Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202216818)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216818

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

27 March 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of floods into their property, due to communal drainage issues.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a two-bedroom flat located on the ground floor of the block. The resident is a shared owner of the property.
Under the terms of the lease, section 3 of the lease states the resident is responsible for all internal pipes and drains which are in the premises and only enjoyed by the premises and not for other premises in the building.
Section 5 of the lease states the landlord is responsible for the pipes, sewers, drains, wires, cisterns and tanks in under and upon the building except where as serving exclusively an individual flat.
The landlord’s repairs policy states the landlord is responsible for:
1. Ensuring all fixtures and fittings for the supply of water, gas, electricity heating and sanitation are working.
2. Maintain communal and shared spaces and facilities.
3. Carry out all maintenance activities required by law, including gas servicing, electrical checks and the safe disposal of asbestos.
Section 6 of the landlords repairs policy states the landlord has four categories for repairs, the policy does not state what is considered a repair in each category. The categories are:
1. Emergency repairs – The contractor will visit to ensure the resident and the property are safe within the first 24 hours after it has been reported.
2. Routine repairs – If a repair is not an emergency, it will generally be a routine appointment. Every effort will be made to complete the repair within 28 calendar days (or 20 working days) of the resident contacting the landlord.
3. Non routine repairs – Occasionally, the landlord may find that a repair will take longer than the routine period due to complexity, materials needed, or considerations needed for the safety of it’s operatives (for example, if they will be working at heights). In this case, it will give the contractor a 90-day period instead of the routine period.
4. Inspection – where a repair is more complicated, the landlord may decide to have a member of it’s team complete an inspection at the property before any repairs are made. This would help it diagnose the right works needed to complete the repair.
Section 9 of the landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for cracked or collapsed drains, leaking pipework, blocked main drains or soil pipes, drains and sewer issues in flats or maisonettes and communal water supply issues.
The landlord’s leaseholders’ guide to repairs states the leaseholder is responsible for water tanks in the flats, any internal blockages in sinks, baths or WCs. Leaks from within the flat and any other damage caused to another property, all plumbing and electrical services.
The guide states the landlord is responsible for gutters and external pipes, drains and gullies and interior communal parts.
Section 3.2 of the landlord’s complaint policy states the landlord will send an acknowledgement of a complaint within five working days of receipt. It will issue its stage one response within 10 working days. If escalated to stage two the landlord will issue a response within 20 working days. If it cannot respond within the timeframe, it will inform the resident and agree a new response time.
The landlords compensation policy states it will award compensation within the following remedies:
1. Low failure – an apology up to £50 for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant.
2. Medium Failure – £51 to £160 for cases where there is considerable service failure or total lack of ownership, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant.
3. High Failure – £161 to £350 in recognition of severe lack of ownership and accountability – normally when a department does not want to own the issue. This usually has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant.

Summary of events

On 6 February 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property following the resident reporting a blocked toilet and bath. The contractor cleared the blockage and the toilet started to drain. The contractor noticed pipework at the back of the toilet pan had come apart causing a leak. The contractor believed the toilet was still blocked so removed the stack access and cleared a blockage caused by fat and grease. The contractor stated the blockage was cleared and would not cause flooding when flats above used their facilities. The landlord was immediately informed by the contractor and the resident advised she had another toilet that could be used until that toilet was removed and pipework reconnected.
The next day the landlord raised a job for the broken toilet to be fixed.
On 8 February 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended the block after receiving a report of a blocked and overflowing manhole in the rear garden. The contractor cleared blockages and cleaned pipework and noted it was a reoccurring issue. The contractor, once the works had been completed, recommended a camera survey to all pipework and five manholes around the block.
The landlord has confirmed that it received a further report of flooding to the resident’s property in April 2022. It was however unable to provide any correspondence or repair records for this event.
On 21 April 2022 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord, the resident stated:
1. Her property was flooded on 7 February 2022 as a result of a blockage caused by fat and waste. After speaking to a third-party contractor, she was told it was a communal blockage and to contact the landlord. The landlord sent a contractor to clear the blockage.
