Accent Housing Limited (202231933)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231933

Accent Housing Limited

4 March 2025

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 the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports about drainage issues in the bathroom.
2. Complaint handing.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy at the property which is a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat. He has lived there since 2004. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. It is noted that during correspondence with the landlord in respect of this complaint that the resident advised the landlord that he had tinnitus. The resident’s rent at the time of the complaint until April 2023 was £189.89 fortnightly (£379.78 per month).
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in good repair the drains, external pipes and installations for sanitation.
The landlord’s responsive repairs and voids policy (from October 2022) states as follows:
1. When making appointments it will:
  1. Base the appointment on the urgency of the work required and a residents’ personal needs and circumstances.
  2. Offer a choice of either a morning or afternoon appointment.
  3. Where possible, confirm the appointment on the day it is made. It will send reminders the day before it is due to carry out the work.
  4. Where possible, advise that it is on its way, and the name of the operative who is attending.
  5. Where possible, aim to keep the initial appointment but will advise the resident if this is not possible.
2. Its repairs timescales are as follows:
  1. Emergency Repairs: where repairs are dangerous or pose an immediate risk to health and/or safety, it will attend within 4 hours to make safe. Emergency repairs must be resolved within 24 hours unless exceptional circumstances prevent this.
  2. Routine repairs: will be carried out within 28 days.
3. If it has, without good reason, failed to carry out a repair within 28 days, the resident has the right to arrange for the repair to be carried out (in accordance with Section 96 of the Housing Act 1985). The landlord will refund the cost of such repairs. (The regulations cover where the landlord has failed to carry out a qualifying repair. A qualifying repair means any repair which the landlord is obliged to carry out.)
4. It will keep residents informed every step of the way, from when a repair is reported, until the work is completed.
The “Right to Repair” legislation covers small, urgent repairs up to the value of £250. A blocked sink, bath or basin should be repaired within 3 working days under this legislation.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Blocked and defective water drainage systems are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of the HHSRS. The HHSRS sets out that all sinks and baths must be properly connected to adequately sized waste pipes. Each waste pipe should incorporate a trap to provide a water seal of adequate depth to prevent foul air entering the property. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The landlord’s compensation policy states as follows:
1. Some compensation claims may be linked to a formal complaint, in which case any claim would not be finalised until the complaint has been fully investigated.
2. It may decline a request for compensation where a contractor is unable to gain access to the property to assess the damage and the cause of it.
3. It may offer goodwill payments to residents who have experienced a service failure.
At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord’s complaints policy (from September 2022) stated as follows:
1. As an early resolution it aims to resolve the issue straightaway. A formal complaint should be raised if an issue cannot be immediately resolved.
2. The next stage of its complaints procedure is “manager investigation”. It aims to respond within 5 working days.
3. If a resident remains unhappy, the following stage is “director investigation”. It aims to respond within 5 working days. Following this a resident can refer the matter to the Housing Ombudsman.

Summary of events

The resident reported a bad smell coming from the bath plug hole on 20 September and 23 October 2019. A contractor attended on 5 occasions between 1 October and 10 November 2019 however access could not be gained on any occasion (calling cards had been left on each date).
The resident reported the issue again on 5 December 2019 and stated the smell was becoming unbearable. It is not clear what action the landlord took, however this job was marked as complete on 19 December 2019.
The resident reported the issue again on 4 February 2020 and stated that he believed it to be a health hazard. On 7 February 2020 he advised the landlord as follows:
1. A contractor had not attended as planned on 6 February 2020.
2. He was in hospital with a chest infection which he believed had been caused by the issue.
3. The toilet was repeatedly becoming blocked and there was a bad smell from the bath plug hole.
4. He would be taking legal advice.
A contractor attended on 3 March 2020 when it carried out work to overhaul the bath waste. It also removed and replaced the bath panel and resealed. It made a referral to a specialist contractor to check the main soil stack. The landlord advised the resident that due to the ongoing issues with COVID-19, its engineers were only attending emergency appointments. Despite this, the landlord asked its contractor if it would attend the job as an emergency. The contractor agreed and the landlord called the resident to advise him of the appointment. The contractor attended as planned on 3 April 2020 however access could not be gained. The contractor reattended on 9 April 2020 but there was no access. It noted that it had inspected inside a manhole cover but it could not identify a blockage. It advised the landlord that the toilet should be removed and a CCTV inspection caried out. There is no evidence of further action following this.
