Havering Council (202213170)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213170

Havering Council

3 April 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a blockage in the kitchen stack pipe and the level of compensation offered.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, a local authority.
4. The resident has advised the landlord that she has a disability in her right hand.
5. The lease agreement confirms that that the landlord is responsible to maintain, repair and renew the main structure of the property which includes stacks, gutters, and water pipes; while the resident is responsible to permit the landlord to view and carry out repairs for which it is liable. The landlord’s website adds that the landlord is responsible for “communal parts of the soil stacks,” while a leaseholder is responsible for “any pipe work that relates solely to your property.” 
6. The landlord’s repair policy confirms that it is responsible for repairs to communal areas “as documented within individual leases” but is silent on the frequency of communal repairs. The policy confirms that works that are not likely to cause serious inconvenience if they are not immediately done are completed in 28 working days, or carried out under planned works, where a timeframe is not specified.
7. In early March 2022, the resident contacted a plumber to investigate the blockage. The plumber completed an investigation, covering 2 meters of pipes in the resident’s property, from two access points but no blockages were found. The resident reported the matter to the landlord on 25 March 2022.
8. The resident submitted a formal complaint on 25 April 2022 and said that it had been over a month since she had reported that the main stack pipe was blocked. She had notified the landlord that access to the pipe was gained through the communal staircase and onto the roof. Despite her calls she said that the landlord had not called her to arrange the repair and she had been unable to wash her dishes or clothes properly for a month.
9. A stage one response was issued on 28 April 2022. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience that was caused as well as the delay to the repair. It stated it had passed the repair to a specialist contractor and the works were expected to be completed by 2 May 2022.
10. On 3 and 16 May 2022 the resident pursued the landlord for updates as the repair had not been completed. She stated it “continues to affect the convenience of my life.”
11. On 14 July 2022 the resident’s local councillor wrote to the landlord to ascertain when the pipe would be unblocked. She confirmed that although the resident had been contacted by the repair’s surveyor on 20 May 2022, seven weeks had passed, and nothing had been done. In a response sent on 28 July 2022 the landlord confirmed that an apology was previously provided to the resident, and she had denied access in March and May 2022.
12. The repair was raised again by the landlord on 29 July 2022. It confirmed the target completion date was 26 August 2022. The landlord’s notes indicate that there was scaffolding up at the property for other works.
13. The landlord’s internal correspondence in October 2022 confirmed that it did not require access to the resident’s property as it was “accessing the stack from the roof.”
14. The stack was cleared on 19 November 2022.
15. The landlord issued a stage two response on 22 November 2022 and apologised for the delays the resident had experienced and acknowledged that the time taken to clear the stack was “unacceptable.” It acknowledged the frustration that was caused with operatives trying to gain access via the resident’s property and its lack of understanding and communication was unacceptable. It made recommendations for its housing service to meet with its contractors to discuss the poor service provided to the resident. Its response was not completed within its corporate timeframe; however, it did not want to close the complaint until the stack was cleared. It offered sincere apologies and a goodwill payment of £335.

Assessment and findings

16. Once the landlord was informed by the resident of the issue with the kitchen stack pipe, the landlord had a duty to respond to the matter in line with the obligations set out in the leasehold agreement and its published policies and procedures. It was aware that the resident had instructed her own plumber who had ascertained that the blockages were not in her property.
17. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the reports, in line with its published 28-day timeframe. Despite the resident advising in April 2022 that access to the main stack was via the stairwell and onto the roof, operatives continued to try and access her property in May 2022 which inevitably caused her frustration. The landlord apportioned some of the delays to the resident refusing access. However, had the landlord appropriately communicated the access to the stack with its operatives (which it later did in October 2022), it may have mitigated further delays and distress caused to the resident. While this evidently caused some delays to the pipe being unblocked, it does not justify the delays for eight months after the resident’s initial report.
18. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the delays at stage one, but it failed to recognise the time and effort expended by the resident in pursuing the repair. However, the landlord failed to manage the repair or the resident’s expectations as despite assurances that works would be completed by 2 May 2022 it missed the self-imposed deadline and failed in its oversight of the repair.
19. As such, the resident expended time pursuing the landlord in May and sought help from her local councillor in July 2022 to determine when the repair would be fixed. This was unreasonable and is evidence of the lack of effective communication on the landlord’s part.
20. Additionally, the resident explained that hand-washing clothes was detrimentally impacting her disability which the landlord failed to acknowledge or address in its complaint responses, despite it continuing to “affect the convenience” of the resident’s life.
21. The landlord’s lack of a coordinated approach also impacted its ability to address the repair in a timely manner. The evidence shows that the resident’s block had scaffolding up in July 2022 which would have provided access for its contractors to get up onto the roof to the stack. However, due to the landlord’s mismanagement of the repair, the scaffolding was removed without the repair being resolved. Ultimately this caused further delays in waiting for scaffolding to be erected again in November 2022.The stack pipe was eventually cleared on 19 November 2022 which represents an excessive delay, and a departure from its repair timeframes.
22. The Service acknowledges that the landlord identified failings in its handling of the repair, offered sincere apologies and £335 as a goodwill payment. This equated to £1.37 for 241 days, in line with the Local Government and Social Care guidelines and its own gesture of goodwill policy. It is not clear that the landlord explained how it had calculated that figure to the resident and therefore the sum offered would have appeared arbitrary to her.
23. While its offer of redress went some way to trying to put things right, the landlord failed to appropriately consider the resident’s disability which was exacerbated by the failings in it addressing the repair over an eight-month period.
24. Additionally, the stage two response was sent 41 working days after the resident’s escalation request was made on 6 October 2022. This was a departure from the landlord’s 20 working day response time. While the Service appreciates that the landlord did not want to close the complaint until the stack was cleared, the landlord’s efforts to resolve the resident’s concerns obstructed the timely completion of the complaints process and delayed her right to bring the matter to the Service.
25. For the further failings identified by the Service, the Ombudsman has considered its Remedies Guidance which suggests payments of between £100 to £600 for considerable service failure or maladministration which has adversely affected a resident but resulted in no permanent impact. Examples include failure over a considerable period to act in accordance with policy, such as addressing repairs. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay an additional amount of compensation which proportionately considers the distress and inconvenience that was caused, exacerbating the resident’s health condition for eight months.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a blockage in the kitchen stack pipe and the level of compensation offered.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Orders

28. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £635 compensation. This is made up of:
       1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused because of the delays in resolving the repair.
       2. £100 for the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling.
       3. £335 offered at stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. If this has already been paid, this amount should be deducted from the total compensation.
    3. Provide this Service with an outcome of the review between its contractors and housing service and what steps or actions it has taken since this complaint to mitigate similar failings in the future. This should be provided to the Service, also within four weeks.