2. There had been further flooding to the property on 18 April 2022 as the bathtub backed up and the toilet was half full, with sewage water on the floor. The bathtub started to gurgle and filled up. The toilet backed up and was uncontrollable resulting in having to remove the water manually and family members having to attend the property to help stem the flow of water. The landlord’s contractors arrived later that night and removed a soft blockage.
3. She had these events happen in September 2018, February 2021, February 2022 and April 2022 and was disheartened. She could not risk not being around and suffering inexplicable damage if she left the property.
4. In the space of two months, another major flood occurred as a result of a “soft” blockage. She was not responsible for the communal pipes, but something needed to be done.
5. She was writing to the landlord to help form a solution. She was responsible for her internal pipes, which she kept clear. As per the terms of her lease, it was the landlord’s responsibility to maintain all communal pipes to the property. She did not believe they were being maintained.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 27 April 2022. The landlord informed the resident a response would be issued in 10 working days. If it was unable to provide a response within 10 working days, it would contact the resident to discuss a new response time.
The landlord contacted the resident on 9 May 2022 and informed her it had started its investigation and aimed to update her in the next seven days.
On 14 June 2022 the landlord’s records show the complaint was picked up by a different member of staff due to long term staff sickness absence who enquired if the landlord had made any visits or if works had taken place for the property.
On the same day the landlord contacted the resident and advised her that the complaint had been assigned to a new member of staff due to long term leave. The landlord informed the resident it understood the last contact with her was regarding chasing an update on the drainage issues and it would update her shortly as it was in the process of liaising with the repairs team.
The landlord’s records show that on 15 June 2022 it received a report stating CCTV had been successfully carried out and no further recommendations were made. The landlord was unable to provide a copy of the report to this Service.
On the same day the landlord issued it’s stage one response. The landlord stated:
1. It thanked the resident for contacting it on 27 April 2022.
2. It was concerned to hear that the resident was unhappy with the service she had received, and it would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
3. It apologised for any delays in contact that the resident may have experienced, a staff member who was managing the complaint had unexpectedly had to take unplanned leave away from work.
4. It contacted it’s repairs team regarding the leaks in the resident’s home. The property was attended on 18 April 2022 and the blockage was cleared. Following that, an appointment was raised to inspect the condition of the pipework to prevent reoccurring problems. Following attendance on 13 June 2022 a report was provided confirming no recommendations for further works were identified.
5. If the resident had any problems to contact the Repairs Team in the first instance.
6. Although it did not compensate for communal repairs, it was aware that the resident had taken time personally to report her concerns and communication from her complaint handler had been limited. It awarded compensation of £100 consisting of £75 for time and trouble and £25 for poor complaints handling.
The resident called the landlord on 8 September 2022 and asked if there had been a job raised as there was a leak. The landlord’s records show a plumber had reported that the communal stack pipe was the issue and not the flat’s pipes.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 October 2022 and stated it had been over a month and she had not heard back in relation to her last flooding incident. The resident asked for a response.
On 31 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report her bath was starting to gurgle and was throwing back up a small amount of water. The resident stated it was likely she would be having another flooding episode soon. The resident said she had been told by the landlord to report the issue as a complaint as it was not the landlord’s responsibility with her being a leaseholder. The resident told the landlord she was not at fault and there was a bigger issue with the plumbing and she was suffering the consequences. The resident requested the landlord provide her a contact number to discuss further.
On 7 December 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord to report another flood at her property on 27 November 2022. The resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two. The resident said:
1. She had been informed by an engineer who had attended the property and put a camera down the drain that the pipe had formed a “belly” and that was the reason for the floods.
2. She had been told that to remedy the issue there needed to be an excavation and the pipeline replaced.
3. It was clear that from the last engineer who had told her the pipes were misaligned and the latest engineer that there was clearly a fault that had been there since inception of the building and was clearly outside of her hands.
The landlord responded to the resident the next day and acknowledged her request to escalate the complaint to stage two. The resident was asked to allow up to 20 working days for the response.
