Charnwood Borough Council (202229093)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229093

Charnwood Borough Council

28 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of a sewage leak at the property.
2. The formal complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 3 bedroom house. She has a secure tenancy with the landlord from 23 September 2019. The landlord has recorded a general vulnerability for the resident, however, it has not given any further explanation of what this relates to.
The resident made the landlord aware of a sewage issue at her home on 2 March 2022. The landlord attended the property the same day. It lifted some of the floorboards in the living room and found water under the floor. The landlord’s records refer to the resident having to ring the landlord daily to find out what was happening.
The landlord attended again on 8 March 2022 and pumped out the water, however, water refilled back up in the area. The landlord investigated the issue and found a broken sewage pipe was causing the leak. It identified that the sewage pipe belonged to the water board. The landlord fitted a lock to the living room door around this time.
On 15 March 2022 the landlord said it planned to reattend the property the following day to lift floor boards so that the property could be drained of the water. It noted that waste water “seems to have helped raise the water table at surrounding properties hence the report of a bad smell.” The landlord said that once the issue had been resolved “a deep clean will be needed and possibly temporary rehousing.”
The landlord internal emails of 16 March 2022 and 17 March 2022 mentioned that it had talked to the resident about a temporary move and she wanted this to be actioned urgently. It said that once the resident had moved “it could look to get the property back in a liveable state”.
The resident kept ringing the landlord for an update on 21 March 2022 and 28 March 2022. The resident made it clear that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the sewage issues. The landlord responded to the resident on 22 March 2022 and 28 March 2022, however, the landlord records are limited in relation to its actions and communications with the resident on these dates and from this point onwards.
The landlord told the resident to make a claim through its insurance route for damaged goods. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when this was, however, it appears to be around the same time as the full sewage repairs were completed on 4 April 2022. The resident submitted an insurance claim, however, the insurance department rejected her claim. It told her she could contact the water board or her own insurance to make a claim.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 20 February 2023. She was concerned as she had not had use of the living room for 4 weeks and described the situation as “mentally draining and had caused her a lot of stress.” The resident said she wanted to be reimbursed for furniture and her personal possessions.
The landlord’s records of 1 March 2023 refer to it rejecting the resident’s complaint as it was out of its 6 months time limit. After advice from this Service, it did investigate the complaint.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 13 March 2023. It confirmed it had investigated the issue, the action it had taken and that it had found a neighbouring property had the same issue. There had been a broken sewer pipe that was the responsibility of the water board. It also said the furniture and carpet had been left in the living room because there was no other place within the property to store them. It had locked the living room door after guidance from its health and safety team. The insurance claim had been denied and it gave the resident details of how to appeal the insurance decision.
The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 1 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and sent its stage 2 complaint response to her on 25 August 2023. It reiterated the resident should make a claim to the water board or contact her own insurance company. It partially upheld the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the drainage issue. This was because there had been different recollections of what happened in relation to the removal of furniture and carpets from the living room. It said that it had not been able to conclude what happened due to the passage of time.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions and escalated her complaint to this Service. She described the emotional trauma and stress of the situation. In particular, this related to her concerns about:
1. The lack of communication from the landlord.
2. The lack of use of the living room.
3. The landlords inaction in relation to temporary accommodation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised concerns that the landlord’s public liability insurer had rejected her claim for damaged personal possessions. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. Complaints relating to insurance claim decisions may be considered by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).
The resident is therefore advised to contact the FOS for further information and advice about the insurance decision. The contact details of which are in the hyperlink – FOS.