There was a gap in correspondence for around 18 months, until 18 October 2021, when the resident reported the smell from the bath. It is not clear if action was taken at the time. The landlord attended on 4 November 2021. The repairs records show that ‘a bad blockage in waste pipe’ was found and this was cleared using a plunger. The contractor’s note indicated: ‘bath ok now’.
There was a further gap in correspondence of until 29 September 2022 when the resident reported the issue again. A contractor attended on 12 October 2022. It noted that it had not been able to gain access to the property but had checked the external drainage and sewers. It had carried out jetting and the pipes had been running clear. It advised that the property should be checked internally.
The landlord raised a further job on 26 October 2022 and a contractor attended on 9 November 2022. They noted that there had been no access and it had been unable to speak to the resident via his contact number. It recommended the resident’s toilet be removed and a CCTV inspection carried out.
On 17 January 2023 the resident reported the issue again. He advised that the bath was struggling to drain water. He stated that the contractor who had inspected the soil stack, toilet and bath had advised that the upstairs resident could be probably putting things down the toilet that should not be flushed. (It is not clear when this contractor attended). The landlord raised a job on 28 January 2023 for this to be investigated, flushed and jetted if required. The resident reported the issues again on 7 February 2023 and stated that he should be compensated and that the issue had made him ill. The landlord apologised and advised that it had raised works.
On 15 February 2023 the resident submitted a complaint. He stated that he had put up with the issue on and off for 2 years and the smell from the bath at times was “absolutely disgusting”. He requested the issue be fixed and to be compensated.
A contractor attended the property on 28 February 2023 and noted that there had been no access. Despite this, it jetted the line and found it to be draining as expected. It noted that access to the property needed to be gained to check internally. On 3 March 2023 the landlord asked the resident for his availability.
On 14 March 2023 the resident advised the landlord as follows:
1. He had been advised (it is not clear by who) that the contractor would not need access to the property.
2. The water supplier had attended and had found no problems from the outside.
3. There was still a drainage problem and every couple of days there was a smell of faeces from the bath.
4. He had not been informed of contractor appointments so could not make arrangements to be at the property.
On 15 March 2023 the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. It stated as follows:
1. Engineers had attended on several occasions but had not been able to gain access to the property.
2. After the resident’s report from 29 September 2022, it had arranged an appointment for 10 October 2022 but access could not be gained. The contractor however checked the drainage and sewers outside and these were jetted. All accessible drains were left fully flowing.
3. Following the resident’s report on 26 October 2022, it had arranged a contractor to attend on 9 November 2022. Access could not be gained and it could not reach the resident by phone. The engineer recommended that the toilet be removed, the internal drainage be jetted and a CCTV inspection carried out.
4. The resident had reported the matter again on 15 February 2023. It had booked an appointment for 28 February 2023. Access could not be gained and it could not reach the resident by phone. The external drains were jetted and the accessible drains were left fully flowing.
5. The resident reported the matter again on 14 March 2023 and it had arranged for a contractor to attend that day (15 March 2023).
6. As complaints and compensation were dealt with independently, it would respond to the resident’s compensation request separately.
7. It had advised its contractors about the poor service the resident had received and had asked them to make improvements to their systems and communications. It acknowledged that appointments needed to be booked in at a time to suit residents so that repairs can be made in a timely manner.
8. It advised that the resident could escalate the complaint to stage 3.
On 15 March 2023 a specialist drainage contractor noted that it had attended and no blockage could be found. It recommended a plumber to check the pipework from the basin and bath.
