Eastbourne Borough Council (202232743)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232743

Eastbourne Borough Council

30 April 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the soil stack pipe at the resident’s property.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and lives in a one bedroom ground floor maisonette. The tenancy began on 3 February 2011.
The landlord classifies repairs into priorities:
1. Priority 1 is emergency repairs to be attended within 24 hours.
2. Priority 2 are urgent repairs to be attended within 7 days.
3. Priority 3 are routine repairs to be attended within 28 days.
The landlord also has planned repairs which would be attended within 85 days.
Section 2(a) of the tenancy conditions states the landlord is responsible for external pipes.
The landlord has two formal complaint stages. At stage one the landlord will acknowledge the formal complaint stage within five working days and issue a response within 10 working days of the original complaint unless there were special circumstances.
At stage two the landlord will again issue an acknowledgment within five working days. The stage two response will be issued usually within 20 working days unless there were special circumstances.

Summary of events

On 13 July 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that the outside wastepipe at his property was blocked and was overflowing.
The landlord’s contractors attended the property and on 20 July 2020 advised that the cast iron soil vent pipe had split causing water to run down the pipe and pool at the bottom. It advised that a new soil vent pipe should be installed as it was leaking from multiple places. The landlord’s records show this request was cancelled due to no response. There were no further details about who did not respond.
On 19 April 2021 the landlord’s records show the same recommendations had been made following the landlord’s contractor attending the resident’s property due to reports of a blocked soil pipe. The contractor noted there were no blockages, but the soil vent pipe needed to be replaced as it was leaking in multiple places. This request also showed as being cancelled with no reason for the cancellation noted.
On 21 April 2021 the landlord logged for the cast iron soil vent pipe to be removed so it could be replaced with a new soil vent pipe. The landlord’s records also show this request was raised as an urgent repair but was cancelled.
On the same day the landlord’s records showed the contractor involved stated it had tried to carry out the works in September 2020 but its engineers found asbestos in the pipework. It asked the contractor if the asbestos had been removed before it booked in any further works.
On 11 June 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. The resident stated:
1. He reported the issue on 13 July 2020 and the works had not been completed.
2. He repeatedly called about the repair, and it was cancelled twice. He then found it was an asbestos pipe. He eventually had a letter from the landlord’s contractor stating work would be carried out on 16 September 2021.
3. The works were not completed as the contractor could not gain access to the property above his.
4. He had called the landlord on 17 May 2022 and was told the works had been cancelled again. He was told by the landlord it had emailed the contractor and it would contact him.
5. He called again on 10 July 2022 and the repair was still not raised and the landlord informed him it would email the contractor again.
6. That was not good enough and he had called environmental health to investigate. It was a health issue as he had to walk past the pipe leaking waste to access his bins, washing line and shed.
7. It had been nearly two years so far for the repair to be completed.
The landlord’s records show that on 16 June 2022 it enquired with it’s contractor about the repairs and stated it had found several cancelled jobs on the block. The landlord asked the contractor to book a new job and investigate the reason for the delays as the original report was in July 2020.
On the same day the contractor stated the jobs had been cancelled due to no access but did not provide any further details for the reason of no access. The contractor informed the landlord it had raised a new job for the landlord to authorise.
The landlord replied the same day and reminded the contractor of the no access protocol and there should have been two evidenced carded attempts and then referred back to an officer to check details and contact the housing officer to assist. The landlord stated it could not see that that had happened in this case, and it was raised as an urgent job so it should be making every attempt to access.
The landlord authorised for the works to take place and raised a repair order to remove the asbestos cast iron soil vent pipe so a new soil vent pipe could be installed as it was leaking from multiple places. This request showed as being cancelled with no explanation for the cancellation provided or date the request was cancelled.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 17 June 2022.
On 20 June 2022 the landlord contacted the contractor for a date for the works. The contractor replied the same day stating two contractors would need to arrange appointments together and it needed some planning. It had no date but would let the landlord know as soon as it had anything.
The landlord issued it’s stage one response on 20 June 2022. The landlord stated:
1. It could see that the resident had first reported the repair in July 2020, and it had yet to be fully addressed and remedied.
2. In investigating the complaint, it contacted it’s contractor and had spoken with it’s surveyor. Both had agreed that the length of time the resident had waited for a resolution had been too long and fell short of the standard expected by the landlord and its contractor.
3. Attempts to progress the works had taken place since the works were first reported on 13 July 2020. The works required access to a neighbouring property and on two occasions this was attempted by the contractor, but it was unable to gain access to the relevant property. Those attempts took place in July 2020 following his report and again in April 2021.
