Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Lambeth Council (202322062)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322062

Lambeth Council

11 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Blocked drains and pipes, which caused multiple back surges of sewage into the property.
    2. The dissolution of estate meetings and communication about this.
    3. An increase in service charge.
    4. The formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which is a ground floor flat. The landlord is a council. The resident describes herself as vulnerable and elderly, and the landlord has recorded this.
  2. The resident has lived at the property for a number of decades. She has told the Ombudsman that she has experienced blocked drains, and back surging of sewage and wastewater since 2012. She has provided evidence to show her reports to the landlord from February 2016 onwards. The landlord’s records say the resident reported the drains were blocked, and back surging into the property, on 1 December 2021. On the same day, the resident’s grandson emailed the landlord on her behalf to make a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
    1. Continuous problems with back surging into the toilet and sinks not draining properly.
    2. The issue had been going on for years. The resident, who is elderly, had been reporting the issue but the landlord had not found a permanent solution.
  3. On 16 December 2021 the landlord’s records say it jetted the main drains and cleared the blockage. It provided its stage 1 response on 5 January 2022, in which it:
    1. Apologised for the experiences the resident had with back surging and for its service failure. It said it partially upheld the complaint.
    2. Said that it had cleared the blockage on 16 December 2021.
    3. Explained how the complaint could be escalated.
  4. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported block drains, and back surging of wastewater into her toilet, sinks, and washing machine, 11 times between 18 March 2022 and 31 December 2022. On 9 of these occasions the landlord’s notes do not record an outcome. When the landlord attended on 3 January 2023 it recommended descaling the drains. However, it cancelled the repair the following day, as the resident was a leaseholder.
  5. On 5 October 2023 the resident emailed this Service, and the Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 8 November 2023 to ask it to respond to a complaint. The landlord replied to the Ombudsman on 16 November 2023 and said it had raised a stage 2 complaint regarding its handling of the blockages and back surging. It also raised a stage 1 complaint about dissolution of estate meetings, and increases in service charges, which it said were not part of the original stage 1 complaint in 2021. It also raised a repair for it to inspect the drains using CCTV on 28 November 2023.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 28 November 2023, in which it:
    1. Addressed its response to the resident’s grandson rather than the resident.
    2. Apologised for the blocked drains and said this “80 to 90% of the time, is likely caused by cooking fat and baby wipes”. However, it had raised a CCTV survey to explore what could be causing the issue and to determine its next actions.
    3. Said it had checked, and no other residents had reported the issue.
    4. Explained that, as the resident was a leaseholder, it would not carry out works inside the property including dealing with the “very unpleasant side effects” of back surging. It advised her to contact her insurance company.
    5. Upheld the complaint and apologised for the upset, inconvenience and distress caused. It offered £75 compensation as a “gesture of good will”.
  7. On 10 December 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say she was dissatisfied with its stage 2 response. She said every time raw sewage entered her toilet, sink, bath, and washing machine following a back surge she had to wait 6 hours or longer for the landlord to attend. She had to empty the wastewater with buckets to prevent it spilling onto her floor and the smell was nauseating. She said it did not take into account her age or that she lived alone and would not prioritise attendance to the blockages.
  8. The landlord attended for the CCTV survey on 19 December 2023, but its records say it noted it needed more information. On 10 January 2025 the resident reported another blockage and back surge. The landlord attended the following day and jetted the drains to clear the blockage.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of investigation

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaints about the dissolution of estate meetings, and an increase in service charge. While the landlord provided a stage 1 response to these complaint elements, this Service has not been provided with a stage 2 response. As such, these elements of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because, under paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The resident may wish to ask the landlord to provide a stage 2 response to her complaint and if she remains dissatisfied, she could bring a new complaint to this Service.

The landlord’s handling of blocked drains and pipes, which caused multiple back surges of sewage into the property