That same day (15 March 2023) the resident escalated his complaint. The landlord called him that same day and noted internally as follows:
1. The resident was frustrated as the drainage issue had been ongoing for 2 years without a resolution.
2. Contractors had not attended appointments and sometimes appointments had been made without his knowledge.
3. He wanted compensation as he believed the drainage issue was a health hazard. In 2022 he had a chest infection for 7 months and he believed the blocked drainage and smells had caused this.
An appointment was arranged for 22 March 2023 however no access could be gained. The contractor also noted that it had not been able to reach the resident by phone. The resident spoke to the landlord that same day and advised he had been at the property. Another appointment was booked for 3 April 2023. The reason is not clear but this was changed to 4 April 2023.
A contractor attended on 4 April 2023 and carried out works using drain cleaner and plunging the bath and basin. It noted both were free flowing and all pipework was fine. It recommended that a plumber check the pipework from the basin and bath. The landlord raised a job for this and a contractor attended on 6 April 2023. The plumber noted that it had “plundered” the bath and basin and they had been full of grit. It noted that the resident was happy with the works and had reported that the water had not drained away as fast in years. The landlord further arranged for a drain inspection on 18 April 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 April 2023. The landlord noted internally as follows:
1. A surveyor had attended that day and advised the resident that the bath should be replaced. The resident stated that he would prefer a walk in shower as he suffered from tinnitus. It had already informed him that he would have to have an Occupational Therapist assessment for this. He advised that the bath was stained and so he would not use it.
2. He had not been advised about compensation despite having escalated the matter twice. It was “disheartening and stressful”.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 19 April 2023 and stated as follows:
1. The stage 1 response was a true reflection and acknowledgement of the complaint.
2. It had sent engineers on 7 occasions to inspect the drainage issues. Its contractor had gained access on 3 of these occasions. It reiterated the steps (as outlined at stage 1) that it had taken from 29 September 2022 to 28 February 2023.
3. The resident had further reported the issue on 14 March 2023 and an engineer had attended the following day. No blockages were identified from anywhere in the bathroom, but the basin was gurgling when the tap was running. The drains were jetted as a precaution, but no issues had been identified.
4. The resident had reported the issue again on 31 March 2023. An emergency 4-hour appointment had been booked and an engineer had attended that afternoon however no access could be gained. Following this, another appointment was made for 4 April 2023 where an engineer had attended and had used drain cleaner and plunged the bath and sink. The toilet, bath and sink had been all reported as free flowing on completion.
5. Another repair had been logged on 5 April 2023 for all pipes to be checked again for blockages. The engineer had attended on 6 April 2023, plunged the bath and sink, and noted the resident was happy with this.
6. As repairs had been attempted on 3 occasions, it had sent a surveyor to further inspect the drains on 18 April 2023. Following this visit, the surveyor had agreed to recall the plumber. The surveyor and plumber would attend on 26 April 2023. The surveyor believed the issue to be an anti-vac issue on the bath but could not be certain until the bath panel was removed. It explained that the anti-vac bath trap was an essential element of the plumbing that kept the bathroom hygienic and odour-free.
7. The resident’s request for compensation had been denied as many of the delays had been as a result of the resident being unavailable for appointments. (4 appointment over a period of seven months.) Had these appointments been effective, the repairs would have been completed within timescales.
8. It advised the resident that he could escalate the complaint to stage 3.
The contractor attended on 26 April 2023 and noted as follows:
1. The pipe work had been inspected and the bath and sink shared the same waste pipe. A non-return valve was required. It had ordered this and it would take a week for it to arrive.
2. It believed the reason grit was coming up through the drain on the bath was because the outside drain jetting had pushed grit up through the pipes into the resident’s property.
The landlord fitted a non-return valve and a new bath panel on 10 May 2023. The resident sought the assistance of this Service on 16 May 2023. That same day, this Service asked the landlord to respond as per its internal complaints procedure or confirm the stage the complaint was at.