On 13 December 2022 the landlord inquired internally and with it’s contractor about a date for a CCTV inspection. The contractor confirmed the following day CCTV was booked for the next day on 15 December 2022.
On 22 December 2022 the landlord enquired with the contractor if a report was available following the contractors visit. The contractor responded the same day and stated the works were booked in for 9 January 2023. The landlord queried why the date had been changed. The contractor failed to explain why the date had been changed but informed the landlord it would attend the property the next day on 23 December 2022. There is no evidence provided that this visit took place.
On 3 January 2023 the contractor attended the site of the resident’s property to carry out a CCTV to all accessible chamber/manholes on the site. It carried out a survey to five chambers. The contractor stated a report was to follow.
On 9 January 2023 the landlord received the report from the contractor. The contractor stated some remedial works were required and a quotation would be sent to the landlord.
On 10 January 2023, the landlord noted it had received the report, and after looking at it stated there was a bit of cleaning that could be done but not a lot else was jumping out.
On 16 January 2023 the landlord records showed it asked for a price for a clean to take place. The landlord stated once that had been scheduled it would be sufficient to close the complaint. The landlord stated if there were further floods then it would be an underlying issue that was either further a field or was not related to the draining.
On the same day the landlord’s contractor sent a quotation for works following its CCTV inspection. The contractor noted a surveyor had reviewed the survey footage, photos and written comments shown within the survey report and the system had been subjected to a comprehensive CCTV survey/inspection and faults had been found throughout. The faults found included some or all of the following – open joints, displaced joints, cracks, scale, debris, breakages, obstructions and waste build up.
To bring the system back to operational condition it recommended works including:
1. To fully clean lines with specialist equipment, to then flush lines through to the main drain, removing all deposits of silt, scale and debris.
2. To re-survey pipework once works had been completed.
On 17 January 2023 the resident advised the landlord her bathroom was flooded and the water level in the toilet was rising. The landlord noted the job raised was marked as standard and asked if it could be marked as more urgent.
On the same day the landlord stated internally there was no issue with the pipework in regard to scaling and shrinkage, so the constant blockages were a cause for concern. It asked to be advised of the cause of the blockage after the property had been visited.
On 18 January 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended the property and found back surging through the bath and the stack was blocked. The contractor machined down the stack into the underground drainage to clear blockages of fat and toilet paper and flushed through multiple times. The landlord was informed of the cause of the blockage.
The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property again on 20 January 2023 for blocked outlets to the bathroom. The contractor stated it traced the blockage to a small osma chamber at the corner of the building and cleared the blockage of grease and paper. The contractor recommended a CCTV survey from the osma chamber at the front of the building.
On 24 January 2023 the landlord’s records noted that it looked like blockages were being cleared and then blocked up again a few days later. The landlord asked internally where it went from there.
On the same day the landlord contacted the resident and asked her to continue to make reports to its property desk to ensure repairs were raised. The landlord said as it understood, it was waiting for the landlord’s contractors to attend and carry out a more thorough CCTV inspection and it would update the resident once there was confirmation of a date.
On 27 January 2023 the landlord confirmed with the resident an appointment was scheduled for 10 February 2023. The resident was informed the landlord would then be able to advise on an action plan and it would be keeping the complaint open until there was confirmation of a resolution in place.
On 7 February 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and gave her an update on her complaint as it was due to be closed that day. The landlord told the resident it would be keeping the complaint open as works were booked in for 10 February 2023 and it was waiting until those works were completed and it could advise on the next steps.
On 10 February 2023 the landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property to investigate the pipes and drainage. The contractor stated it cleaned lines, it then utilised air inversion machinery to successfully install epoxy resin repair. It then carried out a CCTV.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 23 February 2023, the landlord stated:
1. It had contacted the relevant stakeholders responsible for resolving her concerns and had evidenced that it followed procedure and did what was required to provide her with the appropriate outcome at the time.
2. Although it could see that it had followed all due processes and kept the resident informed, as it had extended her complaint deadline on numerous occasions, it was recognising this in compensation for poor complaint handling.
