Tower Hamlets Homes (202204969)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204969

Tower Hamlets Homes

14 February 2023

 

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 handling of repairs to a communal waste pipe.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation following a blockage in a communal waste pipe.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident reported his household experienced injuries from handling the wastewater following the back surge from the communal waste pipe. It is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether any action or lack of action directly led to any detriment to the resident’s health. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate “matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”. However, this investigation will consider whether the landlord acted reasonably and in accordance with its obligations, whether any failure led to any distress and inconvenience for the resident and whether it appropriately responded to the concerns the resident raised.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and occupies a one-bedroom flat within a block. He has resided there since 2019. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord at 6.20 pm on 31 March 2022 that he was experiencing a leak from his kitchen sink. It informed him this was his own responsibility as a leaseholder, and he called a private plumber to disconnect the pipework. After speaking to his neighbour who was experiencing a similar issue, the resident then reported to the landlord at 9.18 pm that the issue was back surging of wastewater from the communal waste pipe. The landlord attended the property later that evening and completed works to remove a blockage from the pipe. This left the sink in the resident’s property free flowing.
  3. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 1 April 2022 in which he sought compensation of £3,000. This was for the distress and inconvenience he experienced, damage to his washing machine and kitchen cabinets, and injuries his household had sustained from dealing with the wastewater. It responded on 19 April 2022 to summarise the works it had completed to address the back surge.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 25 April 2022, saying that the landlord’s response had been “insensitive”. He repeated his request for £3,000 compensation and highlighted sections of the lease to support this. The resident contended that the landlord was responsible as it was the landlord of the neighbouring tenant who had caused the leak. He also said that it was responsible as it had failed to maintain the communal pipework and questioned what it had done to maintain the waste pipe.
  5. The landlord issued its final response to the resident on 6 June 2022 which asserted that once it was aware that a repair was required to the communal waste pipe, it responded in a timely manner to remedy the issue the same day. The landlord confirmed that it did not have a set program to clear blockages from waste pipes and that the back surge was caused by a blockage of fat in the pipe which was “not a defect as such and not caused by [its] negligence”. The landlord declined to pay compensation, suggesting that the resident contact his own insurance provider. It also provided details for its own insurance team if he considered that it had been negligent.
  6. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 11 June 2022 that, to resolve his complaint, he wanted compensation of £3,000 for damage to his possessions and the distress and inconvenience he experienced.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal waste pipe

  1. The landlord’s lease agreement with the resident states it is the landlord’s responsibility to “maintain and keep in good and substantial repair and condition… all such gas and water mains and pipes drains waste water and sewage ducts… used by the Lessee in common with the owners or tenants of the other flats in the building”. This confirms the landlord’s responsibility to carry out repairs and maintenance to the communal installations in the block for drainage of waste water.
  2. The lease agreement also states that it is the resident’s responsibility to “repair maintain renew…within the Demised Premises all… sanitary water gas and electrical apparatus… and… drains pipes”. This confirms it is the resident’s responsibility to repair and maintain the installations within the property for the provision of sanitation.
  3. The landlord’s “Responsive Repairs Policy for General Build, Gas, Mechanical & Electrical and Specialist Repairs” confirms it considers emergency repairs to be those which have “serious effects on people or damage to the home” such as “serious blockages to main drains.” This policy states that it will attend emergency repairs within two hours to make safe the repair and complete any additional works within 24 hours.
  4. The resident initially reported a leak from his kitchen sink to the landlord on 31 March 2022. It was appropriate for it to inform him that this was his responsibility to address, as the leak appeared to stem from plumbing located in the interior of the property. This was in accordance with the lease agreement. When the resident reported the back surge originated from the communal waste pipe, the landlord attended the property that day to complete work to remove the blockage. This was also in accordance with the lease agreement and its repairs policy.
  5. The landlord therefore responded appropriately in attending the block within two hours of the resident’s report that he was experiencing a back surge from a communal waste pipe. It acted in accordance with its policy above in clearing the blockage within 24 hours and leaving the resident’s kitchen sink free flowing. While it is recognised that the experience would have been distressing for the resident, there was no evidence of a failure by the landlord in attending promptly to remedy the repair once it was aware that this was its responsibility.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation following a blockage in a communal waste pipe.