On 23 May 2023 the landlord sent an acknowledgment of the resident’s complaint and advised it would respond within 10 working days. (This seems to have been in response to the correspondence from this Service as a new, separate complaint has not been seen by this Service.)
On 31 May 2023 the resident reported the drainage issue again. A contractor attended that same day however no access could be gained. It carried out a CCTV inspection of the external “MH” (it is assumed this is the manhole). It noted there were no signs of blockage but that if the pipework was gurgling then the internal pipework needed investigating.
On 8 June 2023 the landlord sent (a second) response at stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. The stage 1 response was a true reflection of the complaint.
2. Upon completion of repairs on 6 April 2023, the resident had reported that he was dissatisfied due to the gurgling noises. It had therefore arranged for an additional CCTV survey which took place on 31 May 2023. This confirmed there were no signs of any blockages.
3. A recommendation had been made that internal pipe work be investigated. This had already been completed on 26 April 2023. It had been determined that a non-return valve was required to prevent the gurgling noises. This had been fitted on 10 May 2023.
4. It acknowledged that the resident had suffered inconvenience throughout the repair process. As a goodwill gesture it offered £50.
5. It signposted the resident to the Housing Ombudsman.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service on 9 June 2023 and stated as follows:
1. He had “put up with” the smell of faeces and urine from the bath for 2 years, along with blockages and dirty water coming up from the bath plughole.
2. Several contractors had not done their job properly and the external jetting had added to the blockage.
3. He had lost count of the times he had to contact the landlord along with contractors, the Council, the water supplier and the Housing Ombudsman.
4. Although work had been done, he did not believe the problem had been rectified. Despite an extra trap having been placed between the sink and bath, on running the sink tap, gurgling was still happening in the bath.
5. The bath was stained and the stain could not be removed through cleaning. He had asked for a shower to be installed instead.
6. £50 compensation felt like a “slap in the face”. He requested a part rent refund.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

On 9 November 2023 the landlord noted that the resident was still reporting problems with the bathroom drainage. It requested a contractor inspect the drain. If a blockage could not be located it would discuss this with its surveyor.
On 7 December 2023 the contractor was on route to the property when the resident advised that he could no longer accommodate weekday appointments. This was rescheduled to 19 December 2023. On that occasion there was no access at the property.
On 13 March 2024 the landlord advised this Service as follows:
1. It had not received any further reports from the resident since 29 November 2023. It stated that it had been unable to schedule an appointment with the resident but it would continue to work with him to do so.
2. As part of the surveyor visit in April 2023, the resident discussed the non-slip surface to the bath, which was discoloured. It had offered advice on how to clean it. There were no other reports of damage to the bath.
3. There had been a delay in answering the complaint. It had since reviewed its complaints policy to ensure it was responding within the agreed timescales.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is noted that the resident raised the issue of the impact of the repair issue on his health. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. This Service will however consider the landlord’s handling of the repair issue, and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to consider the resident’s reports on how he believed the issues were impacting his health. Such issues reflect the detriment experienced as a result of potential failures by the landlord.

Response to the resident’s reports about drainage issues in the bathroom

It is clear from the correspondence seen by this Service that the resident reported a blockage and foul odour in the bathroom in September 2019, October 2019 and February 2020. The resident’s email dated 8 February 2020 should have been treated as a complaint. He stated: ‘I have been ill for weeks now with a really bad chest infection. The fact that the smell comes through into my flat and stinks the place out, is absolutely disgusting. [landlord staff member] has known about this for about 2 years now. Nothing at all done about it. This is a health hazard… I am sick and tired of being messed about… Still waiting. Not happy. Not impressed. It affects my mood, my health, my wellbeing’. This email noted a clear expression of dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of the issues in the bathroom. However, it appears that the landlord continued to treat the bathroom issues as a request for service instead of a complaint. This is a shortfall in the landlord’s complaint handling..
