockage had been cleared to which the resident advised that he wanted a plumber by 16 March 2020, otherwise he would escalate the complaint.  However, the resident emailed before 16 March 2020, on 14 March 2020 demanding the landlord register a Stage 2 complaint.
  3. On 25 March 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident, using the complaint reference number in its correspondence of 13 March 2020.  It stated that it would ask a surveyor to attend the property and investigate the blockage after the Covid 19 lockdown restrictions had been lifted although it would respond in the event of an emergency.  This was because there was a discrepancy between the outcome of the visits as reported by the resident and contractor which on each occasion found no blockages.
  4. The resident contacted this Service as he understood that the responses of 13 and 25 March 2020 were at stages 1 and 2 of the complaints procedure.  He raised concerns that both responses were sent by the same member of staff. On 3 April 2021, this Service asked the landlord to send a response to the resident under its complaints procedure within 15 working days.  On 9 April 2021, the landlord advised this Service that a senior member of staff would be sending a response at Stage 2.
  5. On 6 May 2020 the landlord sent the final response to the resident’s complaint. It summarised the action taken on the repair. It concluded that:
    1. It had booked the contractor on both occasions to investigate and unblock the sink, in good faith and had reported the comments of the operative about the strainer to his superiors. The contractor had reported each time that the sink was unblocked which was why it had asked the resident to confirm on 13 March 2021 whether the blockage was clear or not.
    2. There was no fault in its decision to arrange a surveyor visit, which would also look at other repair issues raised (separate to this complaint). 
    3. It was in line with government guidelines to book the surveyor visit after lockdown had eased so as to protect the most vulnerable and keep residents and staff safe.
    4. It could not provide a date for the surveyor to attend as this depended on the latest guidelines.
    5. Due to Covid-19 lockdown measures, its repairs department was only dealing with emergencies. The job was not categorised as an emergency as the pipes were not leaking, causing any flooding and the sink was not overflowing. Slow drainage was manageable.
  6. On 22 July 2020 the resident advised this Service that he remained dissatisfied as the repair was still outstanding and he wanted it dealt with more urgently.  He advised that he believed the issue was caused by a contractor installing a pipe upside down and that he wanted this rectified.  He also advised that he wished to continue using a food strainer; however, when he did so drainage was even slower.
  7. Also, on 22 July 2020 the landlord’s internal correspondence noted that two other residents had reported blockages and the contractor believed that that there may be an external issue with the block requiring a CCTV camera survey to locate the problem.
  8. On 5 August 2021 the resident reported water leakage at bottom of the sink. The landlord raised an emergency repair and its contractor carried out a repair, noting that there was a “slight drip on the sink overflow”. The landlord also, on 13 August 2020, instructed a specialist external contractor to investigate the drainage issue incorporating a CCTV survey.
  9. The external contractor required access to all flats reporting drainage issues. On 1 September 2020, the external contractor reported that it had attended the resident’s flat noting “a bit of pipework adjustment and a descale to remove fat and grease from the main communal waste stack and change the trap as it’s currently a bottle trap which shouldn’t ever be fitted to kitchen sink they also have issues with an aftermarket strainer they have fitted over the kitchen sink waste which restricts the flow of water making it run away slower”.  The external contractor advised that it had cleaned the resident’s pipework, but that there was a blockage with the stack pipe serving several properties, and that it was waiting for access to another property before it could fully clear it.  The contractor further advised that when it had fully cleared the stack pipe, it could return to the resident’s property to complete the identified work.
  10. The specialist external contractor experienced difficulty in gaining access to other properties but on 21 October 2020 it reported that it had re-attended the resident’s property on 16 October 2021.  At the visit it fitted a trap under the sink; reconfigured the pipework; capped off an open pipe from a previous dishwasher installation; fitted a new blanking plug on the kitchen sink; and provided the resident with four new sink plug strainers to replace the existing one which had small holes. The contractor noted that the communal stack had been cleaned and that it had already cleaned the internal waste pipe from the resident’s kitchen.  The contractor recommended that the communal kitchen waste stack pipes be cleaned once a year to deal with build ups of fat and grease.  This would be the decision of the managing agent as the landlord is not the freeholder of the building.
  11. After this Service confirmed to the parties that this complaint would proceed to investigation, the landlord has further considered the issues raised by the resident although there is no evidence that the resident has reported further drainage issues to it. The landlord contacted the managing agent to enquire whether it has a regime in place to clear the drainage pipes from the outside of the building. On 21June 2021 the managing agent advised that there were very little problems with the communal stack pipes at the block with only two call outs for communal problems in the previous 15 months. The management agent stated that it would not be financially beneficial to introduce a schedule to clear the pipes and that it would deal with reports on an ad hoc basis.
  12. The landlord has also arranged for a surveyor test the drainage at the resident’s property. The surveyor attended on 1 July 2021 and identified no issues with water draining from the sink, whether or not the strainer was used. 

