Milton Keynes City Council (202315355)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315355

Milton Keynes City Council

31 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 the resident’s:
   1. Report of a blocked communal soil stack pipe.
   2. Associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is the leaseholder of a 1-bedroom flat, which she has owned since 2015. The landlord is a local authority.
3. The resident’s son occupies the property and brought the complaint to the Ombudsman on the resident’s behalf as her representative. For ease of reference, we will refer to the representative’s actions as the resident’s throughout the report.
4. Following a report from the resident about a blocked drain the landlord attended on 16 December 2022 to inspect. It asked the resident to remove the boxing–in around the soil stack pipe to see if there was a rodding eye and to update the landlord once he had done this.
5. On 28 December 2022 the resident complained he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his reports of his toilet overflowing, which he said he had first reported in November 2022. He said the landlord had told him it was his responsibility and it had cost him £300 to pay for his own plumber. The plumber told the resident the problem was with the communal soil stack pipe and was therefore the landlord’s responsibility. The resident reported that his toilet had overflowed again in December 2022 and the landlord had again told him it was his responsibility to repair. He was unhappy with the advice given by the landlord when it had attended on 16 December 2022. He had decided to instruct his own plumber because he was fed up with the situation.
6. On 16 February 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said that it had raised a trace and repair job on 16 December 2022. The landlord referred to the appointment notes from the job which said it was waiting for a call back from the resident once he had removed the boxing-in to the soil pipe. The landlord said that it would have confirmed the responsibility of the repair once it had found the location of the blockage, i.e. was it in the connection to the soil stack or was it in the stack pipe. It said it would not be upholding the residents complaint because he had not removed the boxing-in as requested on 16 December 2022.
7. The resident escalated his complaint on 31 May 2023. He said there had been 4 times since December 2022 where sewage had overflowed from his toilet. The resident said he had contacted the landlord’s contractor following the last flood and the contractor told him it was his responsibility. The resident said he had instructed a drainage company who had cleared the blockage. He also said another company had conducted a moisture survey in his bathroom which had found the dirty water had gone under the bathroom tiles and could cause mould. This was concerning to the resident because he had asthma. The resident referred to the service charges he paid towards communal repairs and maintenance. The blockage was in a communal pipe which should have been the landlord’s responsibility. He said he would like the landlord to reimburse him for the costs of the plumbers and drainage experts, damage to his bathroom, general distress and time taken off work due to the flooding.
8. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 20 July 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It said its asset management team and contractor had not received any contact from the resident between the stage 1 response and the end of May 2023. Following reports of a leak at the end of May 2023 the landlord had undertaken works which it completed the week of 5 June 2023. It said that it would not be upholding the resident’s complaint because he had not removed the boxing-in as requested in December 2022 or raised any further issues with the leak until the end of May 2023. It said it would not be providing any financial redress to the resident.
9. In communication with this service, the resident said the landlord had failed to recognise the distress and inconvenience he had been caused as a result of the blocked soil stack pipe. He said when the toilet overflowed he was unable to use his toilet. He said he was worried about leaving the property in case the toilet overflowed whilst he was out. He also said he had paid around £500 for instructing his own plumber and drainage experts because the landlord had refused to accept it was responsible for the repair. He said he would like the landlord to recognise the distress and inconvenience he had been caused and to reimburse him for the costs of the contractors he had to pay for.