3. After the resident’s concerns were raised at Stage Two, it was confirmed that a CCTV survey was required to understand the root of the blockage. That was carried out on the 23 December 2022, and a report was issued to it on the 10 January 2023. After reviewing the report, it was confirmed that there was some cleaning that needed to be done, and if the issue with her property flooding persisted, then there may have been an underlying issue that was further afield on the drain network.
4. A job was raised for the cleaning and this was completed on 10 February 2023. It apologised that the communal blockage seemed to have impacted her property. It believed that whilst the original work conducted the previous year did not resolve the issue the recent work should.
5. Should her property flood again, it would suggest that there was another issue, and further investigation may have been needed.
6. Although it had addressed each repair raised within the allocated timeframe, it understood the stress, frustration, and inconvenience that this had caused the resident and her home and apologised.
7. If the resident had incurred any personal cost relating to the repairs, these should have been covered if she had insurance in place. However, if she did not have insurance in place, to forward any receipt information directly across to it and it would look at the possibility of reimbursing those costs, in line with it’s policy.
8. It was partially upholding the complaint for the reasons stated and awarding a total compensation of £100. The breakdown of which was £75 for time and trouble and £25 poor complaint handling.

Post Complaint

On 26 January 2024 the landlord contacted this Service and stated:
1. It did not believe that there were any outstanding works required. All works showed as completed as of 10 February 2023 and it had no incident reports since.
2. Residents had been contacted to be mindful not to misuse the communal stack pipe and dispose responsibly.
3. It would not normally share a copy of each report with the resident.
4. It had implemented a new Customer Resolution Management System which would robustly record all it’s customer interactions with assigned accountability throughout, ensuring a dedicated person is involved from start to finish.
5. It would also be carrying out a proactive CCTV of the drainage system within the next few months and had written to residents informing them not to dispose of fatty products in an effort to reduce recurrence in future.
6. Upon completing it’s review, it had identified that compensation would be appropriate and it would like to award a total compensation of £500 superseding previous offers and consisting of:
  1. £200 time and trouble – for the inconvenience caused.
  2. £150 failure of service – for the delays in completing repairs at both stage one and stage two.
  3. £150 for complaint handling – for the delay in providing it’s responses to the complaint at both stage one and stage two.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

The resident stated to this Service she had been reporting issues with blocked drains to the landlord since September 2018. This Service would expect residents to raise complaints within a reasonable time, usually within 6 months of an issue occurring and for landlords to respond within appropriate timescales. There is no evidence the resident raised a complaint with the landlord that completed the landlord’s internal complaint process until the complaint raised with the landlord in April 2022.
Under paragraph 42c of the Ombudsman code this Service will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. Therefore, although it is acknowledged that the resident states she had been reporting incidents of flooding since 2018, this Service will be considering the reports made from February 2022 as these occurred within six months of the formal complaint being made.
The resident has also stated she incurred cost to replace newly fitted carpets and floorboards and needed to have the property sanitised. These events occurred before the period covered in this investigation and was not raised as part of the complaint raised to the landlord so therefore will not be part of this investigation. The landlord in it’s stage two response informed the resident if she had incurred costs relating to the repair it should be covered if she had insurance in place. However, if she did not have insurance in place to forward any details to the landlord and it would look at the possibility of reimbursing those costs, in line with it’s policy. The resident could therefore contact the landlord with any costs relating to the flooding for the landlord to consider and respond to.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of floods into their property, due to communal drainage issues.

For the period covered in this investigation the resident had reported blockages and subsequent flooding in her property from February 2022. It is not disputed that the landlord sent contractors to the residents property for the events reported in February 2022 and April 2022.
The landlord has stated during the investigation to this Service that after the leak in February 2022 it would take a more thorough judgement if it recurred. However, the landlord has not evidence that following the further reports made from April 2022 that it did this.
The landlord has been unable to provide this Service with copies of reports or findings from the visits made by it’s contractors in April 2022, September 2022, October 2022 or November 2022. The landlord has also not been able to provide a copy of the report it’s records state it received in June 2022. The landlord has therefore not been able to evidence what actions it may have been required to take to resolve the issues and if it carried out those actions.
