The Guinness Partnership Limited (202303770)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202303770
The Guinness Partnership Limited
29 August 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
- The complaint is about:
- The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a sewage leak at her property.
- The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above.
- The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.
Background
- The resident lives with her partner and 3 children and has an assured tenancy with the landlord for a 2-bedroom ground floor flat in a building owned by the landlord. The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
- The resident reported a sewage leak due to a blockage in her toilet on the following occasions: 17 May, 21 June, 12 July, 30 September, 17 November, 29 November 2022, and 15 January 2023. The landlord attended on the same day on each occasion clearing the blockage and stopping any sewage leak. It raised repairs for damage to the skirting boards around the resident’s toilet on 21 June 2022 completing this on 26 August 2022.
- The resident raised a complaint on 13 February 2023. She said she had not been sufficiently compensated for food bought whilst staying at hotels. She was also concerned the landlord had failed to offer a long-term solution to the sewage leaks in the property. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 8 March 2023. It told the resident the following:
- Although it had attended to the resident’s reports within its targeted timescales it “should have found a long-term solution sooner.” It confirmed it would “install CCTV into the drains to monitor the issue.” Following this it would further investigate the issue. An assurance was given that it would feedback to its subcontractors to report outstanding issues sooner.
- It partially upheld the resident’s complaint and offered total compensation of £245. This was £225 for the delay in finding a long-term solution and £20 for its delayed stage 1 complaint response.
- On 20 March 2023, the resident reported a leak from her ceiling, from the property above. This was a separate issue to the sewage leak concerns. She said water had gone into the light fitting and she was concerned it was dangerous. The landlord attended on 22 March and removed the light fitting. The leak was stopped on 23 March. The resident reported concerns the ceiling would collapse on 24 and 25 March. However, the landlord confirmed it was “safe” on 25 March.
- Meanwhile, the resident escalated her complaint on 21 March 2023. She raised concerns about the ceiling leak and sewage leak. She said the property was in a “terrible state of repair” and asked if there were “other suitable properties”. She said the landlord’s compensation offer was “fairly ridiculous” and she had lost £1500 of items. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 23 May 2023. It told the resident the following:
- It had inspected the property following the ceiling leak and had arranged for remedial repairs. These were for renewal of boxing around the toilet and sink and stain blocking on the ceiling, scheduled for 2 June 2023. An electrician was booked to reinstate the bathroom light on 25 May. It issued her a £100 decorating voucher to cover the cost of decorating materials.
- She should claim on her contents insurance for damage to her belongings in accordance with its Compensation Policy. It said it should have made disturbance payments to reimburse her for the cost of food in hotels. It confirmed its customer liaison team would pay anything owed to her.
- It completed its CCTV survey of the pipes on 17 March 2023 and found no blockages or obstructions. As such there were no further recommendations to be made in relation to the sewage issue.
- It partially upheld the resident’s complaint for failing to be proactive over the sewage issue. It felt the £245 it offered at stage 1 was “fair and accurate”. It offered further compensation of £100, which was £40 for further delays to complete repairs and £60 for its delayed stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed it was increasing its “complaint resource” to allow “more effective management of complaints.”
- From 23 May 2023 the resident reported further sewage flooding at her property on 15 June 2023, 13 September 2023, 23 October 2023, 31 January 2024, and 21 June 2024. The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 1 February 2024. In correspondence, the resident said she wanted the landlord to fix the sewage issue and not have it coming into her home on a regular basis.
- The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 June 2024. It said it was reviewing all cases referred to the Ombudsman to “identify if it could make improvements to its service.” It found its complaint responses failed to address all concerns including the impact on her and her family. It believed the reoccurrence of blockages was due to inappropriate items being flushed rather than disposed of. It said it had written to other residents to remind them of what they should flush. In resolution, it offered the following:
- Further compensation of £420. This was made up of £120 for complaint handling delays, £100 for time, trouble, and inconvenience and £200 for not addressing all concerns. This was in addition to the £345 it had previously offered (£765 in total). It confirmed acceptance of the further compensation offered would not affect the resident’s complaint with the Ombudsman.
