Barnet Council (202014754)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014754

Barnet Homes

21 May 2021

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of drainage repairs needed outside his property;
2. the resident’s pest control reports;
3. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a property that the landlord has described as a two-bedroom flat. The flat is within a block that has four levels and the landlord is a local authority arm’s length management organisation.
The lease agreement obliges the landlord to ‘keep in good and substantial repair and condition’ the structure of the block, including ‘pipes and the service installations save those exclusively serving the flat’.
The landlord has a responsive repairs policy that sets out several categories of repairs priorities and expected timescales for completion of works, including programmed works (requiring a pre-inspection and two or more appointments) that are completed within 25 working days and planned works (complex repairs requiring more than three appointments) that are completed within 60 working days.

The policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs to ‘drains, gutters and external pipes’.

A pest control policy has not been provided to this Service but the landlord’s website advises that it has a pest control contractor who will attend where residents report pest problems. No timescales for attendance are advertised on the website.
The landlord has a complaints policy that sets out a formal two stage complaints process with responses required within 10-20 working days at both stage one and stage two of the process.
The landlord has a compensation policy that allows for it to make financial awards where it is responsible for service failure and ‘practical actions alone are not considered to be able to restore the customer to their position prior to the service failure’.

Summary of Events

The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 October 2018 – he advised it of dropped drain pipework and provided a copy of a CCTV report dated 24 September 2018. The resident had appointed the CCTV survey due to a blocked drain that was cleared but his contractor had recommended works to the communal pipework to prevent further blockages and weakening of groundwork.
The landlord’s records show it noted that it had acknowledged the drainage report on 31 October 2018 and advised the resident it had passed the report to one of its surveyors.
The landlord’s records show further contact was received about the drainage issue on 20 November 2018 and 17 December 2018. These indicate that a job was raised and the landlord’s contractors had produced their own report but no further related evidence has been seen by this Service.
The landlord’s records show a repair works order was raised on 15 May 2019 for a CCTV drainage survey to be completed in light of the resident’s own report. This order was recorded as complete on 3 June 2019 but no evidence has been seen by this Service of a report having been produced.
The resident chased the outcome of the October 2018 report on 15 June 2020. The landlord replied on 24 June 2020 and provided a repair work order number.
The landlord’s contractor conducted a drainage survey on 14 July 2020 and produced a report on 17 July 2020. This confirmed a crack and a collapse to sections of pipework.
The resident sent an email to the landlord’s pest control department on 28 July 2020 that reported a potential rat infestation with rats seen in communal areas and heard in void spaces. He provided related photographs on 29 July 2020.
The resident submitted an online complaint on 30 July 2020 on the grounds that that landlord had failed to take any substantial action in response to a report of a collapsed drain that was made on 31 October 2018. He added that rats had recently entered the property and begun to cause damage to dishwasher pipework so he had been required to pay £150 for a pest control treatment – he linked this to the outstanding drainage issue. He requested an explanation for the delay in addition to the completion of works and reimbursement of the £150 he had paid the private contractor.
The landlord’s internal records show that it reviewed its own CCTV report on 4 August 2020 – this recommended further digging down and patch lining. It subsequently received further advice from the contractor on 19 August 2020 that additional repairs could be needed once the area was excavated.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 11 August 2020 and advised on 14 August 2020 that it expected to be able to offer the full complaint response by 24 August 2020. It offered a further update on 24 August 2020 and said it would respond in full within five working days.
The landlord arranged for a block pest control job to be raised on 25 August 2020 and the treatment start date was scheduled for 15 September 2020.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 25 August 2020. It advised that:
1. drainage works lasting two days would start on 1 September 2020
2. it would consider reimbursement of the £150 private pest control payment on receipt of an invoice that included VAT charges and showed works done by a registered company
3. an order had been raised for pest control block treatment and the pest control survey would consider the feasibility of a rat flap
4. repairs records mentioned drainage in August 2017, May 2019 and July 2019 but the landlord’s contract with its repairs contractors had ended in June 2020 and it did not have detailed access to their records so it could not explain the delays in completing drainage works
5. it apologised that it had initially not been able to locate a record of the resident’s first pest control report
6. it upheld the complaint and offered apologies.

It also provided the resident with a copy of the 17 July 2020 drainage report on the same day and advised the contractors would jet out debris and carry out patch lining to pipework.

