Harlow District Council (202127364)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202127364
Harlow District Council
6 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
- This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that its operative had damaged a manhole cover.
Background
- The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The lease commenced on 10 May 2004. The property is a 1 bedroom, first floor flat. The landlord has confirmed that the resident advised it that he has mental health issues and a heart condition.
- On 9 February 2022, the landlord raised a drainage repair following reports of blockages. Operatives attended the same day. On 16 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord a video which he said showed the operative, that attended on 10 February 2022, not using the correct tools and causing damage to the manhole cover.
- On 23 March 2022, the resident complained to the landlord about the operative ‘whacking’ at the manhole cover outside his block with what appeared to be a crowbar and mallet. The resident said that he:
- Had tried to discuss the matter but ‘it had gone nowhere.’
- Was unhappy that the landlord had said someone had returned when this was originally reported and said there was no damage to the manhole cover.
- Was unhappy that no one was taking his concerns seriously and that the operative was lying about what happened.
- Would forward his recording of the maintenance operative and photos of the damage.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 April 2022. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord:
- Said it was initially contacted on the 9 February 2022 about blockage issues in the resident’s block. Its drainage team attended on 10 February 2022.
- Explained that during this visit the operative needed to remove the manhole cover of a particular drain. Unfortunately, the usual drainage lifting keys would not work, as the manhole cover was ‘jammed’ in place. This was because it had not been lifted for a long period of time. Its operative had to use a mallet and crowbar so that it could be lifted. The landlord said it had reviewed the resident’s video and photos which confirmed this.
- Noted that the resident had discussed this matter with its repairs and voids manager, who arranged for another operative to inspect the manhole cover and take photos.
- Said that the resident was then contacted by its business performance manager, who explained that after the inspection it was decided that no repair was required to the manhole cover. The landlord said that this was because the manhole cover did not pose a health and safety risk and still covered the drain.
- The resident escalated his complaint on 4 April 2022. The resident said that there was no attempt at using a key as the key holes still had moss in them and if the key was used the moss would have been disturbed. The resident asked how the landlord could say the damage did not pose a health and safety risk. The resident said that the landlord had ‘clearly’ not been around to see the ‘massive hole.’
- The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 April 2022. The landlord said, having reviewed the video evidence the resident provided, a T bar key was clearly visible. After speaking with the operative, the landlord said that it was satisfied they did try to use the T bar before using the mallet and crowbar. Based on this, it ‘stood by’ the information in its stage 1 response and did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
Assessment and findings
- The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are:
- Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process.
- Put things right.
- Learn from outcomes.
- In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
- It is not the role of the Ombudsman to assess the damage reported, as we do not have the expertise to do so. However, it is our role to assess the landlord’s response to the reports made and whether that response was fair and reasonable.
- The resident initially reported his concerns about the damage to the manhole cover on 16 February 2022.
- Having been advised of the resident’s concerns, we would expect the landlord to carry out an investigation to establish whether there was any damage to the manhole cover and if so if there were any repairs that were required. Where a landlord does not carry out works, we would expect it to provide a reasonable explanation for this.
- In this case, the landlord reviewed the video evidence provided by the resident, discussed the resident’s concerns with him and arranged for another operative to inspect the manhole cover and to take further photos. Following this the landlord contacted the resident to explain its findings and to confirm that the manhole cover did not pose a health and safety risk.
- As the resident remained dissatisfied with its response, the landlord spoke to the operative that had allegedly caused the damage and reviewed the resident’s video evidence again.
- Having done so it advised the resident that the operative had confirmed that they had tried to use the ‘T bar’ before using a mallet and crowbar. The landlord also advised that the video evidence provided by the resident confirmed that a T-bar was ‘clearly visible.’
- Overall, the actions the landlord took, having been advised of potential damage to the manhole cover, were fair and reasonable given all the circumstances. This is because it took the resident’s concerns seriously, inspected the reported damage, reviewed the evidence provided by the resident and spoke to the operative that was the subject of the resident’s complaint.
- Having established that no repairs were required and having satisfied itself that the manhole cover did not pose a health and safety risk, it was reasonable for it to take no further action.
- In the absence of any reliable evidence contradicting the landlord’s findings, there is no basis for us to conclude that the landlord’s position, that there were no repairs required to the manhole cover and that the manhole cover did not pose a health and safety risk, was inaccurate.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report that its operative had damaged a manhole cover.