- It had introduced a training programme to ensure “thorough and consistent” complaint investigations. It also reviewed its Complaints Policy and implemented the new policy from April 2024. It also reviewed its Responsive Repairs Policy to ensure “more consistent service delivery.”
Assessment and findings
- In the resident’s correspondence, she stated the sewage leak had been ongoing for 3 years. Paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. Given the time periods involved in this case, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events before 13 February 2022. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made on 13 February 2023.
- The landlord directed the resident to complete a claim for damage to her possessions on her own content’s insurance. It said the resident was unable to claim through the building insurance. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of an insurance claim as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of her possessions and its overall approach to the matter.
The sewage leak.
- The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy confirms it is responsible for “drains, gutters and external pipes” and it must keep in “in repair and proper working order” installations for sanitation and the supply of water. The policy categorises repair requirements as either emergency or routine.
- An emergency repair is to address an “immediate health and safety risk.” It will carry out an emergency repair within 24 hours of a report being made to make the situation safe. It will then return within a “reasonable timeframe” to complete the repair. Examples of an emergency repair are a flood or leak that cannot be contained, the only toilet in the property being broken or anything that may present a serious health and safety risk.
- A routine repair is any job “not an emergency.” It aims to complete such repairs within 28 calendar days.
- On each of the resident’s reports of sewage leaks from her toilet on 17 May, 21 June, 12 July, 30 September, 17 November, 29 November 2022, and 15 January 2023 the landlord acted in accordance with its policy in that it treated each report as an emergency due to the “health and safety implications” and attended the property within 24 hours to make the issue “safe”. While its prompt attendance was in accordance with policy, it subsequently acknowledged that it had not identified a long-term solution to this recurring issue.
- The resident continued to report throughout the period from 17 May 2022 to 15 January 2023 that she wanted a long-term solution to the sewage leak issue. This was a reasonable expectation given the history and frequency of these occurrences. The persistent reports of sewage leaks, 7 in total, were causing much inconvenience and distress to her and her family. The landlord failed to consider a long-term approach to the issue until its stage 1 complaint response of 8 March 2023. It should reasonably have considered this from 21 June 2022, which was the second report of the issue from the resident and evidence the issue was persistent. In total, it took the landlord 260 calendar days to do this, which was wholly inappropriate and prolonged any resolution for the resident and her family. The landlord completed a CCTV survey of the pipework at the resident’s property on 17 March 2023. It found no blockages and obstructions and therefore could make no further recommendations.
- On 6 March 2023, the resident raised that a contractor told her the sewage leak issue was “likely to continue due to the way the pipes were built”. There is no evidence of the landlord ever responding to this point and determining whether this is accurate. This left the point unresolved for the resident and it is uncertain if the landlord had considered this.
- In its complaint review of 13 June 2024 (which is further assessed later in this report) the landlord suggested the cause of the blockages was due to neighbouring residents flushing inappropriate items. It wrote to other residents to “remind them” what should and should not be flushed. There is no evidence of the landlord considering this up to this point. It is unclear why it did not do so, considering the resident lived in a ground-floor flat with other residents living above her. This was more than 2 years after the initial reports about sewage. Had it considered this sooner and taken respective action it may have reduced the detriment caused to the resident and her family. Therefore, the landlord failed to consider earlier on whether there was a wider issue causing the blockages in the resident’s property. As a result, it missed an opportunity to find a permanent solution to the problem sooner.
- The resident continued to report sewage leaks after completion of the landlord’s complaint process on 15 June 2023, 13 September 2023, 23 October 2023, 31 January 2024, and 21 June 2024. As these reports took place outside of the complaints process the Ombudsman is not assessing the landlord’s response. However, these reports suggest the sewage problem has persisted. Given the landlord’s obligation under the tenancy agreement to keep the systems for sanitation in proper working order it is unclear why it advised the resident that nothing further could be done about the problem. Although the landlord has since contacted residents regarding flushing inappropriate material it did not consider the resident’s concerns about the pipework. There is concern that the landlord has failed to monitor to a situation that warranted oversight. Particularly due to the impact the sewage leak had on the resident and her family and the associated health and safety implications. It is appropriate to order an independent inspection from a specialist that includes consideration of the potential pipework issue. The landlord must also consider its long-term approach to monitoring the pipework so it can be proactive rather than reactive in managing any further blockages.