The landlord attended in March 2020 and April 2020 and some remedial and investigative work was completed. Following the appointment on 9 April 2020, the contractor advised the landlord that the toilet should be removed and a CCTV inspection carried out. There is no evidence of the landlord taking further action after this. There is some mitigation for the lack of follow up from the landlord as at this time the UK was in lockdown for COVID-19. Additionally, the resident did not report the issue to the landlord again until October 2021. As such, it appears that the remedial work in March 2020 and April 2020 resolved the problem in the bathroom, albeit temporarily.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 October 2021. He stated: ‘I reported a faeces smell coming from my bath. Someone came out. There was a blockage and the contractor had to come fix it. It’s happening again. Needs fixing, it’s a health hazard. Last time I had a bad chest infection because of it and was ill for 3 weeks. So the sooner someone comes out, the better please’. The landlord attended on 4 November 2021. The repairs records show that ‘a bad blockage in waste pipe’ was found and this was cleared using a plunger. The contractor’s note indicated: ‘bath ok now’. Following this visit, the resident did not report the issue to the landlord again until September 2022. As such, it appears that the remedial work in November 2021 temporarily resolved the problem in the bathroom.
The resident reported the issue to the landlord again in September 2022. The call note states that the problem was ‘intermittent but happened many times’. The landlord arranged for a contractor to attend within 28 days, on 12 October 2022. This was a reasonable timeframe given that the report was of an odour and not a blockage (which would have had a 3 day repair timeframe as per the right to repair scheme). Access could not be gained to the property, however the contractor jetted the external drainage and advised the landlord that the internal pipework should be checked. It is noted that the landlord was given this same advice by its contractors (that the toilet should be removed and/or the internal pipework should be checked) on the following occasions:
1. 9 November 2022.
2. 28 February 2023.
3. 15 March 2023.
4. 4 April 2023.
Despite this work having been repeatedly recommended, the full check of the internal pipework did not take place until 26 April 2023. This was around 5 months from the works having initially been recommended. This timeframe to carry out full investigation was not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. By delaying such an inspection, the landlord failed to demonstrate a proactive, resolution focused approach.
It is noted that contractors experienced difficulties in gaining access to the resident’s property throughout the timeline of this repair issue. This Service has seen records that they could not gain access to the property on the following dates:
1. 12 October 2022.
2. 9 November 2022.
3. 28 February 2023.
4. 22 March 2023.
5. 31 May 2023.
Despite the difficulties in gaining access, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord followed the procedure outlined in its repairs policy in respect of booking appointments. In addition, no evidence has been seen to show that the landlord took steps to try to ensure that arranged appointments would be effective. This Service has not seen any evidence of the landlord:
1. Advising the resident of all appointments booked or sending reminders.
2. Offering a choice of morning or afternoon appointments.
3. Asking the resident if the appointment suggested was convenient.
4. Advising the resident of the name of the contractor to attend.
In light of the number of missed appointments, the landlord should have been proactive at contacting the resident to ascertain what was contributing to the difficulties and to discuss how it could assist the resident in enabling access going forward. There is no evidence that it did so. The first time the landlord evidenced that it had asked the resident for his availability was on 3 March 2023. This was 6 months after the resident had reported the drainage issue. This is something the landlord should have been doing when arranging appointments as standard practice from when the issue was first reported.
The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged poor service from its contractors however it did not explain what poor service it had identified. It stated that it had asked its contractor to improve their system and communication. This response suggests that the landlord considered the contractors to have failed in their service delivery but it did not consider how its own actions and fallen short of what was outlined in its repairs policy. In addition, the landlord failed to clarify that it was responsible for the actions of its contractors. The landlord’s suggestion that the failures were the responsibility of the contractors and not the landlord was not appropriate. The landlord also should have monitored the performance or its contractors and their management of the issue.
Within the response the landlord acknowledged that appointments needed to be booked at times to suit residents. This should not have been something it needed to discover as part of a complaint investigation, as this should be part of established standard practice. Such practice was not evident in this case.
