Yorkshire Housing Limited (202424348)

Background

1. The property is a 2-bedroom top floor flat in a 3-storey block. For context, the landlord has previously cleared a pipework blockage caused by a buildup of fat and grease.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of a pipework blockage.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of a pipework blockage.
5. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to reports of a pipework blockage

6. The landlord’s record keeping has meant it has been difficult to properly assess the actions it has taken. However, there were delays and poor communication with the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

7. The landlord sent the stage 2 response late, it issued a second stage 1 response that was unnecessary, and it did not offer reasonable compensation.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not consider

8. The resident told us the situation has been mentally exhausting and caused her anxiety. We cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord.
9. The resident mentioned boiler issues which the landlord responded to as part of the stage 1 complaint sent 21 June 2024. The resident said she considered the boiler issue complaint resolved in an email to the landlord on 23 July 2024. She confirmed this in an email to us on 24 May 2025. Therefore, this investigation will focus solely on repairs to the pipework blockage.
10. We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of issues arising. This is so the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate. Therefore, we can consider events from 31 May 2023 onwards (12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint). The end date is 1 October 2024 when the landlord issued a second stage 1 complaint response.

11. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy:
    1. Says it will:
       1. Make an appointment to complete urgent repairs within 28 days.
       2. Aim to complete routine repairs, such as larger scale work or work outside the property that is not causing major inconvenience, within 90 days.
    2. Says the landlord is responsible for repairs to kitchen sinks and waste outlets including the washing machine.
    3. Says the resident is responsible for unblocking sinks blocked through misuse. This includes the pouring of oil or fat down kitchen sinks.
    4. Does not clarify whether blocked pipework is an urgent or routine repair.
12. Landlords should keep good records. This enables it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. Neither the landlord nor the Ombudsman can properly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate records. The lack of clear records mean that it has not been possible to fully understand what the landlord did or why at every stage. This has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation.
13. The resident said she had chased the landlord in relation to the blocked pipework since July 2023. No dated record of this has been provided to us, but the landlord said it had located the messages and apologised for its failure to respond in its stage 2 response. It was unclear whether the resident continued to chase between July 2023 and May 2024. However, the landlord’s repair records do show the resident reported a blockage affecting the kitchen sink and washing machine on 9 May 2024.
14. The landlord raised a repair with a drainage sub-contractor who attended promptly 4 days later. This was a positive step to resolve the blockage. The sub-contractor noted:
    1. A gas engineer was required to remove the cooker.
    2. A plumber was required so the blockage could be cleared.

However, after the visit, there was no evidence the landlord followed up with its sub-contractor or raised any follow-on work, which were failings.

15. The landlord visited on 10 June 2024 in relation to boiler issues. The engineer noted:
    1. The boiler “intermittently went out when in use… there must be a blockage in the waste.”
    2. Follow-on work was required for a “plumber… to find blockage in waste pipe.”

The landlord raised follow-on work to find the blockage the following day, which was positive.

16. The landlord then used its complaint process in relation to the boiler to try and put things right, which was reasonable. It said a plumber would attend on 26 June 2024 to find the blockage. However, it was unclear whether this was the follow-on work raised on 10 June 2024, or whether a plumber attended.
17. The landlord noted further work was required to “cut out waste pipe and clear [the] blockage on 2 July 2024.” The evidence suggests there was then a missed/cancelled appointment for the further work on 12 July 2024. However, the landlord’s plumber cleared the blockage on 18 July 2024. This was over 2 months after the resident had reported the blockage on 9 May 2024, which was a delay.
18. In relation to the blockage, it was unclear what the cause was, exactly how long it took to repair, or how it impacted the resident’s day to day life. However, the landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for the repair, regardless of whether it outsources the work to contractors. The landlord’s failure to raise follow-on work following the sub-contractor visit delayed the repair. The landlord:
    1. Should have done more to follow up with the resident and its contractors.
    2. Had confusing repair records – with additional exterior pipework repairs ongoing throughout the duration of the blockage.
19. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In this case, while the landlord has acknowledged some failings, it failed to address the detriment to the resident. There was therefore maladministration and an order has been made for £200 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the pipework blockage.

20. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
21. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response 15 working days after the complaint was raised. It was unclear if an acknowledgement was sent, however, 15 working days is reasonable. This is because we expect a complaint to be acknowledged within 5 working days, and responded to a further 10 working days later.
22. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response 44 working days after the escalation. While we acknowledge it wrote to the resident to explain it needed further time, this was still a delay. The landlord’s poor record keeping has undoubtedly caused issues with the timeliness of the complaint response.
23. Rather than raise a new complaint about the pipework blockage on 25 July 2024, the landlord escalated the first complaint to stage 2. This was despite the resident saying she wanted a separate complaint set up. This then caused confusion as the landlord responded at stage 2, but then also sent a second stage 1 complaint response. Overall, the stage 2 response was late, did not do enough to put things right, and there was confusion caused by the second stage 1 complaint response. There was therefore maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order of £150 compensation is made to reflect any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. As mentioned in paragraph 8 of this report, the landlord’s record keeping was poor. The evidence showed:
    1. The landlord had to contact:
       1. Its sub-contractor on 12 August 2024 to find out what work had been carried out on 13 May 2024.
       2. A previous sub-contractor on 28 March 2025 to ask for records in relation to previous repairs carried out at the property.
    2. A lack of detail as to what happened in repair appointments dated:
       1. 26 June 2024
       2. 2 and 12 July 2024
    3. No communication records with the resident.

A recommendation has been made the landlord address its record keeping to avoid similar issues in the future.

Communication

25. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. The landlord should consider how it can improve communication and monitoring of repairs.