  1. Under the lease the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the sewers, drains, channels and watercourses in, under, and upon the building. Its repairs policy also states it will undertake repairs in common areas where it is the freeholder of the building. Under its repairs policy in use at the time the landlord has categories of repairs based on priority. These range from emergency repairs (repair within 24 hours), to repair within 2, 5 or 30 working days, but the policy does not state which types of repairs fall into these categories or whether these apply to communal repairs.
  2. When the resident reported a blockage and back surging in December 2021 the landlord cleared the blockage after 11 working days. This was not within a reasonable time, and the landlord should have responded more quickly to the issue which was a health and hygiene hazard. Poor sanitation and drainage can be a hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
  3. The evidence shows the number and frequency of occurrences of drain blockages and back surging. The landlord’s poor record keeping means that the Ombudsman cannot assess its response to each report. The resident has told this Service that each time she reported the issue the landlord took 6 hours or longer to attend. This is within its emergency repairs timeframe under its policy. However, it failed to investigate the blockages which it should have been proactive to do when considering their frequency.
  4. Positively the landlord recommended descaling the drains in January 2023, but it failed to do so. Its reason for cancelling the repair, that the resident was a leaseholder, was illogical. The repairs would have been communal, and within the landlord’s obligations regardless of the tenure of the reporting resident. Following the stage 2 complaint it positively said it would and arranged a CCTV inspection. This was solution focused and may have provided useful information to help prevent further blockages. However, there is no evidence the landlord completed the survey which was a failing. The landlord failed to investigate the frequent blockages or assess whether there were any actions it could take to prevent or reduce them.
  5. As the resident was a leaseholder the landlord was correct in saying it would not carry out repairs within the property. However, it was, and accepted it was, responsible for the drains and communal pipework. It should have recognised that the result of the blockages, and back surging of sewage, was related to its maintenance responsibilities. The resident has not neglected her repairing responsibilities and there is no evidence she was responsible for the back surging. In addition, the landlord failed to take into account the age, and vulnerability, of the resident and her requests for help. The landlord should have offered to clean or sanitise the affected areas within the property which would have been fair in the circumstances.
  6. Within its stage 2 response the landlord offered £75 compensation as a goodwill gesture. In relation to the failures identified, 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.
  7. The landlord has not demonstrated these principles. The elderly and vulnerable resident had been left to suffer from frequent drainage blockages, with solid and liquid sewage backing up in her toilet, sinks, and washing machine. She has described the smell as nauseating. She has had to use a bucket to empty out the sewage and wastewater and clean after each occurrence. The issue has been reoccurring since at least 2021 and the resident reports since 2012. The landlord has failed to find a solution or assist her with the aftermath of the back surging. There was severe maladministration, which caused distress, worry, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect the impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £1,000 compensation, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint

  1. At the time of the stage 1 complaint, under its complaints policy the landlord operated an informal stage and then a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints and respond within 20 working days. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints but does not give a timeframe for responses.
  2. When the resident’s grandson made a complaint to the landlord it raised this as a stage 1. However, it failed to follow its policy as it did not check he had permission to complain on the resident’s behalf. It provided its response after 22 working days, in breach of its policy timeframe. The landlord also failed to fully address the complaint, as it did not provide a plan or response to his request for a permanent solution to the blockages.
  3. It is not known whether the resident asked to escalate her complaint, and no evidence has been provided that she did prior to contacting this Service. When the Ombudsman emailed the landlord, it correctly escalated the complaint, and provided its response within 10 working days, meeting the 20-working day deadline under paragraph 5.13 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in use at the time. However, it addressed the response to the resident’s grandson and sent it to him rather than to the resident, which was a failing. The landlord accepted this in a later email to the resident on 13 December 2023 and apologised.
  4. There was service failure which caused inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect this an order has been made that the landlord pay £75 compensation to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of blocked drains and pipes, which caused multiple back surges of sewage into the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the following elements of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the dissolution of estate meetings and communication about this.
    2. The landlord’s handling of an increase in service charge.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident, from the chief executive, for the failings detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £1,075 compensation made up of:
      1. £1,000 for the distress, worry, inconvenience, time and trouble caused for the resident by its severe maladministration.
      2. £75 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Contract a specialist drainage company to carry out a CCTV survey of the drains and pipework which service the property and produce a report. The landlord is to provide a copy of the report to the resident and this Service.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to complete all recommendations made within the report ordered above.
  3. The landlord is ordered to confirm compliance with these Orders to this Service within the stated deadlines.

Paragraph 49 investigation and special inspection

  1. In February 2022, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its complaint handling. The report recommended the landlord review its complaint handling procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future. We continued to identify problems with the landlord’s performance, reaching findings of maladministration and severe maladministration following investigations into 20 separate complaints from residents. 
  2. In June 2023 the Ombudsman told the landlord of our intention to carry out an inspection to find out the reasons for its ongoing failures in complaint handling. In December 2023 we issued a report setting out our findings with further recommendations for service improvement. As the current complaint completed the landlord’s complaints process before our report was issued, no further orders have been made regarding complaint handling.