It is not in dispute that the landlord was responsible for the drainage system as outlined in the tenancy agreement. The HHSRS makes it clear that blocked drainage or drainage that is not in working order can have an impact on the physical and mental health of a resident. The resident indicated that his physical health was suffering as a result and also indicated his distress due to the nature of the bath smelling of faeces. As such, the landlord should have taken effective steps to remedy this in order to reduce the risk posed to the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the health and safety aspect of the issue or the resident’s report of his health having been impacted throughout its handling of the matter. The landlord did not have a record of any vulnerability for the resident although he reported to it that he had tinnitus. There is no evidence that the landlord considered how this medical issue may impact on the risk caused to the resident. Having a bath which did not drain effectively, could lead to standing water and a slippery surface for longer than would be standard in a fully functioning bath. Although it is not for this Service to conclude whether the resident’s condition meant that the landlord ought to have done more, however the landlord should have considered this. In not doing so it lacked an appreciation of its obligations in respect of reducing risk to the resident. An order has been made for the resident’s vulnerability record to be updated to ensure the resident’s medical condition is accurately recorded.
As part of the resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the bath, which he stated was stained from the dirty water, be removed and replaced with a shower. He advised this would suit him better with his tinnitus. The landlord discussed this with him on 18 April 2023 and advised that the request for a shower would need to be considered by an occupational therapist. This was appropriate. Before agreeing to complete adaptations, the landlord requires that the resident is assessed by an occupational therapist. This is standard practice and no adaptations will be completed without this assessment.
The resident requested compensation for the impact of the repair issue, the loss of use of the bath and the time and trouble he spent chasing the repair. The landlord incorrectly advised within is stage 1 response that complaints and compensation were dealt with independently. This was not in line with its compensation policy, which states that compensation requested as part of a complaint will be addressed as part of the complaint outcome.
Within the first stage 2 response of 19 April 2023, the landlord advised that compensation had been denied as the delays had been due to the resident not being available for appointments. Although the landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation will not be paid if a delay was caused by a resident not providing access, the landlord did not consider the failings identified at stage 1 in respect of appointments being booked. It also failed to consider that it had not demonstrated that it had followed its appointment booking process. The resident had advised that he had not been aware of all of the appointments arranged. The landlord failed to address this or provide him with evidence to the contrary. As such its reliance on the resident not being available as a justification for not awarding compensation was not appropriate or fair in all the circumstances.
Within its second stage 2 response of 8 June 2023, the landlord offered £50 to acknowledge inconvenience caused to the resident. Despite acknowledging that inconvenience had been caused to the resident, the landlord did not acknowledge any failures in its handling of the repair issue or explain what inconvenience it was referring to. It did however refer back to its stage 1 response which had identified issues with its contractors. Its findings were however unclear. This has been addressed further within the complaint handling section below.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord’s acknowledgement of its failure was limited to that of its contractors. This Service has however identified additional failures of the landlord as discussed above.
It is noted that following the drainage works in April and May 2023, the resident did not report the issue again and it appeared to have been resolved at the time the resident referred his complaint to this Service in June 2023. The landlord noted however that the resident reported an issue with the drainage again on 9 November 2023 (around 7 months later). As the issue remained outstanding at the time of this investigation, this Service has ordered the landlord to arrange for an independent inspection of the drainage to be carried out to identify the cause of the issue.
The failures identified in this investigation impacted the resident over a period of around 7 months (September 2022 to April 2023). The landlord’s offer of compensation was not sufficient to acknowledge the impact this had on the resident, the loss of full use of the bath (as he felt he could not use it due to the drainage issue) and the time and trouble of brining the issue to its attention and chasing a response. It is clear that the resident’s ability to freely carry out personal hygiene activities would have been compromised during this time with water not draining effectively from the bath (which would also create a sip risk) and it smelling of sewage. Given the landlord’s failures, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about drainage issues in the bathroom.
The Ombudsman orders a landlord to pay compensation in cases where there has been avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment, or other unfair impact of the maladministration that we have found. We recognise that the impact of a landlord’s actions or inactions cannot simply be remedied by a financial payment, but we order a landlord to make a payment in recognition of that impact and to acknowledge how the resident has been affected. However, our remedies are never intended to be punitive or to act as a deterrent and should not be viewed as a punishment for landlord failings. Instead, they are a means by which the Ombudsman ensures that matters are put right.
