Thanet District Council (202229102)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229102

Thanet District Council

22 April 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 level of compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of a sewage leak in the property.

Background

  1. The resident and her partner are secure tenants of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident has advised this Service that she and her partner have vulnerabilities. Also, at the time of the complaint, the resident’s adult son and his pregnant partner, were living at the property.
  2. For the purposes of this investigation, both the resident and her partner have been referred to as the resident.
  3. On 11 January 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about a sewage leak in the property. This stemmed from a plumbing contractor’s attendance on 9 January 2023, who attempted to fix a blocked toilet. When plunging, a pipe burst, causing sewage to leak onto the carpeted floor, hallway, and seeped into the ceiling. The resident said the plumbing contractor left the property and had not resolved the issue. A different contractor attended later that day and resolved the blocked toilet issue.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 19 January 2023. It upheld her complaint and said the following:
    1. the landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused
    2. the landlord’s cleaning contractors do not attend callouts at night and apologised for any confusion
    3. the contractors would not lift the carpet without authority to do so
    4. the resident was advised on 10 January 2023 to make a claim on her contents insurance
    5. a bio-clean was carried out by the landlord’s contractors
    6. the landlord confirmed the following during a visit on 13 January 2023:
      1. repairs to the internal soil stack and replacement with an external stack was completed on 19 January 2023
      2. renewal of the ceiling and cleaning floorboards was booked for 23 January 2023
      3. laying the bathroom floor with a new vinyl covering was booked for 25 January 2023
    7. the landlord confirmed the insurance claim process and communication between insurers
    8. the landlord would use the complaint as a learning example for contractors attending blockages to take appropriate precautions before starting work
  5. The resident sought compensation because of her experience with the blocked toilet and subsequent sewage leak. She emailed the landlord on the same day of its stage 1 complaint response. She noted that compensation should take into account the following:
    1. disruption to daily life
    2. stress and emotional distress
    3. risk to health
    4. not having full use of the property
    5. the works would potentially not be completed until 25 January 2023
    6. waiting for insurance
    7. time spent waiting for builders or inspections
    8. shielding as a result COVID-19
    9. cost of water associated with repairs 
    10. costs of electricity to run a dehumidifier
    11. gas to get home warm again (after having all windows open)
  6. On 21 January 2023, the resident added to her complaint and provided a timeline of events to the landlord. This included several conversations over the phone she had documented with the landlord and its contractors.
  7. On 20 February 2022, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. The landlord apologised the incident happened and confirmed the plumbing contractor caused the sewage leak, however its records did not show that any outstanding repairs would have led to the leak. A professional clean was completed on 10 January 2023, but also, its contractors attempted to clean up at the time of the incident. It acknowledged the resident experienced inconvenience and the time taken to co-ordinate its staff and contractors to carry out repairs. In recognition of the inconvenience caused, it offered £150 in compensation.
  8. On 21 February 2023, the resident referred the complaint to this Service as she wanted us to investigate. On 2 May 2023, she told this Service that the landlord had not provided her with sufficient phone call logs as part of her Freedom of Information (FOI) request. She also added she was unsure if the landlord would withdraw its offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is noted the resident said that the sewage leak was a risk to the health of the household. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns about her and her family’s health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot confirm the effect of the landlord’s actions or inaction on the resident’s health and the resident may wish to seek independent advice if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint. However, the resident had raised these concerns directly with the landlord. Therefore, we have considered the compensation offered that considers the distress and inconvenience to her following the sewage leak in the property.
  2. Paragraph 42j of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The resident raised issues about Freedom of Information requests. Matters regarding data and information transparency would fall properly under the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The resident may seek independent advice about her options to progress her concerns with the ICO. As such, other matters that have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process will be considered by this Service.

The landlord’s obligations and policy

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places statutory obligations on the landlord. It is to keep in repair and proper working order, the installations in the property that supply water and dwelling for sanitation. Additionally, it is to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, including drains, gutters, and external pipes. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, it is to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties, which includes personal hygiene, sanitation, and drainage. Therefore, the landlord is required to consider whether blocked toilets and sewage leaks are affecting sanitation amenities in its properties, amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy with different tiers for repairs. Emergency repairs are attended to within 24 hours, this is considered when there is effect on health, safety, or security, or affects the building structure. Urgent repairs, which are not considered an emergency are attended within 7 working days. All other repairs are considered routine repairs, which are attended to within 28 working days. It also notes that its contractors will leave residents’ home clean, tidy, safe, and secure.

Compensation for the sewage leak in the property

  1. The landlord has accepted that its contractor caused the sewage leak in the property. Ultimately, the repairs were the landlord’s responsibility. The resident wanted the landlord to make a compensation offer that was reflective of the detriment she described. There is no dispute that at the time of referral to this Service, any repairs were outstanding. Therefore, this report will focus on whether the landlord has offered fair compensation. In considering this, the Ombudsman looks at whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles and remedies guidance. The principles of effective dispute resolution are:
    1. be fair, treat people fairly and follow fair processes
    2. put things right
    3. learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord has said that there was no evidence that the blocked toilet, which led to the subsequent sewage leak was caused by outstanding repairs. Its contractor attended on the same day as the resident reported a blocked toilet (9 January 2023). This was appropriate and in line with its emergency repairs policy. Although the sewage leak was caused by this contractor, they also left the toilet unusable as it remained blocked, which was not appropriate. Leaving the property in that condition, is against the landlord’s repairs standards where it says it would keep it clean and tidy. A different contractor attended on the same day and was able to unblock the toilet so it could be used. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, this was also fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. Undoubtedly, it was a distressing and inconvenient period for the resident as sewage had contaminated her property. A professional clean was conducted on 10 January 2023, 1 working day after the leak. It apologised for not being clear that its cleaning contractor did not attend overnight. Despite this, the landlord had acted promptly in organising its cleaning contractors to attend the property within 24 hours of the incident, which was appropriate. This demonstrated it was treating cleaning the property as an emergency. As the resident was unhappy with the condition of her property, it also appropriately advised she could make a claim for damages on her content’s insurance, the day after the leak.
  4. By 13 January 2023, positively, the landlord had organised and approved further repair works to renew the condition of the property. From the information provided, these repairs were treated as routine repairs. The landlord’s records show all works were completed on 25 January 2023. This was 11 working days since the sewage leak occurred and is 4 days more than the parameters of an urgent repair but within the timescales of routine repairs. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord could have been more proactive. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities (which were known to the landlord) it should have assessed the risk to the resident. It had not demonstrated it had considered other options such as a temporary decant in these circumstances, which was unreasonable.
  5. In the landlord’s final response, it did identify learning by providing feedback to its contractors and using the learning from the complaint in taking precautions prior to carrying out work. The landlord offered £150 in compensation for the inconvenience and time it took to resolve the issue. Looking at all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers this does not go far enough in recognising the cumulative effect on the resident.
  6. Under this Service’s remedies guidance, consideration is given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a particular service failure, taking into account the severity of the situation and the length of time involved as well as other relevant factors, such as vulnerabilities. 
  7. The resident told this Service there were foul smells as a result of the sewage leak, which she would have had to endure until completion of works. It is also clear from the evidence provided that she had expended time and trouble in dealing with the repairs and her complaint. Therefore the £150 offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the detriment faced by her. As such, this Service finds maladministration in the level of compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of a sewage leak in the property. An order for additional compensation has been made that takes into account the resident’s time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the level of compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of a sewage leak in the property.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is it pay directly to the resident’s bank account, a total of £300 in compensation for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience experienced by the resident. If any of the £150 it offered at stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure had been paid, it can be deducted from the total.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above order to this Service.