The Guinness Partnership Limited (202228954)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228954

The Guinness Partnership Limited

25 October 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 handling of:
1. Sewage leaking into the resident’s property, and the associated repairs.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a flat. The property has one bathroom, and one toilet. The resident lives at the property with her child who previously suffered with an E. coli related infection. The resident suffers with complex post-traumatic stress (CPTSD), anxiety, and depression, which the landlord has a record of.
On 19 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours service to report that her drains were blocked. The resident reported that she had returned to her property to find that raw sewage had been spilling out of her toilet and bath facilities, leaking onto the floors throughout the property. The landlord told the resident to remain in the property and to wait for its contractor to attend, which would take up to 24 hours.
On 20 February 2023 the landlord’s drains contractor visited the resident’s property. Its initial investigations revealed that the cause of the blockage was some distance from the resident’s building. Because of this it needed to arrange a CCTV site survey, which it could not complete that day.

The resident was concerned about the conditions caused by the leak which included that the raw sewage had gone through the flooring of her property and was leaking out of the garage roof below. The resident was without bathroom facilities and was concerned that the landlord was not assisting her in managing the impact of the sewage, as it continued to leak throughout her property. The resident requested to be moved into temporary accommodation on a number of occasions.
The landlord initially told the resident it could not guarantee her temporary accommodation, so the resident went to stay with a friend. The landlord then attempted to contact the resident in the following days to offer her the temporary accommodation.
On 23 February 2023 the landlord’s contractor carried out the repair to the blocked drain. The resident raised concerns about the damage caused to her personal items, and the condition of the property following the sewage spill.
The same day, the resident asked the landlord to address the works caused by the leak at her own property which had been left for 5 days by this time without anything being done. She wished for these repairs to be completed before she returned to the property, as she had been staying with friends/family following the sewage spill due to it being uninhabitable. The landlord arranged for the resident to stay in temporary accommodation overnight on 26 February 2023, stating she could return to the property the next day.
On 27 February 2023 the resident visited her property where she met with the landlord and its contractor. She was unhappy with its condition and told the landlord that she believed that she would be risking her child’s health to move back into the property at that time. The landlord accepted during this meeting that the property still smelt of faeces, and its contractor confirmed it was still contaminated with sewage waste, and that the works had not been completed. The landlord arranged to extend the resident’s stay in hotel temporary accommodation.
On 3 March 2023 the landlord met with the resident at her property again. Its contractor carried out a further inspection and assessed how it would remove the trapped sewage waste from inside the walls and floors of the resident’s property. It said the works could be completed whilst the resident was living in the property. The resident was unhappy with this, and the landlord agreed to further extend the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation whilst it completed these works.
On 7 March 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of the sewage spill, subsequent repairs and her being moved into temporary accommodation.
On 17 March 2023 the resident returned to her property. She asked the landlord to dispose of the items it had placed into storage following the leak as she believed they were contaminated. She said she wanted the landlord to compensate her for the loss of these items.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 18 April 2023. The landlord said that it had responded to the sewage spill at the resident’s property in line with its repairs policy. It found no failing in its handling of the resident being provided with temporary accommodation and said it had reimbursed her expenses during this period. The landlord explained that the resident’s personal belongings that it had placed into storage, had no lasting damage. It said it would expect its residents to have insurance to cover the cost of personal belongings in incidents such as this. The landlord explained that due to the leak being outside of the landlord’s control, it was not liable for any damage caused to her personal belongings. It apologised for the delay in providing its stage one complaint response and awarded the resident £100 compensation.
That same day, the resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage one complaint response. She requested the landlord escalate her complaint. The resident also described that there were outstanding repairs that she wished to discuss further with the landlord.
On 13 June 2023 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaints. It apologised for its initial delay in providing the resident with temporary accommodation. It set out its response to the sewage spill, the subsequent repairs, as well as the deep clean it had completed at the resident’s property. It did these works whilst she had remained in temporary accommodation. The landlord repeated that it was not at fault for the sewage spill, and so would not be providing compensation for any damage caused to her personal belongings. It apologised for its delay in providing its final response to the resident’s complaint and awarded her a further £150 compensation for this.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaints. She brought her complaints to the Ombudsman, stating her desired outcome was for the landlord to provide her with compensation in addition to being reimbursed a month’s rent. The resident also wished for other outstanding works at her property to be completed.
In April 2024 the resident’s solicitor submitted a legal disrepair claim to the landlord. This claim related to a number of repairs, including those referred to in this complaint. This claim remains open and subject to the pre-action protocol stage. `

