Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Ealing (202210861)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210861

London Borough of Ealing

14 June 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 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 landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s concerns that there was a drainage problem at her property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a house.
  2. On11 January 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the external soil stack at the back of her property was blocked. On 13 January 2022,it therefore sent its contractor to investigate her concerns about the drainage. The contractor nevertheless found no blockage in the soil stack,and they tested the toilet using specialist drainage equipment and found that this was taking full capacity when flushed. They did, however, recommend a CCTV survey from the toilet to the stack to assess the pipework, and they noted that a ladder would be needed to complete this.
  3. The resident then contacted the landlord on 2 February 2022 to request an update and say that she was told that a surveyor would need to authorise the CCTV drain survey. She subsequently made further requests to it for an update on 16 and 23 February 2022 and, on 24 February 2022, she raised a stage one complaint with it, as she had still received no update regarding the CCTV survey, for which she received a complaint acknowledgement on 8 March 2022. The resident subsequently chased a complaint response from the landlord on 16 March 2022, and it informed her that this should be responded to within 20 working days by 23 April 2022, for which she chased it again on 25 March 2022.
  4. In its subsequent stage one response on 29 March 2022, the landlord said that, as the inspection in January 2022 had found no fault with the drains because no blockage was found in the stack and the facilities and toilet were tested and found to be flowing freely and in working order, no CCTV survey of these was required.
  5. The resident then escalated her complaint again on 30 March 2022, as she said that her bathroom sink was not draining properly, and the toilet was not flushing properly, with water rising instead. She said that the soil stack looked damp underneath the inspection cover, where she suspected that there might be a blockage, and that there was a crack in the concrete above the sewer pipes and the ground had sunk there, which had not been checked by the landlord’s contractor.
  6. On 11 April 2022, the landlord sent its contractor to inspect the resident’s property again. The contractor reported that the toilet was working, and that the soil stack was inspected and tested, with no blockages were found. They noted that, as the resident was nevertheless still unhappy with these findings, they were recommending a CCTV drain survey to check for any obstructions, because she said that the toilet kept backing up.
  7. On 29 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord once more as she had no response to her final stage complaint escalation request. She said that she had now paid a private contractor £114 to inspect the property, and that they had mechanically bored down the toilet to clear a mass scale build up. The resident also provided their report, which said that if the problem persisted, they recommended descaling the stack. The report additionally stated that “The drain is defective, and further detailed investigations are required to determine the structural integrity of up to 30m of a residential property’s ̒foul drainage’ using CCTV techniques.”
  8. On 11 May 2022, the resident asked to escalate to the third stage of the landlord’s previous complaints procedure, as she had still received no response to her escalation request. The landlord replied to her on 17 May 2022, and it apologised for its delay doing so, which it said was due to a high volume of correspondence from its residents, leading to a backlog. It explained that it no longer had a three-stage complaints process, but that it had escalated her case with its senior management, and that it had asked them to complete their final stage complaint investigation as a matter of urgency.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord again on 26 May 2022, asking for a timescale for the final stage complaint response, and whether she would be reimbursed the £114 for her private contractor and compensated for the landlord’s delays. On 30 May 2022, it apologised for the further delays and said that it was hopeful that the final stage complaint response would be issued by 17 June 2022. The resident then further contacted the landlord on 28 June and 6 July 2022, as she had received no response to the complaint yet. It subsequently replied on 6 July 2022 to say that it would provide an urgent update on the status of the complaint and call her within seven days.
  10. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident about this again until 29 September 2022, however, when its surveyor inspected the property. Its subsequent final stage complaint response on 6 October 2022 said that the surveyor had established via flush tests and visually that there were no blockages to any service area within the property, and that externally there was no requirement for a CCTV to be carried out, as there was no signs of overflowing drains or bad smells of sulphur. The landlord nevertheless acknowledged that it had not responded to her complaint within the appropriate timescales.
  11. The resident then complained to this Service, as she said that by the time the surveyor had visited her property, the private contractor had already solved the problem with the bathroom sink not draining and the toilet not flushing properly. She said that, although there were no signs of overflowing drains or bad smells, she did not want to wait until there was a problem with sewage overflowing. The outcome that the resident sought was for a CCTV drain survey to be carried out as recommended, for the £114 for the private contractor to be reimbursed, and for compensation to be paid for the delays, lack of communication and inconvenience that she had experienced from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s concerns that there was a drainage problem at her property

  1. The landlord’s repair handbook confirms that it is responsible for repairing blocked or leaking drains, soil stacks, sinks and toilets, and for doing so within 3 to 15 working days for non-emergency repairs where there is no immediate inconvenience or danger.