Our awards recognise that the emotional impact experienced by an individual resident is unique to them. Not all residents will experience the same emotional impact in response to the same instance of maladministration. On this occasion, the level of stress and anxiety that the unresolved repair caused to the resident has been considered. Specifically, how the resident was unable to wash at home for a long period. The resident’s vulnerabilities also justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact he experienced as a result of the landlord’s shortfalls in service.
The resident has waited for the repair to be fully resolved between September 2019 and January 2025. However, the available evidence shows that the resident did not experience the problem in the bathroom for the full period September 2019 to January 2025. Between September 2019 and August 2022, the issue appears to have been intermittent and the landlord’s actions, although sometimes delayed, resolved the blockage. However, between September 2022 and December 2024, the problems in the bathroom were consistent and the landlord’s actions failed to resolve the issues the resident was experiencing and its inability to properly inform him of appointments only exacerbated matters.
It is acknowledged that the time living with the problems in the bathroom was significant, that it caused discomfort, annoyance and frustration and there were long periods when the resident had to wash elsewhere. It is pleasing to hear that the repair has now been completed; however, it is concerning that the resident had to wait for the Ombudsman to order the landlord to complete the work before it would act.
Considering the overall and cumulative adverse affect on the resident raising this repair over a long period and the landlord failing to properly investigate and remedy the blockage (from September 2022 onwards), a compensation amount of £600 has been awarded to recognise the distress and inconvenience the resident has experienced and the impact on him of the time and trouble he has incurred in pursuing this complaint. In addition, a compensation amount of £600 has been awarded for the loss of use and enjoyment of the bathroom. This is a total compensation award of £1,200 for the landlord’s handling of the bathroom blockage.
Paragraph 54.f of the Scheme provides for the Ombudsman to identify where there is a potential wider impact when investigating the circumstances of an individual complaint. Where the Ombudsman identifies that a member landlord’s policies or practices may give rise to further complaints about that matter, then a review can be ordered to ensure that the landlord puts the issue right for all those affected, not just those that have brought their case to the Ombudsman.
Within 2024, this Service made wider orders (within case references 202230744 and 202220911) for the landlord to undertake a review of a number of its processes and polices. This included its repairs policy and staff training in respect of responding to repair issues. The landlord completed this review in June 2024. In addition, it advised that it had completed a self-assessment against the Housing Ombudsman’s knowledge and information management framework in March 2024 and a supporting action plan had been created. It advised that learning in relation to record keeping and resident vulnerabilities would be incorporated into the action plan. Given this recent review, no further orders have been made in respect of the landlord’s policies or how it responds to repair issues. Had this review not have been carried out, such orders would have been made as part of this investigation.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy differed from the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling Code (the Code). The Code states that landlords should have a 2 stage complaints procedure. It also states that landlords should respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord’s complaints procedure has an informal stage, meaning it had a 3 stage procedure. It also set much shorter response timeframes of 5 working days at stages 1 and 2 of its internal procedure. This Service has noted that the landlord implemented a new complaints policy in May 2023 which comprises of 2 stages with response timeframes in line with the Code.
In this case, it took the landlord 20 working days (15 February to 15 March 2023) to respond at stage 1. This was outside the timeframes of both its complaints policy and the Code. No acknowledgement or apology was given for this delay within the response. This was not appropriate.
The stage 1 response did not provide an accurate or clear information. This Service has identified the following issues with the stage 1 response:
1. It’s statement that its contractor could not gain access on 10 October 2022 was inaccurate. The repairs log seen by this Service showed that the contractor had attended (and could not gain access) on 12 October 2022.
2. Its advice about not being able to consider the compensation request was contrary to its compensation policy (as considered above).