- The landlord identified damage to the resident’s skirting boards around her toilet on 21 June 2022. It was unable to replace them on the day as it needed to wait for the area to dry out. It did not take further action until 4 August when it “assessed the damage and took measurements”. It completed the replacement of the skirting boards on 26 August 2022. In total, this took 66 calendar days to complete, which was 38 days longer than its policy gives for routine repairs. Although the saturation of the skirting board delayed the repair this was only for a minor period. It should have updated the resident on when it would return to complete the work but there is no evidence it did. This caused uncertainty to her as to when it would complete the work. Moreover, there is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging or apologising for this delay in any of its complaint responses.
- The resident raised on 13 February 2023 her concerns about the quality of the cleaning by the landlord’s contractor. There is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging or responding to this point until its complaint review. In the review on 13 June 2024, it was “disappointed” to hear the area was not “cleaned thoroughly”. This was reasonable. However, the landlord should have gone further and should have investigated the matter and reviewed the work completed by its contractors. There is no evidence it did this and was unable to ensure it learnt from this.
- The landlord’s Decant Policy confirms it will only require residents to move when “they cannot remain in their home owing to the condition of the home or nature of work needed”. It will pay disturbance payments to any affected resident for “reasonable expenses” that have arisen as a direct, natural, and unavoidable consequence of the move.
- On and from 13 February 2023 the resident said she had previously moved into hotels “when the sewage became so bad” she “could not walk around or prepare food.” There is no evidence of the landlord considering a decant of the property on any of the resident’s 7 reports between 17 May 2022 and 15 January 2023. It only considered this on 25 August 2022 due to the loss of heating and hot water, unrelated to the resident’s complaint. The resident also chased the landlord on 4 October 2022 about whether she would be decanted, however, there is no evidence it replied to her. It would later state internally on 19 February 2024 when preparing evidence for the Ombudsman it was “not sure anyone deemed anyone needed to be decanted.” There is no obligation on the landlord to decant residents as and when repairs are required within a property. However, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence of an inspection or assessment which determined whether the resident and her family could remain in the property while the necessary repairs remained outstanding. Its failure to evidence this suggests it did not consider this, failing to consider appropriate support for the resident and her family.
- The resident asked on 21 March 2023 for compensation for her expenses for buying food while staying at a hotel. In its response, the landlord said it “should have reimbursed the cost of the food” and was sorry it had not done this. It said its customer liaison team were responsible and asked it to contact the resident. It is unclear from the evidence if anything further took place in this regard. There is no evidence of the customer liaison team contacting the resident or further payments being made to her. Furthermore, in obtaining evidence for the Ombudsman the landlord would establish on 19 February 2024 that a decant had not been authorised. As such it found it “owed no disturbance payments” to the resident. It is unclear why it was not able to ascertain this in its complaint response of 23 May 2023. Its failure to provide a clear and accurate response on the matter mishandled the resident’s expectations and caused uncertainty on what further action it would take.
- There is no evidence of the landlord sharing its findings of 19 February 2024 that it had not approved a decant and so disturbance payments were not applicable, with the resident. Its failure to be clear on the matter even after it had sufficient information to do so prolonged the issue for the resident and caused much uncertainty.
- The resident initially enquired about rehousing on 26 May 2022 and if there were any 3-bedroom properties available. The landlord responded on the same day providing appropriate advice on when to check its website for the best opportunity to find new available properties.
