Haringey London Borough Council (202228907)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228907

Haringey London Borough Council

13 June 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 handling of a sewage upsurge into the property.

Background

2. The resident is the assured tenant of a property owned by the landlord. At the time of the events set out in this decision, the landlord was aware that the resident was undergoing treatment for advanced cancer.
3. The property is situated in the lower levels of a block of flats (the block) which is managed by the landlord.
4. On 28 January 2023, the drains at the property became blocked. The resident called out the landlord which attended as an out-of-hours emergency. The operatives found that the problem had been caused by sponges thrown down the drain by residents. They cleared the blockage but more excrement was sprayed over the bathroom walls and ceilings during the procedure, which also sent sewage surging out of the bathroom and into the hallway where the carpets were ruined. As he was ill and undergoing cancer treatment, the resident was concerned about the health implications.
5. The landlord arranged for a contractor to clean the flat. But the resident says this did not fully remedy the situation and he arranged for the bathroom to be redecorated and for the soiled carpet to be replaced the following day. On 30 January 2023, the resident asked the landlord to pay for the redecoration and recarpeting of the property. It told him that it did not pay for redecoration or carpets, and he complained formally that day about the landlord’s response, and that he should have been paid compensation for the occurrence.
6. In its stage 1 response on 14 February 2023, the landlord apologised for any inconvenience and provided its insurance details for the resident to claim for the costs of redecoration and recarpeting. The resident was not satisfied with this response and, on 20 February 2023, asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2. In its stage 2 response of 28 March 2023, the landlord said that, as he was a leaseholder, it was not responsible for any work needed within the property. It repeated that he could claim against his own or its insurance for any damage to the property.
7. The resident referred the complaint to this Service as he was not satisfied with this response. He wants the landlord to acknowledge its errors and to pay him compensation. He has also expressed a desire to be moved from the property as he fears that another blockage would cause similar problems.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

8. Throughout the period under investigation, the resident has been suffering from advanced cancer. This Service is unable to make findings on any impact the actions of landlords might have on the health issues experienced by complainants. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which these events may have caused to someone in the resident’s position.