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Scope of Investigation

Paragraph 42.e. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where a complainant had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings. The Ombudsman is aware that this case is currently subject of a legal disrepair claim submitted by the resident’s solicitor in April 2024. However, it is the Ombudsman’s understanding that no claim to date has been filed with the court, and matters remain subject to the pre-action protocol stage. Therefore, the landlord’s handling of sewage leaking into the resident’s property and the associated repairs is within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider. This is because it has not formed part of the formal stages of legal proceedings at this time.
The Ombudsman was sorry to hear the resident’s account that she believed both her own, and her child’s health had been impacted by the condition of her property, and in particular the plumbing. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to assess the specific impact of any action or inaction by the landlord on the resident’s, or her child’s health. Matters of liability for personal injury are better suited to a court or a liability insurer to determine. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states we may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, or other tribunal procedure. However, consideration has been given to the general impact that the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that her family’s health had been affected due to a repair issue.

Section 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resident has said that she is concerned that she has reported similar incidents of leaks in her property to that which is subject of this complaint. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident and accepts that these types of repairs can have a strong negative impact on a resident’s wellbeing and mental health. However, records reviewed by the Ombudsman show that the resident’s previous report of a leak in her property was made in February 2021. Therefore, in line with the Scheme, this previous similar report will not be taken into consideration. The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s handling of this incident from February 2023, when the current leak was first reported up until its final response on 13 June 2023.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it has 2 categories in which it will respond to repairs as follows:
1. Emergency – These are repairs which require the landlord to address an immediate risk to health and safety. It will carry out a temporary make safe repair within 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs – These are repairs which are not emergencies. The landlord will carry out this type of repair within 28 days.
The repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for the basins, sinks, baths, flushing systems, waste pipes, drains, and external pipes of the resident’s property.
The landlord’s decant policy states that it will provide a resident with temporary rehousing in an emergency if their property becomes uninhabitable, or if the condition of the property poses a significant threat to health and safety and a solution cannot be put in place. This type of emergency includes when there is a drainage problem to toilets, making them unusable and where they cannot be rectified as an emergency repair. It will seek to secure accommodation as quickly as possible. In most case it won’t have something immediate available, so where possible, in the first instance it will see if a resident can stay with their family and friends. Residents in temporary accommodation will continue to pay rent for their main property.

Sewage leaking into the resident’s property, and the associated repairs.