- In her complaint of 13 February 2023, the resident asked about being “provided with alternate housing” as she was concerned with the state of the property. The landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to this point in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. However, it would respond in its complaint review of 13 June 2024, which was outside of its complaint’s procedure. It appropriately explained the property was “fit for purpose” and it would not consider moving the resident to a different property on a permanent basis. It signposted her to its website for advice about transferring properties. Although these steps were appropriate it should have offered this information during its complaints process to ensure the resident could make an informed decision and had a clear resolution to her complaint. The failure to address all the concerns raised by the resident during the course of the complaints process was a departure from the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
- Both the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses showed a distinct lack of empathy for the detriment faced by the resident and her family. Had it shown this it could have given reassurance to the resident it was taking her situation seriously and was striving to limit the impact on them. It would recognise its failure to do this in its complaint review of 13 June 2024. It apologised it had not considered the impact on the resident’s family and their health. It offered further compensation which is assessed further in this report.
- On 21 March 2023, the resident said she had lost £1500 of items due to damage for which the landlord was responsible. The landlord’s Compensation Policy confirms the resident should have their own household insurance to cover damage due to leaks. Its stage 2 complaint response referenced this and directed the resident to claim on her insurance. Before doing this, it should reasonably have considered whether its handling of the repairs contributed to situation and the subsequent damage to the belongings. If it was unable to reach a decision it could have taken the step of referring the matter to its own insurer first. This would have ensured a decision regarding liability for the damage could be made before the resident was advised to claim on her own insurance policy. That the landlord did not consider this further was a failing in its handling of the matter. We have therefore ordered the landlord to refer the matter to its insurer now so the resident’s claim for compensation can be considered further.
- The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged it failed to offer a long-term issue to the sewage issues. In this respect it could be considered reasonable for it to have offered some financial measure to reflect any impact its failure might have had on the issue. This would have ensured it was resolution focused and consistent with the findings of its own complaint investigations. This has been considered in the Ombudsman’s calculation of redress, further in this report.
- The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response offered £225 compensation for its failure to offer a “long-term solution to the problem.” The landlord’s Compensation Policy indicates that such offers will be made in cases where repairs were completed within a “reasonable time” with “minor inconvenience” on the resident. Given the circumstances of the case, it is unclear why the landlord felt that this was a proportionate award. It failed to offer further compensation in its stage 2 complaint response finding its stage 1 compensation “fair and accurate”. Moreover, this was not accurate as its stage 1 compensation did not consider all points as highlighted in its later complaint review.
- There were a number of issues the stage 1 and 2 complaint responses failed to address that the complaint review of 13 June 2024 would address, covering all complaint issues. It offered a further £300 compensation at this point for not addressing the resident’s concerns and the time, trouble and inconvenience caused. In total it offered £525 compensation for the sewage issue, this includes the additional amount offered in its 2024 review. In accordance with its policy, this suggests the issue took a “long time to resolve” with “moderate impact on the resident.”
- The Ombudsman commends the landlord for carrying out a review of the case following the end of its internal complaints process. It must be stated however that any offers of compensation made after the landlord’s complaints process and after the involvement of this Service is not normally considered to have provided ‘reasonable redress’ even if the amount brings the compensation offer up to what would otherwise have been considered reasonable and proportionate by the Ombudsman. This is because for redress to be reasonable it should take place prior to the Ombudsman’s formal investigation and on the landlord’s own initiative. Actions made following the landlord being made aware of an Ombudsman investigation cannot be described to be on the landlord’s initiative given that the resident had cause to refer the matter to this Service for further consideration.
- Had the landlord offered the resident this compensation and taken action to contact other residents about flushing inappropriate items during the complaints process a finding of reasonable redress may have been found. However, the landlord’s review and additional compensation offer occurred outside of a satisfactory timeframe for it to be considered a genuine attempt to put things right with the resident. It is of specific concern that if the resident had not referred her complaint to this service, the errors identified may not have been. As such, the Ombudsman has found maladministration.
- In addition, this report has highlighted a number of further issues including:
- The landlord failed to consider contacting other residents in the building about flushing inappropriate items at the earliest possible opportunity to alleviate the effect on the resident.