 

Assessment and findings

  1. Following the resident’s initial report of 22 February 2020, the landlord ascertained whether water was backing up and/or whether other residents were affected. This was appropriate as it was required to ascertain whether the situation constituted an emergency repair.  Taking into account the landlord’s Repairs Policy this was not the case as there was no immediate danger to the resident or major damage to the property.  It was also appropriate that the landlord subsequently asked the resident on 24 February 2020 if he had tried to unblock the sink and toilet by himself with liquid unblockers and a plunger as the Repairs Policy confirms that it is the tenant’s responsibility to try to do so in the first instance.
  2. As the resident confirmed by email on 24 February 2020 that he had taken these steps the landlord was required to investigate whether there was a repair issue that fell under its responsibility.  The landlord subsequently met this responsibility by arranging for its contractor to attend.  It attended on 27 February 2020 and 5 March 2020, well within the 20-working day timeframe for routine repairs. The contractor did not identify that there was a drainage issue / blockage requiring further works. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional opinion of its approved contractor.
  3. The operative that attended, according to the resident, did not bring tools at the first visit, and advised him not to use a strainer in the sink.  This led to the resident having a loss of confidence in the contractor and for him to doubt the operative’s professionality. The landlord took reasonable steps to alleviate the resident’s distress by promptly, on 13 March 2020, apologising for the contractor’s conduct and making clear that the resident should continue to use the strainer for the sink.  It was also appropriate that the landlord asked the resident to clarify if the blockage had been cleared as the contractor had not identified an ongoing issue requiring further works.
  4. There remained a difference of opinion as to whether the sink was blocked.  The landlord took reasonable steps to ascertain what the situation was and whether it was required to carry out further works by allocating a visit by a surveyor, who has authority to carry out assessment of technical maintenance issues. It was unfortunate that the surveyor visit was prevented by the introduction of the Covid-19 lockdown restrictions; however, this was outside of the control of the landlord and no fault can be attached to it in this regard.  Where the resident reported an emergency situation, on 5 August 2020, the landlord attended on an emergency basis.
  5. The landlord thereafter has demonstrated its commitment to establishing to what extent there are drainage issues affecting the resident’s property by commissioning a specialist contractor to conduct a survey.  It was reasonable that the landlord employed a specialist contractor as two other households had reported drainage issues and the contractor had the ability to carry out a CCTV camera survey and investigate wider block drainage issues. The specialist contractor has carried out works within the resident’s property, provided new strainers intended to facilitate quicker drainage from the kitchen sink and cleared the stack pipe for the building. This evidently satisfactorily resolved the substantive issue of slow drainage as there is no evidence that the resident made further reports. Nonetheless, the landlord has taken further proactive steps to ensure that the issue has been satisfactorily resolved by carrying out a further inspection on 1 July 2021.

Complaints Handling

  1. With regards to the landlord’s complaints handling, the landlord did not initially register a complaint following the resident’s request on 26 February 2020. This was in accordance with its complaints policy which states it will not treat a first request for a service as a complaint. At that stage the resident’s complaint was a request for a repair (a service request) for which the service standard for response had not yet expired. Essentially a landlord must be given fair opportunity to respond to a service request before a complaint about its response can be investigated.
  2. However, the landlord was subsequently unclear in its subsequent responses to the resident’s requests to make and escalate a formal complaint.  It provided a complaint reference number when responding on 13 March 2020 which indicated a formal complaint had been registered; but did not make clear the parameters of the complaint or how it could be escalated.  The response of 25 March 2020 further obscured matters as the same complaint reference number was used and the landlord retained the same subject for the email used by the resident: “Log second and final stage complaint”; however, the response was not an escalated complaint response, as the resident had requested, but an update on how the landlord was going to proceed given the resident’s insistence that there remained drainage problems.  
  3. The landlord can be credited with seeking to find a resolution to the substantive repair issue reported.  However, the resident was evidently confused by its handling of a case as he approached and advised this Service that he thought he had completed the complaints procedure but that the landlord had not treated him fairly as the same member of staff had responded. In order to manage the resident’s expectations and prevent frustration, it is important that the landlord is clear about when a complaint has been raised (and when it has not), what the complaint is about and the process that will be followed. This clarity should also facilitate the landlord to have better management and oversight of the resident’s communications, whether they be service requests, formal complaints, general enquiries or commentary on issues.
  4.  The landlord escalated the complaint following this Service requesting it do so on 3 April 2020.  Its response was delayed insofar as it did not meet the 15-day timeframe as requested by this Service or the 20-day timeframe in its complaints policy. The response itself was reasonable as the landlord addressed the substantive issues and explained its actions and decisions.  This included explaining why it did not deal with the resident’s reports as an emergency repair.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of landlord’s response to reports of a blocked sink.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports in line with its Repairs Policy. It was not required to deal with the residents report about drainage issues as an emergency repair. It was also in line with the policy that the landlord subsequently asked the resident on 24 February 2020 if he had tried to unblock the sink and toilet by himself with liquid unblocker. When the resident advised that he had, the contractor attended on 27 February 2020 and 5 March 2020, well within the 20-working day timeframe for routine repairs.
  2. Given that the resident disputed the findings of the contractor the landlord took reasonable steps to ascertain what the situation was and whether it was required to carry out further works by allocating a visit by a surveyor. Although there was a delay in the visit this was reasonable due to lockdown restrictions. The landlord thereafter has demonstrated its commitment to establishing to what extent there are drainage issues affecting the resident’s property by contracting a specialist contractor to conduct the survey, and to carry out works in the resident’s property and to the block drainage system. The landlord has taken further proactive steps to ensure that the issue has been satisfactorily resolved by carrying out a further inspection on 1 July 2021.
  3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was unclear and caused confusion.  It initially did not make clear its understanding of and definition of the resident’s complaint.  It also did not make clear the status of the complaint within the complaints procedure and the circumstances under which it could be escalated.  There was also a delay in the Stage 2 response.

Order

  1. The landlord pays the resident £50 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by its complaints handling.