On 19 February 2023 the resident returned to her property that afternoon with her child, after being away for a couple of days. She discovered that sewage waste had been leaking from the toilet and the bath and had covered the bathroom floor. She reported this emergency repair to the landlord the same day. The landlord advised the resident to remain in the property to allow contractors access, and that it would respond within 24 hours. This is in line with its repairs policy. However, this response was not reasonable. The resident and her child were advised to remain in a property overnight, without toilet facilities that had been leaking waste on to her floor for at least a couple of days by this time. The landlord should have responded that evening to assess the emergency repair, and the health risk to the resident and her child. The landlord should have made an attempted to find temporary accommodation, whilst advising the resident to leave the property in these circumstances, and to stay with family and friends.
The resident has said that her neighbour reported the leak 2 days before, on 17 February 2023. The Ombudsman does not doubt that the resident has been told this. However records reviewed confirm that her neighbour also reported the leak in the building, affecting the resident’s property on 19 February 2023. Therefore the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to assess the landlord’s response from 19 February 2023, which is when the evidence suggests that it was first made aware of the repair.
On 20 February 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property to assess the leak. The Ombudsman understands that a neighbouring property was also experiencing the same repair issue as the resident. The contractor updated the landlord that due to the nature of the repair; it would need to carry out a CCTV site survey of the drains which it could not complete that day. This was reasonable as where repairs are more complex, they can take longer to complete, and more than one appointment may be needed.
That same day, the resident telephoned the landlord and asked for it to provide her and her child with temporary accommodation. Records reviewed by the Ombudsman show that the landlord told the resident that it could not guarantee her temporary accommodation. This was reasonable as the landlord cannot control the availability of accommodation at short notice. However, the landlord should have set out the reasons why it could not guarantee accommodation and what it was doing to assist her. The landlord also failed to call the resident back as it had agreed to do, in order to update her that day. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord’s poor communication during this period exacerbated the distress and inconvenience the resident felt at this time. This is evidence of poor communication by the landlord.
Records reviewed by the Ombudsman show that between 21 February 2023 and 22 February 2023 the landlord made attempts to call, and left messages for the resident in order to provide her with temporary accommodation. This was reasonable because the landlord was attempting to make arrangements of temporary accommodation for the resident in line with its decants policy above.
The contractor completed the CCTV site survey of the drains on 22 February 2023 in which it identified the cause of the leak as being a damaged cast iron stack pipe within the underground car park. The contractor completed the repair of the stack pipe on 23 February 2023. This was an appropriate response because 3 working days would be considered a reasonable time period to complete this type of repair.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord did not carry out any works within the resident’s property between 19 February 2023 and 23 February 2023. During this time the resident has said that she initially used sandbags in an attempt to contain and limit the impact of the sewage, as it flooded to other parts of the property, and contaminated her belongings. She said that she made numerous attempts for the landlord to assist her, but it failed to respond to her. This was not appropriate. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord’s priority was to address the cause of the leak. However it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have tried to address the flooded sewage in the resident’s property between this period, in order to minimise the impact to the resident’s property, and to her personal belongings. Leaving the property for this period exposed to waste was a health hazard and the Ombudsman understands how the impact of the resident’s property being left in sewage for this period without any attempts to address it, would have caused the resident significant distress.
Between 24 February 2023 and 27 February 2023 the landlord stated its contractor had completed a deep clean of the resident’s property. It had placed some of the resident’s personal belongings into storage. The landlord said it had carried out repairs following the leak to a standard that would allow the resident to return to her property on 27 February 2023. The resident met with the landlord and its contractor on 27 February 2023 at the property to find the following:
1. The flooring in the hallway had not been raised and there was evidence that there was sewage waste trapped underneath.
2. There were faeces found under her child’s bedroom carpet which had been removed, but the flooring underneath had not been addressed to consider if there was also trapped waste underneath.
3. A number of the contaminated skirting boards and parts of the walls had yet to have been replaced.
The Ombudsman has viewed footage recorded of this meeting on 27 February 2023. All persons present, including the landlord and its contractor agreed that the property had a significant smell of faeces, the repairs had not been completed, and the property was still contaminated with trapped sewage. The landlord’s suggestion that it had carried out the repairs for the resident to return to the property on this day was inaccurate. The landlord was also aware of the resident’s child’s previous medical history and therefore should have realised that its poor response at this time, will have only exacerbated the distress caused to her. This is evidence that the landlord showed a lack of understanding and empathy to the resident’s situation. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have completed these works to make the property fit for habitation prior to asking the resident to return to her property, rather than the resident having to challenge the landlord to complete the works first, as she had to do in this case.
The resident said she refused to return to the property on 27 February 2023. The landlord agreed to extend the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation and arranged to carry out a further inspection of the property with the resident and its contractor on 3 March 2023. This was an appropriate response, so it could assess the resident’s concerns and identify the outstanding repairs that the resident said it had not completed which included the following:
1. Replace the bath panel, and frame.
2. Replace affected skirting boards, doors, and frames.
3. Lift the flooring to concrete level and to clean and replace the flooring throughout.
On 3 March 2023 the landlord suggested to the resident that she could return to the property whilst its contractor extracted a wall to remove the trapped sewage waste. The resident continued to refuse to return to the property until the works were completed due to her concern about the health risk to her and her child. The landlord agreed to the resident’s request and extended her temporary accommodation whilst it completed these works. It was right that the landlord agreed to extend the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation, but it should have agreed this sooner.
During the period the resident was in temporary accommodation she submitted her expense receipts, which the landlord reimbursed to the value of £666.92. The landlord made these payments in a timely manner, often within a working day. The landlord, therefore, acted reasonably in its handling of the resident’s expenses.
The resident returned to her property on 17 March 2023, once the works had been completed.
In the landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the complaints process, it advised her that it would not compensate her for any damage caused to her personal belongings. It explained this was because it was not at fault for the leak and was therefore not liable. It directed the resident to her own contents insurance for this. It was appropriate the landlord advised the resident about this, as residents are encouraged to take out contents insurance to cover the cost of replacing their belongings in the event of sudden and unforeseen damage, as in this instance.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will not offer compensation where the damage or loss to a resident’s personal belongings was caused by circumstances beyond its control. This policy also states that the landlord will not pay compensation in relation to leaks, unless it has done something or failed to do something that caused the leak. The landlord did not cause the leak and therefore it would not be expected to compensate the resident for the delays this caused.
The resident has said that she is seeking to be refunded one month’s rent for the time she was in temporary accommodation. The landlord’s decants policy as set out above, states that residents are expected to pay for their main property whilst being housed in temporary accommodation. This is reasonable as resident’s would be expected to pay their rent, whilst being provided with alternative accommodation at no additional cost. It is fair for a resident to pay for one property, but they would not be expected to pay for 2 properties at the same time. Therefore, the landlord does not need to refund the resident one month’s rent.
The landlord apologised to the resident in its final response to her complaint for its initial delay in providing her with temporary accommodation. It is positive that the landlord attempted to put things right, but the Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord went far enough in seeking to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint, considering the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by its delay.
For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of sewage leaking into the resident’s property, and the associated repairs. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the leak was repaired within a reasonable timescale of 26 days, which is in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. However, there was poor handling in its initial response to a hazardous emergency repair, as well as its poor communication in advising the resident to return to her property when it was still contaminated with waste.