- The landlord failed to address the resident’s point that a contractor told her the layout of the pipework was the reason for the continuous blockages.
- The landlord failed to acknowledge its delay in completing the repairs to the resident’s skirting boards, which was not in accordance with its policy.
- There is no evidence of the landlord fully investigating and considering a decant of the property following each report from the resident. It misinformed the resident in its stage 2 complaint response regarding disturbance payments and there is no evidence it ever updated her on the matter.
- Before signposting the resident to claim on her insurance policy, it should have taken steps to consider whether its handling of the matter contributed to the damage possessions. It should also have determined through its insurer if it was liable for any damage caused. Its complaints process could also have offered a compensation amount to reflect the impact its failure to find a long-term solution to the sewage issue might have had on the resident’s damaged belongings.
- For the above reasons, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident £1050 compensation which is £525 more than the £525 offered by the landlord. This is for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s inappropriate handling of her reports about sewage leaks in her property.
The ceiling leak.
- The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy confirms it is responsible for maintaining the resident’s ceilings. It must keep in repair and proper working order installations of water supply and electrical installations in the property. A flood or leak that cannot be contained or causes a risk of electric shock is classed as an “emergency repair” under its policy. As previously stated, it should make an immediate health and safety risk safe as an emergency repair within 24 hours of a report being made. It should then return in a “reasonable timeframe” to complete the repair.
- The landlord’s Compensation Policy confirms it will only pay compensation for water leaks unless it has “done something or failed to do something” that has caused the leak. It expects residents to have their own household insurance to cover this type of loss or damage.
- The resident resident’s report of 20 March 2023 was sufficient to be raised as an “emergency repair”. This was due to the leak not being contained and “coming through the ceiling and pipes” but also the risk of electric shock from the light fitting. There is no evidence the landlord acted in accordance with its policy and did not attend within 24 hours to make the property safe. Furthermore, the landlord failed to acknowledge this point in its stage 2 complaint response. The resident frustrated with this inaction and concerns about her safety reported the issue again on 21 March. The landlord acted in accordance with its policy on the follow-up report and arranged for a plumber and electrician to attend on 22 March. Appropriate steps were taken in removing the light fitting to make it safe.
- The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response told the resident it was unable to stop the leak emanating from the above property on 22 March 2023. It is unclear why this was. However, its repairs records state on the same date its electrician stated the leak had “stopped that morning” and the ceiling would need “48 hours to dry.” This has caused uncertainty over the correct sequence of events that took place and suggests a failure in the landlord’s record-keeping.
- On 24 March 2023, the resident reported her ceiling was “bubbling and bowing” and she was afraid it would “come down”. This was a further report that met the landlord’s policy for an “emergency repair” as there were concerns about an “immediate health and safety risk.” The landlord failed to treat the report as an emergency in accordance with its policy and did not attend within 24 hours. It apologised for this delay in its stage 2 complaint response. The resident was again frustrated with the landlord’s inaction and reported the issue again on 25 March. The landlord treated the report as an emergency on the follow-up report, attending the property on the same day. After investigation it found the roof to be “safe.”
- On 2 May 2023, the landlord took steps to further remedy the situation and make good the resident’s bathroom.
- It arranged for the bathroom light to be reinstated on 25 May. As the leak is believed to have stopped on 23 March and the ceiling given 48 hours to dry, it is uncertain why the landlord did not attempt to reinstate the light sooner. The resident was inconvenienced by having no bathroom light for 63 days. The follow-up repairs were not completed in a “reasonable timeframe” as its policy suggests. Due to electrical safety regulations, it was not possible to use temporary lighting in the room, making it more important for the landlord to reinstate the light at the earliest opportunity.
- It arranged for stain blocking to be completed on the resident’s ceiling and also awarded her £100 decorating vouchers. These were appropriate steps to make good the property, particularly as in accordance with the policy the resident is responsible for interior decoration. Its policy states it will only award applicable compensation when there is evidence it was responsible for the leak, with there being nothing to suggest this.