The landlord’s handling of a sewage upsurge into the property

9. The tenancy agreement says that the landlord is required to keep the structure of the property, including the drains, in good repair and that the landlord will be responsible for any loss or inconvenience suffered by the resident because of a failure to do so.
10. The landlord’s tenants’ handbook says it will attend out-of-hours emergencies as soon as possible and, if it cannot solve the problem immediately, it will return the next day to complete the necessary works.
11. The flooding of the resident’s bathroom on 28 January 2023 was, as the landlord stated in its stage 1 response, caused by a blockage of the drains in the block. It was therefore the responsibility of the landlord to resolve the issue. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report of the issue was timely and appropriate because it attended on the same day as the incident occurred as the handbook says it should. The resident stated, in an email to the landlord, that he was satisfied with the action the landlord’s team took on the day because it attended and cleared the blockage. The landlord’s records indicate that the sewage had already spilled on the carpets prior the arrival if its operatives. It also stated that, during the unblocking process, there was more upsurge and spillage. The landlord explained in its stage 1 decision that this was something outside its control.
12. There was significant damage to the resident’s bathroom and hall carpet. The sewage spattered onto walls, windows and even onto the ceiling. Foul water flowed out of the bathroom and soaked into the carpet, leading the landlord’s team to take it up as they said it would not be possible to salvage it. The resident says that the emergency staff asked him to contact the repairs team on Monday 30 January 2023 regarding his queries on the responsibility for replacing his carpets. Evidence from both parties confirms that the landlord sent operatives to carry out a deep clean of the property much later on the same day, by this time the resident was staying with relatives.
13. This Service has not seen any reports of the events of the day in question from the landlord’s operatives. However, the resident’s son-in-law, who says he is a plumbing and drainage engineer, stated that he witnessed the cleansing operation. He said that the response team failed to take adequate steps to prevent the effluent from flooding the property while clearing the blockage. He did not send this report to the landlord until September 2023, months after its final decision. The landlord made internal enquiries as to whether his account was accurate and we have not seen evidence that this version was challenged by the landlord’s staff. For that reason, this Service accepts that this account is plausible. It must, however, be reiterated that the landlord was not made aware of this information at the time.
14. The resident was concerned, given his poor health, that the flat was no longer safe for him. He therefore arranged to spend the subsequent days living with a family member. There is no evidence that the landlord offered or considered offering him temporary accommodation while the required cleaning work was carried out. Given his medical condition, the landlord should have taken note of the risk the incident posed to him and considered offering to place him in emergency accommodation. This Service has seen no evidence that it did so, or discussed his rights to a temporary decant, and this was a failure on its part.
15. The resident also took immediate steps to have the carpets replaced and the bathroom redecorated. When he phoned the landlord on Monday 30 January 2023, he was told that it was not the landlord’s responsibility to replace carpets or to redecorate. While the tenancy agreement makes it clear that tenants are responsible for their own decoration and must keep it in good condition, it also states that the landlord is responsible for the drains. Where damage is caused by blocked drains, the landlord’s first responsibility would be to ensure that the property is habitable and then to advise the resident to make an insurance claim for any redecorations.
16. In this case, it was not clear at the time of the formal complaint decisions that there were any issues with how the drain was unblocked by the operatives. The resident also left the property on the same day. When he was advised that it was not the landlord’s responsibility to undertake the replacement and redecorations, he completed these at his own expense and then made a complaint.
17. In the stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for the distress he had suffered. It suggested that he might claim on his own insurance which was appropriate with respect to his assertions of damage to personal items.
18. The landlord also said the resident could claim on its own insurance with respect to his claim for damages as he wanted compensation for the impact of the event. According to this Service’s guidance on insurance matters, “if the landlord disputes that it has been at fault, it is reasonable for it to follow its policy for such claims and either refer a complainant to their own contents insurance policy or to the landlord’s own insurers. This is because an insurance claim will establish negligence and / or liability to pay.”  The landlord’s response was therefore in accordance with regular practice and policy.
19. However, the landlord’s response was also confusing as it suggested that the resident might have been to blame for the second blockage that occurred on that day as a scrubbing brush was found to have been put down the drain. This was not helpful when the events of the day and the resident’s condition are considered.
20. The landlord also failed to recognise the impact the incident had had on the resident and failed to make any offer of compensation, which was inappropriate. It was clear that this had been a most unpleasant incident and the landlord should have recognised this and offered some kind of remedy.
21. At stage 2, the landlord stated that, as the resident was a leaseholder, which he was not, it was “not responsible for any work needed within the property”. This error had been caused by the fact that one of the landlord’s systems had registered the property as being held by a leaseholder. This may have been true historically or it may have been a data error. However, the resident was not a leaseholder, he was a tenant. Therefore, this was an inappropriate complaint response and would inevitably have been very distressing for the resident. It went on to say, again, that he could claim on its insurance. Even so, the response was inappropriate.
22. The resident did claim on the landlord’s insurance in October 2023 and it would be reasonable for the landlord to communicate any updates with him and to support him through the process. This would be reasonable as the resident is seriously ill and has found the episode extremely distressing.
23. Ultimately, this Service finds that there were failings in the landlord not considering that it should have supported the resident with the decant on the day. The evidence indicates that he would not have been able to remain in the property, and this should have been of particular concern in his condition. The deep clean was undertaken very late that night and the landlord should have taken responsibility for ensuring that the resident was adequately rehoused until the property was in reasonable condition for him to return to. Having failed to do so at the time, it should have considered offering him compensation for this omission in response to his complaint. Although its first decision rightly advised him about making insurance claims, its second decision exacerbated the situation by stating in error that he was a leaseholder.
24. In addition, to the foregoing, the cause of the incident was found by the emergency team to be the fact that residents in the block had placed sponges and other items down the drain as many of these were found in the sewage which emerged through the resident’s toilet. The landlord said that it would write to all the residents of the block to warn them not to do so in future. This Service has seen no evidence that it did, in fact, send out any such letter or take any steps to inform residents about the possible consequences of putting sponges down the drains. This failure contributed to the resident’s fears that a similar incident will occur in future. This has caused the resident ongoing distress as he has had another flooding, although not found to be sewage, and is concerned that a similar incident will occur in future.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak at the property.

Orders and recommendations

Order

26. Within 4 weeks of the date of this complaint, the landlord must write to the resident and:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay him £300 in recognition of the same.

Recommendations

27. The landlord should consider whether the resident qualifies for a management transfer and discuss with him if there are any other means of supporting him to move.
28. The landlord should inform the resident of the status of his insurance claim.