This is a significant failing by the landlord as it hampered this investigation in establishing what causes had been identified, what works had been identified and the landlords subsequent actions. This was especially concerning as the resident continued to report further blockages and flooding.
When the resident escalated her complaint on 07 December 2022 she referred to the flooding on 27 November 2022, the resident advised the landlord that contractors had told her they had established there was a belly in the pipework. The lack of any reports from April 2022 to November 2022 makes it difficult for this investigation to establish if this information was provided to the landlord. There is also no evidence to suggest the landlord conducted any further investigations or repairs relating to a belly in the pipe work during this period.
A recommendation is made at the end of this report for the landlord to read this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management and to assess itself against this report to ensure it keeps accurate records.
The landlord in its stage two response confirmed that the original actions it took did not resolve the situation. This Service agrees with that assessment as it is clear the resident continued to report the same issues on a constant basis and the landlord has been unable to provide evidence of what actions were required and therefore if it responded appropriately.
The landlord’s offer of £75 at both the stage one and stage two complaint response is not considered appropriate redress to the resident given the significant reoccurrences of the same issues and the landlord being unable to provide evidence of it’s actions during the period between February 2022 and December 2022.
Following the complaint made to this Service the landlord reviewed it’s handling of the issues and the complaint. The landlord post complaint has informed this Service it would increase the offer to £350 consisting of £200 for the inconvenience to the resident and £150 for the delays in completing the repairs at stage one and stage two.
The landlord informed this Service it had taken further steps including issuing letters to the residents in the block about use of the communal stack pipe, implementing a new Customer Resolution Management System and would be carrying out proactive CCTV of the drainage system.
It’s findings and the solutions offered post its internal complaint process are considered to meet this Service’s expectations. It also acknowledges that the landlord demonstrated that it had learnt lessons from its failings and committed to service improvements to prevent this happening again.
However, when looking to determine whether this is ‘reasonable redress’, this Service must establish what initiated the landlord to reopen the case. The evidence shows it was reviewed after contact made by this Service. If the resident had not engaged this Service, the case may have remained closed and the landlord’s original internal complaint process findings would have stood.
The referral to this Service being the reason for the post internal complaint process review did not demonstrate the landlord’s ability to act fairly and consistently in its future handling of complaints. In addition, even though the landlord offered more appropriate redress, it did not negate the fact that the resolutions and redress offered could have been provided sooner, and within the landlord’s internal process; as such, they are not considered sufficient to avoid a finding of maladministration.
For the length of time the issue was outstanding which was over one year and the failure of the landlord to evidence it’s findings, actions or provide the supporting reports for the period between February 2022 and December 2022 this Service considers an amount of £600 to be appropriate.
The resident has informed this Service she is concerned the issue has not been fully resolved and concerned that further works are needed to ensure this does not happen again. The resident is seeking copies of the reports from the drain surveys. An order is made for the landlord to send information to the resident that should give a full explanation to her and provide an overview of what each survey found.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The resident made her complaint on 21 April 2022. The landlord sent the acknowledgment to the resident on 27 April 2022. This was within the five working days timescale provided in the landlord’s complaint policy. The acknowledgement informed the resident she would receive a response within 10 working days. The acknowledgement did not make it clear to the resident if that was to be 10 working days from receipt of her complaint or 10 working days from the date the acknowledgement was issued. It was therefore not made clear by which date the resident should have expected her response.
For clarity in this report the landlords complaint policy states the stage one would be issued within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint therefore the stage one response should have been issued by 5 May 2022.
The landlord’s stage one response stated the resident contacted it on 27 April 2022. This was however the date the landlord issued it’s acknowledgement to the resident’s complaint. The resident had in fact made the complaint on 21 April 2022.
In the stage one response, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s reports made in February 2022 which she had stated as part of her complaint. The landlord stated the report provided following attendance on 13 June 2022 stated no recommendations of further works were required. The landlord provided no further information to the resident and did not offer the resident an opportunity to read the report or a report of the findings.