Assessment and findings

The communal soil stack pipe

10. The resident’s lease states that the leaseholder is responsible for the drains and pipes installed for the purpose of draining away water and soil, solely used by the premises. The landlord is responsible for all communal sewers, drains and pipes installed for the purpose of draining away water and soil. The soil stack pipe is boxed in, in the corner of the resident’s bathroom. It runs through, and serves, the properties situated below the resident’s and into the main drain.
11. The landlord has not provided a copy of its repairs policy for the time of the resident’s complaint. The repairs information on its website says it aims to fix emergency repairs within 24 hours, and routine repairs within 28 days.
12. From the evidence provided to this Service, the initial advice given to the resident following his report in November 2022 was appropriate. This is because the resident had reported the blockage was between the bathroom and kitchen, which is inside the property which meant it was the resident’s responsibility to repair.
13. Between 14 and 16 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord on 3 occasions to report that his toilet had overflowed again and he could not use his toilet. He explained that he had called a plumber out in November 2022 who had informed him the issue was with the communal soil stack pipe. He also said he had spoken to the landlord’s insurance company who had also advised him it was the landlord’s responsibility.
14. We can see from the landlord’s records that it had attended on 16 December 2022. The records show that it asked the resident to remove the boxing-in, which was around the stack pipe in his bathroom, so it could check if there was a rodding eye. It asked the resident to confirm when he had done this. We have also seen an email dated 21 December 2022, which the landlord had copied the resident in to, in which its contractor had said it could not progress the repair without the boxing-in removed.
15. The resident said that he did not want to remove the boxing-in because the landlord had said it would be his responsibility to repair. He again instructed his own plumber. While we can understand why the resident did not want to remove the boxing-in, without the landlord’s assurance that it would repair it afterwards, it was reasonable of the landlord to investigate the location of the blockage prior to confirming if it was responsible for the repair.
16. The evidence shows that the neighbour contacted the landlord to report a leak from the resident’s property on 14 May 2023. The resident said he reported this issue to the landlord’s contractor at the same time but it told him it was the leaseholder responsibility. As a result, the resident instructed his own contractor who attended on 24 May 2023. The contractor’s report outlined that it removed the resident’s toilet and used machinery to remove the blockage. It confirmed that the soil stack pipe was a shared asset which served multiple flats within the block. It jetted the stack pipe from the manhole and cleared the blockage. The contractor noted the stack pipe would need a de-scale to remove the buildup or it would block again in the future.
17. We can see that the neighbour contacted the landlord again on 30 May 2023 to report there was still a leak from the resident’s property. Following this report the landlord spoke to the leaseholder and the resident who said they had attempted to report the issue earlier but the landlord’s contractor had refused to log the call. While there is no record of the resident’s call, the landlord accepted the resident’s account and agreed that its contractor should not have informed him to instruct a private contractor. Following this it raised an urgent repair to resolve the leak from the communal stack pipe.
18. The landlord’s drainage contractor attended on 1 June 2023 (this was the same contractor as instructed by the resident). The report from this attendance said it completed a de-scale from the manhole up the stack pipe, as far as it could. It returned on 5 June 2023, removed the resident’s toilet to complete the de-scale from the resident’s property down the stack pipe. This attendance was appropriate because it was consistent with the landlord’s published repair timescales.
19. From considering the evidence in this case, it is fair to say that the cause of the overflowing toilet was as a result of a build up of scale in the communal soil stack pipe. As per the lease, the landlord is responsible for repair and maintenance of this pipe. We can see that the resident had not reported the ongoing issues to the landlord between December 2022 and May 2023. However, from the available evidence, we can see the landlord accepted its contractor should not have refused to accept the repair. The landlord failed to recognise its repair responsibilities when the resident reported the issue in May 2023 and it was only when the resident escalated his complaint that it accepted the repair. This resulted in the resident instructing his own drainage contractor at his own cost. Although the landlord’s response did not unreasonably delay the repair, the resident would not have had to instruct his own contractor if the landlord had recognised its repair obligations sooner.
20. The Ombudsman would recognise this as service failure.
21. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will 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 considers 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.
22. The landlord showed its attempt to put things right by completing the repairs to the blocked stack pipe in June 2023. However, it failed to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It also failed to demonstrate any learning outcomes.
23. Having considered the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, a fair level of compensation would be £100. This appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in this case. We have also made an order that the landlord reimburse the resident in the sum of £216 to cover the costs paid by the resident to the drainage contractor in May 2023.

Complaint handling

24. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. At both stages, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days of being made and will provide its response within 20 working days.
25. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days, with no more than a further extension of 10 working days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days, with a further extension of 10 working days if required. These time frames should not be exceeded without good reason.
26. The resident made his initial complaint on 28 December 2022 and the landlord sent its stage 1 response on 16 February 2023. This was 36 working days later. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
27. The resident escalated his complaint on 31 May 2023 and the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 20 July 2023. This was 37 working days later. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
28. In his escalation, the resident reported damage had been caused to his bathroom floor and he was concerned about mould growth, as a result of the dirty water. He also said that it had taken time and trouble in progressing his complaint. For example, the resident chased the landlord for an update on at least 5 occasions between his escalation and receipt of the stage 2 response. While the landlord apologised for the delay in providing its stage 2 response, it failed to acknowledge or respond to the reported damage and the resident’s concerns about the water getting under the tiles, which is a failure.
29. In summary, there were failures by the landlord in that it:
    1. unreasonably delayed in providing a response at stage 1
    2. unreasonably delayed in providing a response at stage 2
    3. did not address all the elements of the resident’s complaint
30. The Ombudsman would consider this to amount to maladministration.
31. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, provides awards of compensation between £100 and £600 when there is evidence of maladministration by the landlord which adversely affected the resident. In this case, the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process so that he could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation. The landlord’s actions were not appropriate and it should pay compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of a blocked communal soil stack pipe.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

34. The landlord must, within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination:
    1. Provide the resident with a full written apology for the errors identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £466 which is comprised of:
       1. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the blocked soil stack pipe
       2. £150 to compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
       3. £216 to reimburse the resident for the cost of the drainage contractor in May 2023
35. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
36. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.