  2. When the resident reported concerns about her soil stack and drainage being blocked to it on 11 January 2022, the landlord responded appropriately by arranging for its contractor to inspect the property two working days later on 13 January 2022. This was within its repair handbook’s earliest timescale for it to do so within three working days. As no blockage was found by the contractor’s testing with specialist drainage equipment, and no other issues with the facilities were identified during their inspection, it was reasonable that no further action was taken for this at the time. This is because it appropriate for the landlord to rely on the expert findings of its qualified contractor, in the absence of any expert or other evidence to the contrary.
  3. The landlord’s contractor nevertheless recommended a CCTV survey to it at the resident’s property from the toilet to the soil stack to assess the pipework. While it was appropriate for it to have considered any recommendations that its contractors made, however, as a social landlord its limited budget meant that it was not obliged to carry out a recommendation if it did not believe this to be necessary or cost effective. Therefore, the landlord’s decision not to authorise a CCTV survey at the resident’s property was reasonable. Although, it would have been helpful if it or its contractor had informed her of the likely timescale for such a decision to be made, and it was inappropriate that it delayed informing her of its decision for over two-and-a-half months from 13 January to 29 March 2022.
  4. When the resident escalated her complaint on 30 March 2022, as she mentioned that she was experiencing problems with the bathroom sink and toilet and was concerned about a crack in the concrete, the landlord took appropriate steps for its contractor to inspect the property again on 11 April 2022. This was eight working days later, and so was within its repair handbook’s maximum timescale for it to do so within 15 working days.
  5. As the contractor reported that the toilet was working, and that there was no blockage and tests revealed that water was flowing away correctly, it was reasonable that no further action was taken for this on that day. It was also reasonable that the landlord again did not authorise a CCTV survey, when it did not consider this to be necessary from its contractor’s findings.
  6. Once the resident provided it with a report from a private contractor on 29 April 2022 that said that the drain was defective, it was appropriate that the landlord arranged for its surveyor to inspect the property on 29 September 2022. Although it would have been helpful for the inspection to have taken place sooner, and preferably within its repair handbook’s 15-working-day maximum timescale for this, there is no evidence that she reported any outstanding responsive repair issues with the drainage at her property that it had to respond to within that timescale. This is because the resident explained to the landlord on 29 April 2022 that her private contractor had already descaled the toilet, with no indication in their report that an inspection was needed urgently.
  7. Therefore, it was not unreasonable that the landlord’s surveyor did not inspect the resident’s property urgently or as a responsive repair. Nevertheless, the fact that it did not so after it had received an expert private contractor’s report that the drain there was defective on 29 April 2022 until five months later on 29 September 2022 was an inappropriately lengthy delay. Moreover, the landlord provided the resident with no explanation or redress for the delay, which would have caused her to have experienced unnecessary distress and inconvenience after receiving evidence that she had a defective drain.
  8. As the landlord’s subsequent surveyor’s inspection found no drainage or blockage issues at the property by checking for these visually and via flush tests, and the resident confirmed that there were none at the time, it was reasonable that it took no further action and did not carry out a CCTV inspection for this. It is nevertheless noted that she believed that the descaling by the private contractor had previously resolved the problem, and that she requested that she be reimbursed the £114 that she paid for this and their inspection.
  9. However, while it is not possible for this Service to determine whether it was the case that the resident’s private contractor’s descaling was required to resolve a problem with her property’s drainage because we do not have the expertise necessary to do so, it is of concern that the landlord did not respond to her about this. It should have instead considered the evidence that she had provided to it about the drainage, determined whether or not her private contractor’s descaling was required, and then responded to her request to be reimbursed for this in a timely manner. Therefore, it was another failing on the landlord’s part that it did not do so, in addition to its delayed surveyor’s inspection.
  10. As the landlord’s contractor found no drainage issues at the resident’s property during their inspections in January and April 2022, and it had not agreed to pay for a private contractor to carry out work at the property, it may not have had to reimburse her the £114 that she paid for this. Nevertheless, the fact that it did not investigate to confirm this or respond to her meant that it did not handle this appropriately. It is also noted that the resident said that, although she was not currently experiencing any drainage issues, she wanted a CCTV survey to be carried out before there were any future issues. However, it would not be reasonable for the landlord to pay for a CCTV survey when there are no current drainage issues.