- The ceiling leak was reported after the stage 1 complaint response, so the landlord only had the stage 2 complaint response to address this issue. The landlord offered £40 compensation in its response for “delays to repairs”. This is believed to be regarding the ceiling leak repair delay rather than the sewage leak repair, as the landlord identifies no sewage leak “repairs” in its response. The £40 compensation meets the example in its policy for an “issue resolved in a time” with “minor inconvenience.” The Ombudsman finds the compensation offer inadequate as it did not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the following failures:
- The landlord’s failure to respond to the initial ceiling report as an emergency and within 24 hours. This left the resident and her family in a potentially hazardous situation.
- Its delay in reinstating the resident’s bathroom light fitting. The resident and her family were inconvenienced by having no light in the bathroom for an extended time.
- Its confusing information in its stage 2 complaint response about when the leak was repaired. It was uncertain from its response if it was clear about this.
- In summary the landlord failed to treat both separate reports relating to the ceiling leak as an emergency and not in accordance with its policy. Its failure to act caused potential risk to the resident and her family until it was able to investigate and make the property safe. Follow-up works were not completed by the landlord in a reasonable timeframe, leaving the resident and her family without a working bathroom light for over two months. It is unclear if it was aware of when the leak was completed which the evidence suggests affected its ability to complete the follow-up work.
- In all the circumstances of the case, a determination of maladministration has been identified. Compensation of £300 has been ordered as the landlord failed “promptly and effectively” to complete repairs. This is £260 more than the £40 already offered by the landlord. It failed to fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of the repairs to the property. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. Further orders will be made for the landlord to consider the failings identified in this report.
Complaint handling.
- The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that when a complainant expresses “dissatisfaction” it will “try to put things right at the earliest possible opportunity.” It will investigate issues that occurred six months before a complaint is made unless the issue is “recurring,” to do with “safeguarding or health and safety” or there are “exceptional circumstances.”
- The landlord acknowledges complaints within 2 days of receiving them. It will verify the details of the complaint, understanding the “nature of the complaint and what outcome” the complainant is seeking. It aims to “keep complainants regularly updated with the progress of a complaint even if there is no new information to provide.” When things go wrong it will acknowledge this and apologise. It has a “positive complaint handling culture” to support the quality of its service and to learn and develop. It operates two-stage complaints process as follows:
- Stage 1 complaints will be assigned to a complaints officer. The landlord will attempt to resolve such complaints at “the earliest possible opportunity” but within 10 working days of it being logged.
- Stage 2 complaints will be assigned to an “independent person” within the landlord who has not previously considered the complaint. It will provide its final response in 20 working days from the date the escalation request was made.
- If either response is delayed it will explain this to the resident and its response will not exceed a further 10 working days unless agreed with the resident.
- The resident raised her complaint on 13 February 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord complying with its policy and acknowledging the complaint. It did not do this until 3 March, taking 14 working days. It did apologise for its “delayed response and poor communication.” It explained this was due to “unexpected staff absence.” To manage the resident’s expectations, it could have explained its timescale for providing its stage 1 complaint response at this point. That it did not was a missed opportunity.
- The resident was uncertain about the landlord’s approach as on 6 March 2023 she asked if the complaint was at stage 1 or stage 2. She asked the landlord to provide its response to her in 20 working days. Again, it had a further opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations to make her understanding of its process clear, but it did not do so.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 8 March 2023 which took 17 working days to provide. This exceeded the timescale in its policy by 7 working days and there was no evidence it agreed a new timescale for response with the resident. This was a departure from the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy and also the Code. The landlord did apologise for the delay in its response and offered £20 compensation. Under the landlord’s Compensation Policy, this suggests the issue was resolved in a “reasonable time” with “minor inconvenience” on the resident.
- The stage 1 complaint response appropriately addressed the sewage leak and its failure to offer a long-term solution. It failed to address some of the resident’s complaint points, however. This caused concern that the landlord was not taking the situation seriously and was focused on resolving all issues raised. These points included the following:
- The resident’s concerns with the quality of cleaning completed by the landlord’s contractor.