The resident submitted a complaint escalation on 1 September 2020 on the grounds that:
1. drainage works had not commenced that day as planned
2. he provided a copy of the invoice for £150 private pest treatment but had not agreed the criteria for this invoice that the landlord had set
3. the landlord had not been able to find information about his initial pest control report
4. the explanation for the 21-month delay was unsatisfactory
5. he requested an understandable description of the drainage works the landlord intended to carry out
6. considerable compensation was requested given the distress and anxiety over a 21-month period and the impact of rats now entering his property.

The resident also provided a copy of the private pest control report from the treatment on 30 July 2020. That report stated:

‘It is my professional opinion that the hole created at the drain from this movement is enabling the rats to access the property underneath the foundations. Upon inspection of the manhole there is evidence of rodent activity inside the drains. In order to prevent the rats from gaining entry to the property a non-return rat flap needs to be inserted into the drains. Also, a thorough survey of the drains needs to be carried out to understand why the drains are coming away from the property due to the aforementioned movement.’

The landlord’s records show that a note was made by contractors on 4 September 2020. They reported that a ‘broken rest bend’ had been renewed with patch lining to damaged sections too. It was added that the line was re-surveyed and found to be ‘free flowing and structurally sound’.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 September 2020. It advised that its contractors had completed works ‘for excavation to repair collapsed branch line pipework’ on 3 September 2020. It added that its pest control department would commence block treatment from 15 September 2020 and that a job had been raised for its drainage contractor to install a rat flap drain guard. It advised it would reimburse the resident for the £150 private pest control treatment if they provided bank details.
The landlord’s records show that contractors attempted to install the flap on 16 September 2020 but it was loose so a larger size was ordered. It noted on 28 September 2020 that the works had been completed.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 28 September 2020. It concluded that:
1. there had been delay in the drainage works for which explanations were given around the impacts of the pandemic and bringing the repairs contract ‘in house’ but it noted that works had been completed on 3 September 2020
2. a commitment to reimburse the £150 for private pest control treatment was reiterated
3. the lack of information on its records about the resident’s initial pest control treatment request was attributed to the implementation of new systems but it had begun treatment on 15 September 2020 and installed rat flaps on 21 September 2020
4. its records showed two historic CCTV surveys with no further data so it could not explain the delay but it upheld the complaint and advised that this was why it had changed its repairs delivery model.
The resident approached this Service in December 2020 – he queried the extent of the landlord’s actions in September 2020, asked what the landlord could do about damage to his dishwasher (caused by rats) and sought assurance on ongoing pest control treatment.
The landlord has since advised this Service that pest control operatives recommended that it undertake a 12-month programme of treatment from September 2020 which led to further estate visits in November 2020 and January 2021.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Drainage works

It is not disputed that the landlord failed to respond within a reasonable timescale to the resident’s report in October 2018 that works to the communal pipework were required. The only records that the landlord has of actions it took over the following 20 months were:
1. notes during November-December 2018 that it would arrange for its own contractors to provide a report
2. notes in May 2019 that its contractor needed to produce a drainage report for which an order was raised.

The landlord’s records related to these drainage works are very limited and there is no record as to whether its contractor did complete the survey requested and, if so, what the result of this was. According to its repairs policy timescales, it should have taken a maximum of 60 working days for these works to be completed so there was a delay of at least 18 months – this was inappropriate.

In mitigation, there is no record that the resident chased the landlord for progress on this matter during December 2018 to June 2020 and no evidence has been seen by this Service to demonstrate that any further drain blockages occurred because of the landlord’s delay. It is therefore unclear that the delay had any material impact on the resident during this time.
The resident raised the issue again in June 2020 and subsequently linked the outstanding repairs to a rodent report that he made in July 2020. The resident provided a report from a private pest control company dated July 2020 that linked the rat problem to the damaged drain pipework. The landlord has not demonstrated that it investigated whether there was a link between the outstanding drainage repairs and the rodent problem but it is reasonable to assume that the cracked pipework made it more likely that rats could enter the building.
Once the resident re-raised the drainage issue in June 2020, the landlord responded by arranging a drain survey in mid-July 2020 that confirmed works were required and conducting renewal and repairs of sections of pipework on 4 September 2020. The landlord’s repairs policy allows for a period of 60 working days for complex repairs to be completed – therefore, on this occasion, the landlord conducted its own survey and follow-up works within an appropriate timescale.
The landlord’s contractors concluded in September 2020 that, following works, the drain was free from blockages and ‘structurally sound’. The resident has suggested that the contractor informed him that there could be subsidence at the block due to the drainage problems but this Service has not seen that any such report has been passed to the landlord.
In summary, the landlord delayed unnecessarily in taking meaningful action in response to the resident’s report in October 2018 that the communal drain required repair works. The resident raised concerns again in June 2020 and the landlord responded within a reasonable timescale on this occasion.