  11. To conclude, as the landlord took appropriate steps to inspect the property in January and April 2022 and arrange for its surveyor to inspect the property in September 2022, where no drainage issues were found, its decision not to authorise a CCTV survey was reasonable. However, the fact that it took over two-and-a-half months to initially decline the CCTV survey, five months to arrange the surveyor’s inspection, and failed to investigate and respond to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for her private contractor’s works was unsuitable. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to apologise to her for this, and to pay her £150 compensation in recognition of any distress and inconvenience that she may have experienced as a result of this.
  12. This is line with the landlord’s guidance on compensation payments, which recommends compensation of up to £150 for stage two complaints for reasons including its delays related to the nature of the problem and expenses incurred by the resident. This is also in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance’s recommendation of compensation of over £100 for failures that adversely affected the resident, for which it has been recommended below to contact the resident to confirm whether there have been any further problems with drainage at the property, and to arrange to inspect the property again if there have been. The landlord has additionally been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs with regard to considering and responding to its residents’ requests for surveys, works and reimbursements fully and in a timely manner.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord had a two-stage corporate complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint, with a 20-working-day response timescale at both stages. It said that it would acknowledge stage one complaints within four working days. The policy also stated that investigations might take longer if the complaint was unusually complex, in which case “the complainant must be informed of the reasons why timescales cannot be met and given the expected date when we will respond. Notification should be sent to the complainant at the first opportunity.”
  2. The resident raised her stage one complaint on 24 February 2022, and this was acknowledged on 8 March 2022, which was four working days outside the four-working-day timescale in the corporate complaints policy. There was then some confusion caused when the landlord originally gave her an expected response date of 23 April 2022, which it incorrectly said was 20 working days after the complaint was raised on 24 February 2022. However, after further contact from the resident, it ultimately responded to her stage one complaint on 29 March 2022, which was four working days outside the timeframe in its policy.
  3. Once the resident escalated her complaint on 30 March 2022 the landlord should have issued its final stage complaint response within 20 working days, or informed her at the first opportunity why the timescales could not be met and the date that it expected to respond to her on instead. However, she had to chase it for an update on two occasions, on 29 April and 11 May 2022, before it acknowledged and apologised for the delay on 17 May 2022. The resident then had to contact the landlord again on 26 May 2022 to ask for an expected date for a response, and on two further occasions on 28 June and 6 July 2022, as the response was not issued within its latest estimated timeframe by 17 June 2022.
  4. The landlord subsequently issued its final stage complaint response on 6 October 2022, which was 129 working days after the resident’s escalation request on 30 March 2022. This 109-working-day late response was far outside the 20-working-day response timeframe specified in its corporate complaints policy and was therefore unreasonable. Although in its final stage complaint response the landlord acknowledged that it had not issued the response within an appropriate timeframe, it failed to apologise for or award any compensation in respect of the delays.
  5. As there was a delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint at stage one, issuing the stage one response and then a considerable delay in issuing a final stage complaint response, which failed to address these delays, there were multiple failings by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling. As such, it has been ordered below to apologise to and pay her another £150 compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
  6. This is in line with the landlord’s guidance on compensation payments’ recommendation of up to £150 stage two complaint compensation for its residents’ time and trouble from its complaint handling delays. This is also in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance’s recommendation of over £100 compensation where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right.
  7. Additionally, this Service’s complaint handling code states that complaints should be responded to by landlords within 10 working days at stage one and 20 working days at the final stage. Although it is noted that, following the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s self-assessment against our complaint handling code acknowledged that its corporate complaints policy at the time of her complaint was not compliant with this. It therefore confirmed that it was working towards and changing its policy to a 10-working-day stage one response timescale by 3 January 2023.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns that there was a drainage problem at her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident within four weeks to apologise to her for its failings in relation to its response to her concerns that there was a drainage problem at her property and its complaint handling in her case.
    2. Pay the resident £300 total compensation within four weeks, which is broken down into £150 in recognition of its delayed initial CCTV survey decision and surveyor’s inspection and its failure to respond to her reimbursement request, and £150 for its poor complaint handling.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Contact the resident to confirm whether there have been any further problems with drainage at the property, and to arrange to inspect the property again if there have been.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to considering and responding to its residents’ requests for surveys, works and reimbursements fully and in a timely manner.
  3. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.