- The cost of food incurred by the resident whilst staying in a hotel, which she asked to be reimbursed.
- The impact of the sewage leaks on her and her family.
- The resident escalated her complaint on 21 March 2023. The landlord did acknowledge her complaint the following day and explained it would respond in 20 working days, which was in accordance with its policy. However, it did not provide its stage 2 complaint response until 23 May. This was equivalent to 42 working days, exceeding the timescale in its policy by 22 working days. There is no evidence it updated the resident of any delay and across both complaints failed to keep the resident “regularly updated” as its policy dictates. It did apologise for this in its response offering £60 compensation, as with its stage 1 offer suggests the issue was resolved in a “reasonable time” with “minor inconvenience” on the resident.
- The resident’s stage 2 complaint response appropriately considered the resident’s concerns about the ceiling leak which took place after its stage 1 complaint response. It provided a comprehensive timeline for both the sewage leak and the ceiling leak. However, it failed to address the resident’s concerns that the property was not “fit for purpose” or support her questions about finding further accommodation. This caused inconvenience and uncertainty to the resident regarding what steps she should next take. The complaint response would still fail to address the resident’s stage 1 concerns about the quality of service from its contractor and the impact on her family. Leaving these issues unresolved caused frustration and uncertainty for the resident. As set out above, this was also not in accordance with the Code which provides that landlords should provide a response to all points raised as part of a complaint.
- The resident’s concerns about the cost of the food at hotels was addressed and it said it customer liaison team would contact the resident about this. Following the complaint internal communication in February 2024 shows the landlord did not “approve a decant” at any point and there were “no payments outstanding to the resident.” It is uncertain why the landlord was not able to establish this prior to its stage 2 complaint and if it ever went on to explain this to the resident. Its failure to do this within its internal complaint’s procedure caused further uncertainty to the resident and left the issue unresolved.
- The review completed by the landlord on 13 June 2024 was outside of its internal complaint’s procedure. In this review, the landlord made clear the failings in its complaint acknowledgements and response times, which are highlighted previously in this report. It offered a further £120 compensation in relation to this. Its total compensation for its delayed complaint handling was therefore £220 still suggesting minor inconvenience with some impact. It also provided appropriate responses to the resident’s concerns about the condition of her property and signposted her to information about moving. The impact on the family was considered and compensation was offered in reference to the detriment caused. As previously stated, the landlord should have used its internal complaint procedure to respond to all the resident’s points and offer appropriate compensation. It should not have required the resident to raise her complaint to the Ombudsman for it to do this.
- A landlord’s complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own Complaints Policy in its stage 1 and 2 complaint response times. Its inefficient communication and divergence from its policy caused uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident. A determination of service failure has therefore been made. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £300 compensation has been ordered. This includes the £225 previously awarded by the landlord. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred over a protracted period with moderate impact on the resident throughout that period.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s the resident’s concerns about a sewage leak at her property.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
Orders
- The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
- The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in the handling of the resident’s reports of the sewage leak, leak from the property above and its complaint handling failures.
- Pay the resident a total of £1650 in compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
- £1050 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s ineffective response to reports of a sewage leak in the resident’s property.
- £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient response to reports of a leak from the property above.
- £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient complaint handling.
- The amounts above include the £765 already awarded to the resident by the landlord during its internal complaint procedure and post complaint procedure review for the above issues.
- The landlord must consider a long-term solution to the monitoring of the resident’s sanitation pipework to ensure it can act proactively rather than reactively to the presence of obstruction.
- Refer the resident’s claim for compensation to its insurer or provide the resident with information about how to submit a claim.
- The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 8 weeks of the date of this report:
- The landlord must arrange for an independent and specialist contractor to carry out an inspection of the sanitation pipework at the property to address the resident’s concerns about the layout of the pipework. If appropriate it must produce a schedule of works to remedy issues identified in this report. It must provide the outcome of each of these to the Ombudsman and resident.