The Ombudsman has considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) and considers that the landlord’s complaint response failed to address the detriment caused to the resident. Therefore, the landlord is to pay the resident £600 compensation. Examples of this level of compensation in the guidance include where the landlord has made failures which adversely affected the resident, causing them significant distress and/or inconvenience.

The associated complaint.

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a resident’s complaint within 2 working days. It will then provide a written response at stage one within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord will provide a resident with an explanation if it requires more time to respond to a resident’s complaint, at either stage. Any extension will not exceed a further 10 working days unless agreed prior with the resident.
On 7 March 2023 the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the sewage spill in her property, the associated repairs, and her being moved into temporary accommodation.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman to assist her in chasing her stage one complaint response. The Ombudsman advised the landlord to provide the resident with its stage one written complaint response, which it did on 18 April 2023. This was 25 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This should have been provided within 10 working days, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (which sets out our service’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling). The delay would have caused further inconvenience for the resident, but overall, it was not excessive.
In June 2023 the resident again requested for the Ombudsman to intervene in chasing the landlord to provide its final response to her complaints. The Ombudsman advised the landlord to provide its final written complaint response to the resident by 16 June 2023.
The landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaints on 13 June 2023. This was 37 working days after the resident requested the escalation of her complaints. This delay was not in line with the Code, which expects the landlord to provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. Although the delay was not excessive in itself, it would have added to the resident’s frustration caused by the other delays in the landlord’s complaints process. This is particularly the case as she had to contact the Ombudsman on 2 occasions to chase the landlord’s responses.
There is evidence of failings as described above in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. The landlord’s delays were relatively short, however it still caused inconvenience to the resident, as she was waiting longer than she should have been for the landlord to respond to her complaints.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s apology and the total compensation of £250 it awarded the resident in its stage one and stage 2 complaint responses to be a proportionate response to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint. This award is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above. Therefore, the landlord is not required to do anything further in respect of this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of sewage leaking into the resident’s property, and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves concern about its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to apologise in line with this service’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration and expresses a sincere regret for its handling of sewage leaking into her property, and the associated repairs.
The landlord is to pay the resident a compensation payment of £600 for its handling of sewage leaking into the resident’s property, and the associated repairs.
The landlord is to pay the resident the £250 in compensation it awarded the resident as part of its stage 1 and 2 complaint response if it has not already done so.
The landlord should complete a survey of any outstanding repairs to the resident’s property. The landlord should draw up a schedule of works following the survey which is to be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman and is to include timescales for the outstanding repairs to be completed. The repairs must be completed within a reasonable time period, in line with the landlord’s published timescales, and in line with industry best practice.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance of the above orders to the Ombudsman within 28 days of this report.