The landlord’s response at stage one did not provide the resident with sufficient evidence it had completed a full investigation into the resident’s concerns, why the resident encountered the same issue in April 2022 following the works completed in February 2022, what works had been completed or what the contents of the report were that satisfied it that no further works were required.
The landlord failed in the stage two response to address the points raised in the resident’s escalation request regarding her concerns about the pipes having been incorrectly installed during the building being built, that a pipe had formed a belly or the need for an excavation and the pipeline to be replaced. By responding to these points the landlord would have evidenced it considered the resident’s escalation reasons. By not addressing these concerns, the landlord has not evidenced it fully considered the resident’s reason for escalating her request.
The landlord informed the resident it would be keeping the stage two complaint open until it had confirmation of a resolution in place. While it is good practice to keep a resident informed and in certain circumstances mutually agree an extension to issue a final response, in this case there is no evidence the resident was asked if she was happy for the complaint response to be extended. The resident was informed by the landlord of the complaint being left open on 27 January 2023 which was 35 working days after the complaint had been escalated to stage two therefore already beyond the expected response time of 20 working days.
The resident was informed again of the complaint being left open on 7 February 2023 but there is no evidence the resident was asked if she agreed to the complaint being left open.
The complaint process is for the landlord to understand the resident’s concerns and address those concerns. Where the landlord has not reached a conclusion to the complaint points raised, if agreed with the resident it may extend its response time within a reasonable period. However if not agreed with the resident, the landlord would be expected to provide a response to the resident that informs what investigations it had completed and how it would resolve the complaint raised. The landlord would then be expected to follow through on those commitments made.
In this case the complaint had already been open for 194 working days at the time the landlord initially informed the resident it would be keeping the complaint open. It is acknowledge some of this time period was between the resident receiving the stage one response and escalating the complaint to stage two. However, given the time the landlord had been investigating the complaint it was unreasonable for the landlord to state it was extending the complaint process further without seeking the resident’s agreement.
The stage two response was issued to the resident on 23 February 2023. This was 54 working days after the request to escalate the complaint to stage two was made.
The landlord initially offered a total of £50 compensation for it’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This fell within the low failure range of its compensation policy. As with the compensation offered for its handling of the leaks and flooding, following escalation to this Service the landlord reviewed the complaint and subsequently proposed an increase in compensation to £150 for poor complaint handling for the delay in providing it’s responses to the complaint at both stage one and stage two. This was within the medium range of its compensation policy.
As previously stated the increased offer of compensation came after the landlord was aware the resident had escalated her complaint to this Service and it had carried out the case review.
As with the compensation offer in relation to the flooding, the landlord’s late offer of compensation is not sufficient to avoid an adverse finding. The landlord should have offered the compensation at the appropriate stage of the complaints process.
However considering the delays in issuing the response which was 37 working days at stage one and 54 days at stage two and the lack of explanations provided to the resident in the responses the amount of £150 is considered appropriate and the landlord should pay this to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of floods into their property, due to communal drainage issues.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has failed to evidence the actions it took between April 2022 and December 2022 in relation to the reported flooding at the resident’s property. It has failed to provide copies of reports it was issued with during that time period so cannot demonstrate it took appropriate action in relation to the residents reports or if it considered if the frequency of the reports needed further investigation.
The landlord issued the stage one and stage two responses late to the resident. The stage two response was extended without gaining agreement with the resident. The stage one and stage two response’s failed to provide an explanation of why there may have been frequent reoccurrences or what it’s investigations concluded.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this letter the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident £600 in relation to it’s handling of the resident’s reports of floods into their property, due to communal drainage issues.
2. Pay the resident £150 for it’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. Send the resident copies of the reports produced after the surveys of the communal drains. If it is unable to provide copies, it should give a full explanation to the resident and provide an overview of what each survey found.
Contact the resident to arrange a meeting to discuss any required next steps after the resident has had the opportunity to review the findings of the surveys.

Recommendations

The landlord should read this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management and assess itself against this report to ensure it keeps accurate records.
The landlord reviews its record keeping practices and procedures to ensure any reports, surveys or correspondence it receives are correctly logged and are accessible when required.