3. Its reliance on the failings being those of its contractors was not appropriate.
4. Despite identifying poor service it did not explain what it meant by this or the failures it had identified.
5. It’s signposting to stage 3 was inaccurate and confusing.
In addition, the response focused on what it had done in respect of arranging appointments, despite acknowledging that its processes for doing so needed to be improved. It failed to show that it had considered the impact of this on the resident or that it had considered ways it could support him to ensure appointments went ahead. As such the response lacked empathy and was not resident focused.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 19 April 2023. This was 24 working days after the resident had escalated his complaint (on 15 March 2023). This response was outside of the timeframe stated in its complaints policy. However it was only 4 days passed the timeframe recommended by the Code. The landlord should however have apologised for the delay.
The stage 2 response contained inaccuracies. It did not identify any of the errors and failures within the stage 1 response. It also inappropriately relied on the resident not having been available as a reason not to award compensation. This was despite the stage 1 response having identified issues with appointment booking (addressed above). As this was the second formal written response, the landlord should have signposted the resident to the Housing Ombudsman. Instead it signposted him again to stage 3.
Following the involvement of this Service querying the stage the complaint was at, the landlord sent a second response at stage 2 on 8 June 2023, which was titled “stage 2”. Again this response confirmed the findings at stage 1 and failed to identify the inaccuracies of its earlier responses. It is not clear why the landlord sent a second stage 2 response however this caused a detriment to the resident in that it unnecessarily delayed him from being able to refer his case to this Service.
Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord failed to take responsibility for the issues identified with its contractors, in addition its complaint handling was confusing and inaccurate. Its complaint responses lacked empathy, were not resident focused and the landlord failed to consider how it could support the resident to ensure appointments went ahead. These failures amount to maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handing.
Within the landlord’s review, completed in June 2024, it outlined that it had commenced a consultation with the view to developing a centralised complaints resolution team, to include a specific requirement for service improvement. This would be followed by a full process review that was due to be concluded in late 2024. It advised that the review would incorporate the new complaint handling framework and would look to develop mechanisms to report compliance against the framework. Also under consideration is the implementation of a new complaint/case management system to ensure accurate and consistent record keeping and reporting. As such no further review of its complaints policy or handling will be ordered by this Service following this investigation.
In order to acknowledge the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures, including its failure to log and investigation the original complaint in February 2020, compensation of £350 has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for when a landlord unreasonably delayed the conclusion of its internal complaints procedure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about drainage issues in the bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord unreasonably relied on the resident not being at the property to allow access as a justification for the works not having taken place. It failed to investigate whether it had sufficiently communicated these appointments to him and it could not show that it had arranged these as per its repairs policy. The landlord did not effectively monitor the booking of the appointments and its contractors. Its handling of the resident’s request for compensation was poor and it failed to consider the impact of not having full use of the bath for a number of months on the resident. It did not demonstrate any consideration for the health and safety risk associated with blocked drains in light of the resident’s vulnerability, or its obligations to ensure such drainage was in good working order.
The landlord’s complaint responses were not provided in line with the timeframes outlined in its complaints policy. Its complaint responses were inaccurate and sought to minimise its failures by suggesting these were due to failures of its contractors. It was not clear what errors it had identified and instead it provided a vague conclusion. It sent a second response at stage 2 which delayed the resident from being able to bring his complaint to this Service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
2. Pay a total of £1,550 in compensation directly to the resident (this includes the landlord’s previous offer of £50). This is comprised of:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience experienced in the landlord’s handling of the bathroom blockage.
  2. £600 for the loss of full use and enjoyment of the bathroom.
  3. £350 for the complaint handling failures.
3. Contact the resident to discuss his vulnerabilities and update its records accordingly.
4. Within 8 weeks instruct an independent inspection of the drainage from the resident’s bathroom. Confirm to the resident and this Service any works identified and a timeframe for undertaking any works.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Contact the resident to discuss his concerns about the handling of repairs since January 2025. If the resident requests it, the landlord should log a new complaint (if it has not already done so).
2. Contact the resident to discuss the outstanding repairs, snagging works and damage caused by contractors in the bathroom.