4. It’s repairs team had fed back to the contractor that in their opinion there was not a sustained effort to gain access to the neighbouring property to complete the works and further attempts to gain entry to the property should have been made and it’s Housing Officer in the area should have been utilised to facilitate that.
5. The contractor had been reminded of its responsibilities and had apologised for the resident’s experience. The contractor had committed to reminding all operatives and planners on the escalation process should they not have been able to gain access to a property to carry out works.
6. The job had been reauthorised and sent to it’s contractor with operatives due to attend the block and carry out the necessary repairs.
7. It apologised for the resident’s experience.
On 20 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and stated:
1. It had not carried out the works from the stage one complaint.
2. He had nine months of waste coming out the soil stack, he could not open windows and they had waste splattered on them.
3. Asked that the landlord do the repair like it said it would in the complaint response.
4. Take the complaint to stage two or start a new complaint.
5. To get it repaired and if there was an issue with access to the property above then take action to sort it. The person above could open their windows unlike him so they were not bothered but the landlord had a responsibility to do the repair and gain access to that property to get it done.
On the same day the landlord issued an acknowledgment to the resident and informed him the complaint would be escalated to stage two.
The landlord’s records show that it questioned whether as the resident had mentioned raw sewage could it action it as a priority. If access could not be gained to the neighbouring property, would it need to instigate legal proceedings to gain access with it being a health and safety issue.
The landlord stated that if the address was one of it’s tenants and they were currently in the property it could write or call to the property to advise access must be allowed or it would be a breach of tenancy. The landlord stated that other than that it would have to be an emergency for it to force access and it was not sure the repair would be classed as an emergency. The landlord concluded it was the property above the resident’s property who needed to be contacted.
The landlord established there was an open works order for the split soil stack and it was assigned to a contractor and it asked the contractor for an update. The contractor responded the same day and said there had been issues getting into the neighbouring property since the stage one complaint in June 2022 and it had no contact details for that property. The landlord said it could try and get hold of the neighbour and try to sort out access.
On 22 March 2023 the landlord stated it would be best to try and contact the neighbour as it was not sure it warranted forced entry yet. The landlord agreed to visit the neighbour the next day.
On 23 March 2023 the landlords record’s show it stated it could not resolve the repair without access to the neighbours flat and if it could not get access it may need to use legal proceedings.
On 27 March 2023 the landlord confirmed it had knocked on the door of the resident and the neighbour but did not get an answer from either. On the same day it stated it needed to write to the neighbour as it wanted to try all actions before looking at forced entry. The landlord acknowledged the job had been longstanding and having raw sewage spilling on windows and where people were walking should have been a priority to resolve.
On 28 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and informed him it would respond to his stage two complaint by 17 April 2023.
On 13 April 2023 the landlord stated internally that it had been several times to the property, but no access was granted. The landlord also stated the neighbour had missed numerous appointments made by the contractor. An officer of the landlord stated it felt it had got to the point where it needed to enforce access. It enquired what the procedure was.
On the same day another officer of the landlord stated it looked at the landlord’s contact system, called the neighbour and got straight through. The officer stated the neighbour was expecting a call from the contractor. The officer noted that there was no record of communications and was not sure what efforts were made to contact the neighbour and why forced entry was being discussed.
The contractor spoke to the resident and the neighbour on 13 April 2023. The contractor informed the landlord it would arrange some dates and provide them the following week.
On 17 April 2023 the landlord issued its stage two response. The landlord stated:
1. It was sorry that the resident was experiencing difficulties with the soil stack and waste coming out of it over the previous nine months and it understood his frustration in getting it resolved. It had reviewed it’s records and it could not see that the delay was due to a lack of action by it.
2. Its repairs team had been working with housing to gain access to diagnose and undertake remedial works. It had taken longer than it would normally expect and was very sorry for the inconvenience that had caused.
3. It was not a simple matter to gain access where two or more properties were suffering from a repair issue which required access to both properties.
4. In light of that information, the complaint had been partially upheld.
5. It understood that the contractor had contacted both the resident and neighbour and would provide some possible dates to the resident later that week for the work to be carried out.

Post complaint

On 19 April 2023 the landlord raised a repair to replace the soil stack. The repair was raised as a routine appointment with a target date to complete the works by 6 June 2023. The landlord’s records show the repair was completed on 5 June 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the soil stack at the resident’s property.

