London Borough of Barnet (202310844)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310844

London Borough of Barnet

23 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 the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to a communal sewage system.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a 3 bedroom ground floor flat in a block (the block). She has owned the lease since 2013. She has let the property to her own tenants since 2017. The freeholder is a local authority. The block is managed by a local authority trading company on the local authorities’ behalf. It has been referred to as the landlord throughout the report for readability.
The landlord’s repair history shows that there have been reports of blocked drains occurring on average once per year since 2016. The landlord has arranged for contractors to use a high-pressure water jet (HPWJ) to clear the drains each time.
The landlord’s records show that on 19 January 2022 it conducted repairs to the waste pipe in the block using a HPWJ.
The landlord visited residents within the block on 10 March 2022 to discuss the problems with the drains blocking. Its notes show that the drains were clear during the visit, but residents said the blockages were a frequent problem.
The leaseholder told the landlord that there was a blockage in the waste pipes, causing sewage to enter the property through the toilet on 19 April 2022. She arranged for her own repairs at the time. The landlord inspected the pipework on 22 April 2022 and found no blockages present. It did not schedule any additional surveys.
The leaseholder reported that the drains were blocked and sewage was entering the property again on 13 December 2022. She arranged for her own repairs and was told that the blockage was caused by the main drain to the block.
The leaseholder complained to the landlord on 14 December 2022. She was unhappy with the time taken by the landlord to repair the drains. She had to pay for private plumbers costing £500. The landlord had not investigated the underlying cause. She wanted the issues to be investigated properly.
The leaseholder called the landlord on 16 December 2022 to report that foul water had entered the property again. She had sought assistance from an independent plumber who told her that the main drain was blocked which required repairs from the landlord.
The landlord responded to the leaseholder on 5 January 2023. This was around 13 working days after the initial complaint was made. It said that it would be unable to provide a stage 1 response within its timescales. It would issue its response to her complaint by 12 January 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 January 2023. This was around 28 working days after the leaseholder made her complaint. It said that the complaint was regarding the time taken to resolve the drain repairs. It noted that it had reports of the drains being blocked from April 2022, that had not been resolved. The leaseholder was also unhappy that the underlying cause of the blockages had not been investigated. The landlord upheld the complaint. It apologised for the delays to complete repairs and service received. It said:
1. A repair was recorded on 13 December 2022 and issued to its contractor. Its contractor attended and dug out fat and debris in the gully to the front and back of the property. It flushed through the system using a HPWJ and left the drain clear and free flowing.
2. During a second visit it conducted a further HPWJ and found cob wipes and left the drain clear and free flowing.
3. There was a further report by the leaseholder to say the drains were blocked again.
4. It determined that a CCTV drain survey was necessary to check for further issues along the drain. It had passed the work to its contractor and scheduled the survey to take place on 8 February 2023.
The leaseholder asked to escalate her complaint on 25 April 2023. She said that the issues had not been resolved and she continued to have excrement from the entire block drain into her property. She sent a further email on 26 April 2023 to expand on this request. She said:
1. She required the landlord’s urgent attention before the situation escalated.
2. She had continually raised concerns since 2017 about the communal sewerage system which backed up into her property with increasing frequency.
3. There was a job to conduct a CCTV survey that was due on 15 December 2022, but had been re-organised by the landlord 3 times. The most recent appointment to conduct the survey was 9 May 2023. The survey was essential to identify the extent of the damage to the drain. The leaseholder suspected the drain had collapsed or may have been unfit for purpose.
4. There was a gurgling noise in the system which indicated that a full blockage was imminent.
5. In December 2022 the foul water had back flowed into her property over the course of 5 days before the landlord attended. This had caused “a huge amount of distress, damage to the property and a serious health hazard just before Christmas”.
6. She had accrued costs over £2000 to rectify the damage caused, including £600 in professional cleaning services.