Pest control response

It is not disputed that the resident made a report on 28 July 2020 of rodents in the building. However, there is no evidence of what actions the landlord took in response to this report – this was unreasonable and indicates that the landlord’s record-keeping was inadequate.
The resident subsequently advised that he was told the landlord would not take any actions in response to the pest control issue for the first month after the report and this led him to appoint a private contractor. The landlord has not confirmed in its later correspondence whether this approach was standard or not but agreed to reimburse the resident for the costs of the private contractor. This offer by the landlord demonstrated that it was resolution-focused and represented reasonable redress for the service failure in its response to the resident’s initial report of 28 July 2020.
The resident submitted a complaint on 30 July 2020 – as part of this, he advised that rats had now entered the flat. The landlord failed to raise an order for pest control treatment until 25 August 2020 and the treatment did not therefore commence until mid-September 2020. The landlord has not provided its required response timescales for pest control reports but it was unreasonable that it took almost four weeks for a works order to be raised.
The resident provided the landlord with a copy of his private contractor report on 1 September 2020 – this mentioned the benefits of installing a rat flap guard. The landlord passed this request on to its contractor and its records indicate this was carried out during late September 2020, following input from its own operatives. The landlord demonstrated that it was willing to act upon recommendations of professionally qualified contractors and installed the guard within a reasonable timescale.
In summary, the landlord failed to keep a record of how it managed the resident’s initial pest control report of 28 July 2020 but its offer to reimburse the resident’s private contractor costs was proportionate. However, it also delayed unreasonably in responding to the resident’s second report which meant that pest control treatment started later than it should have.

Complaint handling

The resident submitted his initial complaint on 30 July 2020. The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint until 11 August 2020 and issued the stage one complaint response on 25 August 2020. Although the acknowledgement was sent late, the full response was offered to the resident within the maximum 20 working day period that the landlord’s complaints policy allows and the landlord did offer updates during this period.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 1 September 2020. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 28 September 2020 – this was again within the maximum 20 working day period allowed for stage two complaints and was therefore provided within an appropriate timescale.
At both stages of the complaints process, the landlord attempted to answer all the numbered questions that the resident raised. Unfortunately, it was unable to account for the delays in the drainage works which was one of the resident’s central questions. It is of concern that the landlord could not explain the delays and this will inevitably have caused frustration to the resident.
However, the landlord did acknowledge this failure and advised that it was due to record-keeping shortcomings on the part of its previous contractor. It explained that this was part of the reason for its decision to move to an ‘in house’ method of repairs delivery and set out the expected service improvement benefits of this new arrangement. While it was unreasonable that it could not explain the drainage repair delay, this was not a complaint handling failure as the complaint responses were based on the limited repairs records that the landlord held.
In summary, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within appropriate timescales and offered as much explanation and reassurance as its records allowed.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of drainage repairs needed outside his property;
2. the resident’s pest control reports.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to follow up on the resident’s evidence presented in October 2018 that communal drain pipework was damaged. The landlord did not complete pipework repairs until September 2020 – this may have contributed to a rodent problem at the block.
The landlord delayed unreasonably in responding to the resident’s pest control reports in late July 2020 which meant that treatment did not commence until mid-September 2020.
The landlord responded to the residents’ complaints within appropriate timescales and explained historic service failure as much as its records allowed.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250, comprised of:
1. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to him by its service failures in the handling of his reports of drainage repairs and
2. £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its service failure in the handling of his pest control reports.
The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report and:
1. update him on progress of its pest control treatment at the block, confirming whether this has included attention to the communal bin area and
2. signpost him as to how he can claim for any damage caused to personal items by rats.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £150 reimbursement for the private pest control treatment it previously offered.
The landlord to check with its contractors to establish whether there are any subsidence concerns at the block.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.