It is clear from the landlord’s records that the resident first reported the soil stack on 13 July 2020. The landlord’s records show it visited the resident’s property the same day and cleared blockages. The landlord then raised repair jobs for the pipe on 20 July 2020, 19 April 2021, 21 April 2021 and 16 June 2022 with each of these jobs eventually being cancelled. The landlord’s records are not clear for the reason for each cancellation but does state the job raised on 21 April 2021 was cancelled due to no access.
During the time covered by those repair works the landlord has not provided evidence of it’s actions in attempting the repairs required to the soil stack pipe. There was no evidence the landlord was monitoring the status of the repair or why it was cancelled, of it liaising either with the contractors or the neighbour regarding access or any evidence of what steps it took to try and resolve any issues in order for the works to proceed. There was also no evidence the resident was kept informed of the status of the works required or that the works had been cancelled.
Once the resident made his complaint the landlord raised a further works request for the soil pipe to be replaced. The landlord has said within email correspondence that it visited the neighbour several times, however it has not evidenced any of the actions it took. The landlord has not provided any repair case notes detailing its failed access attempts or any formal records detailing the actions it took. It has not provided records of what dates or times it visited the neighbour or what actions it took at those visits to make the neighbour aware it was trying to contact it. There is also no evidence of letters or calling cards being left at the property or being sent to the neighbour informing it the landlord needed to speak to it to gain access for the works to be completed.
This Service therefore could not determine with certainty the dates and times the landlord attempted contact and therefore cannot determine that the landlord made reasonable attempts to contact the neighbour. This highlights the need for the landlord to keep appropriate records and a recommendation is made for the landlord to review this Service’s Knowledge and Information management spotlight report and consider if it needs to review its record keeping practices.
By the time the resident made his complaint the issue had been outstanding for almost two years. Although the landlord allocated the repair works to a contractor to complete, the landlord was ultimately responsible for the works to it’s tenants property. The landlord should have been liaising with the contractor and ensuring the works were progressing. There is no evidence the landlord did this until prompted by the resident’s complaints.
The stage one complaint response upheld the resident’s complaint. It did offer an explanation to the resident why the issue had gone on for so long and what it would do to remedy the issue, but it failed to offer an apology to the resident or an offer of compensation which, given the acknowledgment of the delays in the resident’s issue being resolved, would have been appropriate. Given the issue at that time had been ongoing for 708 days and was still unresolved, it was not appropriate for the landlord to uphold the complaint but fail to offer any form of redress to the resident.
In the stage one response the landlord made commitments to complete the required works. There is no further evidence of the landlord monitoring the status of the repair and demonstrating it was actively seeking to resolve the issue. The landlord then failed to complete the repairs it acknowledged was required in the stage one response. This meant the soil pipe remained unrepaired and the resident escalated his complaint nine months later.
In the stage two response the landlord stated it had reviewed its records and could not see that the delay was due to a lack of action from it. The landlord also stated in the stage two response it’s repairs team had been working with housing to gain access in order to diagnose and undertake remedial works. The landlord has not provided significant evidence to support either of these statements.
In the stage two response the landlord stated the resident had said it had been nine months of waste coming out of the soil stack. However, in the response, the landlord failed to recognise the resident had stated it had been nine months since the landlord said it would complete the works in the stage one response and it failed to recognise the issue had been ongoing for a much longer period. The evidence provided shows the pipe had been reported to the landlord on 13 July 2020. This meant the issue had been ongoing for a period of 1025 days at the time the stage two response had been issued.
The landlord said it partially upheld the complaint as it had acknowledged the length of time the resident had been waiting for the repair and did apologise to the resident but again failed to offer any further form of redress to the resident.
The records provided show that the soil pipe was first reported to the landlord on 13 July 2020, the landlord’s records show the works were completed on 5 June 2023. This repair therefore took 1058 days for the works to be completed. The only evidenced issue for the landlord to have those works completed was gaining access to the neighbouring property.
The landlord has stated it had difficulty accessing the neighbouring property to be able to investigate and complete repairs required. It is acknowledged that a landlord will encounter difficulties accessing some properties especially if those properties are not reporting a problem.
Given the timescales it took for the works to be completed, the recorded actions of the landlord to gain access was not reasonable and unnecessarily prolonged a repair that should have been completed within the repair timescales set out in its repairs policy.
The evidence provided also shows significant gaps between action taken by the landlord with limited explanations for works not being completed and works only being reraised after further contact by the resident.
The landlord’s failure to complete the repairs within an appropriate timescale, or evidence that it took reasonable actions to resolve the issue with the contractor, neighbour and the resident is maladministration by the landlord for which it should apologise to the resident and pay him £800.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in it’s handling of repairs to the soil stack pipe at the resident’s property.

Reasons

The landlord failed to complete the repair within an appropriate timescale, and it has not evidenced it took sufficient steps to contact the neighbour to gain access for the works to be completed or that it communicated sufficiently with the contractors or the resident.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident and apologise for it’s handling of the repairs to the soil stack pipe at the resident’s property.
2. Pay the resident £800 for it’s handling of repairs to the soil stack pipe at the resident’s property.

Recommendations

The landlord to review this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information management and consider if it needs to review its record keeping practices.