7. She provided dates that overflows had occurred to the landlord between September 2017 and December 2022. On each occasion she had paid for her own plumber, who said that the blockage was in the communal drain stack.
8. She had reported the problems to the council’s Environmental Health Department.
9. She had started a claims process with the landlord’s insurance. This was for the damage to the flooring in the property. It did not cover loss of earnings, or compensation for other damages.
The landlord acknowledged the request for a stage 2 complaint on the same day.
The landlord wrote to the leaseholder on 26 May 2023. This was around 21 working days later. It said that that it would be unable to provide its stage 2 response within its timescales. It sought to extend its response by 10 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 June 2023. This was around 32 working days after the original request was recorded. It considered the complaint to be about sewage entering the property with increasing frequency since 2017. It also considered the delays to conduct the CCTV survey. It apologised for the distress and disruption caused. It provided a summary of works from 24 March 2021. It said:
1. On the 24 March 2021, the drain was blocked and sewage was leaking out. A priority order was raised. The drains were cleared by HPWJ, the manhole covers and gratings were removed and refixed.
2. On 13 December 2022, the drain and manhole were blocked. A private plumber had been sent who confirmed that the manhole needed to be cleared. The leaseholder was experiencing an overflow of wastewater from the toilet. An order was raised the same day and passed to contractors who completed the repair on 15 December 2022 over two visits:
  1. During the first visit it cleared fat and debris in the gully. It flushed the drain fully using a HPWJ, ensuring it was left clear and flowing freely.
  2. During the second visit it used a HPWJ to clear the blocked shared stack. It left the stack clear and flowing freely.
3. On 25 January 2023, it raised an order for its contractor to conduct a CCTV inspection to find the source of the issue within the drains. This inspection was delayed due to the contractor being unwell. Once it knew the contractor was unable to complete the works, it assigned the job to another contractor.
4. On 27 April 2023, an urgent repair was raised to investigate the communal stack pipe due to an unusual back surging noise. Its contractor attended the same day and successfully unblocked the drains using HPWJ. It conducted flow tests and everything was running smoothly.
5. On 26 April 2023 it received an email from a third party regarding flushing the drains to temporarily prevent a toilet from overflowing again. The order was raised the same day and was complete on 12 May 2023. It had used a combination unit to clean out the drains for both blocks of flats. They were heavily congested with debris and grease, causing recurrent blockages.
6. On 23 May 2023 its contractor used HPWJ to clear a blockage before proceeding with the CCTV survey. During the survey, it discovered that the drain line was filled with debris and grease. The line has a diameter of 150mm, so it recommended using a combination unit for a thorough cleaning. It graded the drains and provided a report to the landlord. The report said that there was an issue which may require remedial works. The defects may require remedial monitoring.
7. It partially upheld the complaint that sewage had been entering the property. If found that it had taken too long to investigate an appropriate fix at the property. It apologised that the repair issue had continued for so long.
8. It upheld the complaint regarding delays to complete the CCTV survey. It had been delayed and should have been completed sooner. The CCTV investigation was ordered after the stage one complaint. It was delayed due to illness and a change in contractors. However, it was completed on 23 May 2023.
9. It assigned the case to a manager to review the investigation report and assess what could be done to address the repetitive issue. The manager would contact the leaseholder separately.
10. It offered “a good faith payment” of £100 to apologise for the difficult situation the leaseholder had been put in with the condition of the drains over such a long period. It recognised that this did not go far to address the concerns the leaseholder had. It hoped that it underlined its feeling of responsibility regarding the property. It sought to demonstrate that it was looking to take steps to resolve the issue.
The leaseholder contacted the Ombudsman on 4 July 2023. She said:
1. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response.
2. The landlord had continually delayed proper maintenance to the sewage drain which led to raw sewage entering her property. The had been 5 instances over the previous 5 years that this had happened.
3. The leaseholder had experienced substantial financial loss because of the blocked drains. She said that her costs had exceeded £1,700 in repairs.
4. She felt the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation did not reflect the detriment caused to her, or the risks posed because of exposure to raw sewage.
5. The landlord had not resolved the underlying cause of the blocked drains.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