  1. The landlord’s redress and compensation policy states that it offers compensation to “recognise and address situations where service delivery has not been to the expected standard” and “consider the impact or injustice for the individual affected”.
  2. When the Ombudsman awards compensation, the purpose of this is to put right any detriment experienced by the resident as a result of any identified failure by the landlord. Awards of compensation are made to proportionately recognise any distress and inconvenience experienced and to recognise any quantifiable evidenced financial loss. Compensation is not awarded to punish the landlord, nor is it to award ‘damages’ in the way that a court might. It is also not intended to serve as a substitute for insurance. Therefore, for compensation to be awarded, it must be found that the landlord’s actions or lack thereof led to detriment for the resident.
  3. As established above, there was no failure in the handling of his reported repair to the communal waste pipe. A landlord may be considered to have failed to uphold its repairing obligations if it did not carry out a repair which it could reasonably be expected to be aware of or predicted. There was no indication it could have reasonably foreseen the blockage prior to the resident’s report. The landlord’s repair records did not show repeated or recurrent reports of blockages which may have indicated a pervasive problem with the waste pipes which may have led it to have foreseen an impending blockage.
  4. The resident contended, in his stage two complaint escalation, that a lack of maintenance of the pipes led to the blockage but this investigation has not seen evidence to suggest this was the case. He also raised that the landlord was liable as it was the landlord of the neighbour who had caused the issue. However, there is no evidence to show it had been established that the blockage was caused by any one individual resident and the landlord cannot therefore be said to be liable.
  5. While it was evident that the resident experienced distress as well as damage to his possessions, there was no evidence of a failure from the landlord which led to this. It was therefore reasonable, and in accordance with its redress and compensation policy above, for it to decline to pay compensation. While it may have been helpful for the landlord to have considered reimbursing the resident for the cost of the initial emergency call out, as it was later established that it was responsible for resolving the issue rather than him, it was not obliged to do so. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to suggest that the resident submit a claim to his home contents insurer, or to raise a liability insurance claim with its own insurer, if he considered that it had been negligent, and this was in line with its policies. It is highlighted on the landlord’s website that residents should consider home contents insurance to protect their possessions.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure provide for a two-stage internal complaints procedure. At both stages it should acknowledge the complaint within two days and provide its complaint responses within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s stage one complaint response was acknowledged and responded to within reasonable timeframes. However, its response was simply a factual account of the events on the day of the back surge, and it did not directly accept or decline the resident’s request for compensation, nor was there an acknowledgment of the detriment he reported experiencing. The landlord’s response also failed to provide any further advice or outline any of the options available to the resident if he wished to seek reimbursement for his financial expenditure or to cover the cost of replacing any damaged possessions.
  3. The Ombudsman would expect a complaint response to directly address the resident’s concerns and to do so in an empathetic manner. This may aid in the rebuilding of the tenant-landlord relationship when this has become strained, and minimise any further frustration or distress on the part of the resident. It was evident that the landlord’s stage one response led to further distress, as the resident’s final stage escalation request specifically described the stage one response as “despicable” and “insensitive”. The landlord missed the opportunity to acknowledge the resident’s concerns about its earlier response, and also to respond directly and more empathetically to the issues he raised and try to allay any further distress. This was not appropriate.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 25 April 2022 to escalate his complaint to the final stage. This was not acknowledged until 6 May 2022, when it confirmed that it had agreed a response date with the resident for 7 June 2022. The final stage response was provided within this agreed timeframe, which was reasonable. However, the landlord has not explained why it did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint escalation request for eight working days, instead of the two days specified in its complaints policy and procedure. This led to a further, albeit short, delay in the resolution of the complaint, which may have prolonged any distress and uncertainty experienced by the resident in the interim.
  5. In recognition of the fact the landlord’s complaint responses did not appropriately address the resident’s concerns in full, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, and the short delay in handling the final stage complaint, £50 compensation £50 should be paid to the resident. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available online, which provides for awards of compensation between £50 and £100 where a failure has occurred which had an adverse effect on the resident but which was of short duration and did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal waste pipe.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation following a blockage in a communal waste pipe.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord should pay £50 compensation directly to the resident in recognition of its poor complaint handling. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance within four weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its complaints handling procedures and confirm to the Ombudsman what steps it will take to ensure that complaints are handled empathetically and acknowledged in accordance with its specified timeframes.