The resident’s reports of a sewage leak at the property

The resident reported a sewage issue at her home at the beginning of March 2022. The landlord attended the same day and found an issue with water under the living room floor. The landlord attended again 1 week later. On this visit, it pumped out the water under the floor, however, water refilled the area. The landlord carried out investigations and identified a broken sewage pipe was causing the issue. This pipe belonged to the water board.
The landlord did not reattend the property until mid March 2022, 2 weeks after the resident’s initial report. It appears on this visit, the landlord had arranged to pump out the water again. It made the decision to block off the living room by fitting a lock to the door for health and safety reasons. The resident’s furniture and carpet remained in the room as the landlord said there was no room for storage.
It appears the landlord made the decision that the property was uninhabitable and it was trying to find temporary accommodation for the resident, however, this did not happen. There is evidence the resident had to chase up the landlord for updates on a number of occasions throughout the 4 week period of the ongoing sewage issue.
The landlord was under a duty to remedy the sewage issue at the property within a reasonable time of being given notice that there was an issue. This is set out in the written tenancy agreement and the implied terms of section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord’s website states it will attend to an emergency within 24 hours. This includes blocked drains where there is a health and welfare concern.
Landlords are required to assess the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Local authorities have powers to act under the HHSRS and will typically work with landlords to address identified hazards in a home. There are 29 hazards that include but are not exclusive to personal hygiene, sanitation, and drainage.
Landlords must also adhere to statutory requirements under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 that requires a property to be fit for human habitation at the start and throughout the tenancy.
The landlord attended the property and carried out investigations to find the source of the issue the same day. The landlord therefore attended within a reasonable timeframe and in compliance with its emergency repair response.
The landlord could not resolve the issue the same day and had to arrange further visits. Its investigations involved discussions with a 3rd party – the water board who owned the sewage pipe. The water board authorised the landlord to resolve the issue. It appears full repairs were not completed until around 4 April 2022, 1 month after the resident’s initial report.
The landlord recognised the property was uninhabitable but despite this it allowed the resident and her family to continue to live at the property without the use of the living room for 1 month. It is of serious concern that the landlord did not take steps to remove the drainage hazard and associated risks in line with HHSRS by arranging temporary accommodation for the resident. Neither did the landlord arrange the safe storage of the resident’s personal possessions.
The resident’s constant chase ups to the landlord reflected the urgency of her requests for help. However, the landlord showed a dismissive attitude towards the resident throughout her contact and then within its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. The landlord should refer to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect, and Rights (January 2024). In particular in relation to the tone of a landlord’s response. In this case, the landlord’s dismissive response to the resident’s lived experience exacerbated the situation and this was unreasonable.
In conclusion, while the landlord initially attended to the sewage issue within a reasonable timeframe, it delayed in resolving the issue for 1 month. It is understandable that the involvement of a 3rd party added to the landlord’s delays in resolving the issue for the resident. However, despite the landlord recognising the property was uninhabitable, it failed to arrange temporary rehousing for the resident. This was inappropriate and amounts to severe maladministration.
The landlord did not recognise the full extent of its failures or offer compensation when it responded to the resident through its complaints procedure and therefore did not put things right for her. For these reasons, we have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of sewage at the property. The landlord should compensate the resident £2200 for its failures within the following areas:
1. The property was uninhabitable for 1 month.
2. The landlord’s lack of communication with the resident.
3. The landlord’s lack of action for the safe storage of the resident’s belongings.
4. The distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The compensation of £2200 is made up of the following factors:
1. £500 for the loss of full use of the property for 1 month.
2. £500 for confining the resident’s belongings in the living room without consultation or access to her possessions.
3. £1200 distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

This amount of compensation is aligned to our remedies guidance for failures that have significant impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

The resident first expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue in this complaint in March 2022. The landlord did not open a complaint at that time and this was unreasonable, and a failing in its complaint handling. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, and does not need to include the word complaint.
The resident raised the complaint again with the landlord on 20 February 2023. The landlord rejected the complaint initially on 1 March 2023 because it said the resident was out of its 6 months time limit. The landlord did, however, register the complaint after receiving advice from this Service. It responded to the stage 1 complaint on 13 March 2023.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and escalated her complaint on 1 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 11 August 2023 and provided the resident with its full response on 25 August 2024. It partly upheld the stage 2 complaint in relation to the furniture and carpets that were left in the living room.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code, April 2022) states that a complaints policy must clearly set out the circumstances in which a matter will not be considered. For example, the issue giving rise to the complaint occurred over 6 months ago.
The landlord’s complaints policy corresponds to the Code. It also states if the complaint relates to safeguarding, health and safety issues or there are exceptional circumstances provided by the complainant for the delay in submitting the complaint, the Council may make a discretionary decision to consider the matter.
The Code also states that when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 of its complaints procedure within 5 days of receipt. Timescales for response are:
1. Stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being logged.
2. Stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
Due to the time lapse, it was reasonable that the landlord considered whether it should investigate the resident’s initial complaint. However, given there were clear health and safety concerns, it could have made the decision to consider the complaint sooner on its discretionary grounds.
The landlord’s response was sent to the resident within 15 working days rather than its 10 working day timeframe. Further, there is no evidence the landlord kept the resident updated on what was happening during this delayed period. This was inappropriate.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint and the landlord provided her with its full response within an appropriate timeframe of 18 working days and in compliance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the full extent of its failures when it responded to the resident at both stages of its complaints procedure. Its response focused on the resident’s insurance claim rather than its handling of the sewage leak. It therefore missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from Outcomes.
The landlord did not demonstrate it applied these principles in its complaint handling and for these reasons we have found maladministration. The landlord should compensate the resident £200 to put things right for her. This amount of compensation is aligned to our remedies guidance. The landlord should also take the opportunity to reflect on these findings and identify how it will learn from the complaint.

Determination

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

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to provide a written apology to the resident from an appropriate member of its executive leadership team.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident a total of £2400 as follows:
1. £2200 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a sewage leak at the property.
2. £200 for the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has reviewed the findings of this report, identified how it will learn from the complaint and set out the action it will put in place to improve its complaint and repairs service in particular where there is 3rd party involvement and the property is deemed uninhabitable.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.