During the complaint journey, the leaseholder reported that she had experienced loss of earnings and damage to the property because of the sewage flow into the property. The Ombudsman does not dispute this however we are unable to decide about damages to the leaseholder’s property or loss of earnings. However, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to the above is more appropriate for the courts or the landlord’s insurer. The leaseholder may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.

Policy and Procedures

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it is required to maintain the structure and exterior of the properties it managed. Together with the supplies and fixtures for the main services provided. It responds to:
1. Emergency out of hours repairs within 4 hours. Completes them within 24 hours.
2. Responsive repairs within 15 working days.
3. Programmed repairs within 25 days, inclusive of the inspection.
4. Planned works within 60 working days.
The landlord has a two-stage complaint process and its policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Handling of repairs to a communal sewage system.

The landlord was responsible to maintain the main services to the property. This included the maintenance of the drains serving the whole block. The evidence shows that the landlord responded to many reports of sewage back flowing into the leaseholder’s property. It took remedial action by conducting HPWJ clearances of the drains. The timeline shows that it broadly completed works within the timescales set out in its policy.
The issues with blocked drains and sewage entering the property recurred over a period of around 6 years. The leaseholder described having to contract her own plumbers in emergencies, due to the issues arising with foul water entering the property. The landlord was aware of multiple reports of issues with the drain and the impact the sewage leaks had on the leaseholder. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider conducting a survey at an earlier opportunity. Its treatment of the issues in isolation meant it lacked oversight and missed opportunities to investigate the issues sooner. The landlord could have conducted CCTV surveys earlier in the timeline. The resultant delays caused the leaseholder additional distress and inconvenience.
The leaseholder reported that the drains had become blocked and sewage was entering her property on 13 December 2022. The landlord did not complete any repairs to remedy the leak until 15 December 2022. This was not repaired within the 24 hours set out in its responsive repairs policy. She described having to temporarily house her tenant at the time and felt the landlord was not contactable. The landlord’s delays to complete repairs caused the leaseholder distress and inconvenience.
Once the landlord determined that a CCTV survey was necessary in January 2023, it took around 4 months to complete the survey. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that the contractor made recommendations to the landlord. These included an issue which may require remedial works and defects which may require remedial monitoring. There was no expansion on these recommendations, or any action plan to setting out how it would prevent a further occurrence of this issue. The landlord did not share the outcome of its CCTV survey with the Ombudsman. We have been unable to determine what work the contractor referred to in its 23 May 2023 report, or what was necessary to remedy the faults with the drains.
The landlord recognised that there had been a delay to conduct the survey in its final complaint response to the leaseholder. It explained that there had been an issue with its contractor and had to change them as a result. It apologised for this delay and acted reasonably by changing the contactor once it recognised that it would be unable to complete the survey promptly. This was a reasonable response and demonstrated the landlord’s recognition that this was an important issue.
The landlord said that it would assign a case manager to review the investigation report and assess what could be done to address the repetitive issue. This decision was reasonable and demonstrated the landlord’s intention to remedy any underlying fault with the sewage system. However, there was no evidence available to the Ombudsman that it followed through with this offer. It is important for the landlord to maintain the commitments made in its complaint handling. Its failure to do so could contribute to a breakdown in the landlord/tenant relationship.
The CCTV survey suggested that there were issues with the misuse of the drains by some leaseholders. The landlord could have taken steps such as writing to all leaseholders to educate people on the impact flushing wet wipes was having on the drainage system. There is no evidence that it did in this case. In its earlier response in March 2022, it visited and spoke to each of the leaseholders. It should have continued this good practice and contacted other leaseholders to provide further education to leaseholders on disposing of items via toilets and sinks. Given the issues were reoccurring the landlord missed an opportunity to be proactive. Had it have done so it would have gone some way in preventing future leaks.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord made an action plan to manage the sewage leakage or that it provided regular updates to the leaseholder. As such, its approach was not customer centred and left the leaseholder unclear on what was happening, adding to her distress.
The landlord’s failure to identify or address the substantive issue with sewage works over several years was significant. It led to the leaseholder raising repeated reports of sewage leakage, causing her avoidable distress over a prolonged period. This included the leaseholder having to endure the consequence of repeat flooding. Also, unpleasant drainage overflows leaving her to arrange professional cleaning services in her property which only sought to increase her distress.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling repairs to a communal sewage system. The landlord recognised that there had been failures in its response to the leaseholder. It set out how it would follow up on the reports it received and offered the leaseholder £100 in compensation. Its offer of redress did not reflect the detriment caused. The situation had been ongoing for a considerable period and caused substantial distress and inconvenience to the leaseholder. It did not show that it had progressed the offer made to assign a case manager to resolve the substantive issue.
The landlord should assign a case manager to provide monthly updates to the leaseholder until works recommended by its contractor are complete. It should write to the leaseholder and the Ombudsman with an updated position regarding the causes of the blockages in the sewage. It should pay the leaseholder £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint handling.

In reaching a decision about the landlord’s complaint handling we consider whether the landlord followed procedure, good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.
It is important for a landlord to maintain its complaint handling commitments set out in its policy and procedures. The timeline shows the landlord took around 28 days to issue its stage 1 response. It was reasonable to inform the leaseholder that there would be a delay. However, it did this at 13 working days, then took a further 15 working days to issue its response. It apologised for the delay but did not take any action to put things right. It did not fully address the delays in its complaint handling at stage 1.
There were further delays to issue the stage 2 response. It took the landlord 32 working days to issues the stage 2. It had told her after 21 working days that there would be a delay and sought to delay the response by 10 working days. It partially upheld the complaint and sought to address the substantive issues. But it did not review its overall complaint handling. By failing to acknowledge these issues, the landlord was not fair and did not demonstrate that it had learned from outcomes.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Its responses broadly sought to address the substantive issues. It notified the leaseholder that there were going to be delays in its issuing a response. However, it did not address the delays in its stage 2 response. There was additional time and trouble caused by the delays. It should pay £50 compensation for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal sewage system.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the leaseholder for the failings identified in this report. A copy of the letter to be sent to the Ombudsman.
2. Provide the leaseholder and the Ombudsman a copy of the CCTV drain survey from 23 May 2023. Say what action it took upon receipt of this report and set out an action plan to resolve any substantive issues.
3. Assign a case manager to provide monthly updates to the leaseholder until works recommended by its contractor are complete.
4. Pay the leaseholder compensation of £650. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous compensation of £100 awarded in June 2023. If the landlord has already paid the leaseholder compensation set out at stage 2, this should be deducted from the compensation ordered. The compensation is comprised of:
  1. £600 for distress and inconvenience.
  2. £50 for its complaint handling failures.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide information to residents within the block about the correct disposal of waste.