West Northamptonshire Council (202317144)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317144

West Northamptonshire Council

21 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 response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a soil pipe backing up, including whether the landlord should have prevented this from happening and the resident’s belongings being damaged.
   2. Transfer request.

Background

2. The resident lived in a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. She moved out of the property in 2023. We have seen evidence the resident has asthma, Aspergers, and suffers from anxiety. The landlord is aware she has medical conditions.
3. On 10 January 2022, the resident reported to the landlord an overflow of sewage in the property. Its contractor attended the same day but was unable to clear the blockage due to a lack of light which they cited as a health and safety issue. The contractor cleared the blockage the next day. The resident told the landlord the contractors had said the property needed a deep clean.
4. Two days later the resident told the landlord it should not have left her with contaminated water in her property. She said it was a serious health and safety issue, and the property needed a deep clean. The landlord organised this for 19 January 2022 explaining there was a high demand for this service due to COVID 19. This was inconvenient for the resident, and they agreed on 24 January 2022. The resident said she had moved in with a family member in the meantime.
5. The resident contacted the landlord to complain on 15 March 2023. The landlord responded on 25 April 2023 at stage 1 of its formal complaint procedures. It set out the action it had taken in relation to the blockage and said it had arranged for a professional cleaner to attend on 24 January 2022. It said, after the clean, it had laid a new bathroom floor and fitted a new bath panel. Thereafter, it considered the property was safe to occupy. It said it had previously offered the resident £120 for the 3 weeks when she stayed with relatives which was half the rent for this period. The resident did not provide her bank details so did not receive it. The landlord said it believed this amount was fair and justified. The landlord said it had not caused the blockage by a lack of maintenance, as such her insurance claim was not upheld. It said it had provided the resident with the correct information when she queried about transferring properties.
6. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 3 May 2023. It sent its final response letter on 19 June 2023. It said, despite there being some delays, it had responded in line with its targets. It advised the cleaners had followed their own protocols, while this might not have met the resident’s expectations the landlord believed this was acceptable. It reiterated its insurers findings. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint of her own insurance premiums increasing due to her claim by saying this was the nature of insurance policies. It re-offered compensation for half of 3 weeks rent, which it calculated at £114 This was to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the event but the landlord said it did not find the property inhabitable. At the time of this complaint the landlord operated a 3 stage complaints process which the resident moved her complaint to. The landlord reviewed its response and said it was not able to consider this further. The resident reiterated her complaint that this would not have occurred had the landlord completed regular inspections. It said it was impractical and unrealistic to do this in all its properties.
7. When the resident referred the case to us to investigate, she said she would like financial compensation as a resolution.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

8. In line with 42.j. of the Scheme we may not consider matters which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. The decision made by the landlord’s insurer would fall outside our jurisdiction.

Soil pipes backing up.

9. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved. The landlord has responsibilities to ensure the resident’s home is fit for human habitation under the Homes Act. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System is concerned with avoiding or, at the very least, minimizing potential hazards. Under this rating system the landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, which would include sewage.
10. It was appropriate for the landlord to attend the same day the resident alerted it to the back up of sewage. Once it was recognised the blockage could not be removed it would have been appropriate for the landlord to assess whether the resident could remain in the property. We have not seen evidence the landlord did so and that was a significant failing. The contractors left her with a wet vacuum cleaner so that she could vacuum up any waste when the neighbours flushed their toilets overnight. This was an unreasonable request.
11. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to carry out a deep clean. We can see the landlord tried to do this from 11 January 2022, arranging it for 19 January 2022. We accept the landlord would have completed this on this date had the resident been available. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the property was habitable after 4 February 2022 when it had replaced the bath panel and deodorised under the bath.
12. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord did not consider the property to be habitable during this time. Its internal email of 11 January 2022 said, “the property is not sanitary or safe to stay in its present condition”. It is unclear therefore why its final complaint response stated that during inspections it did not “acknowledge the property was not habitable.” The landlord has not provided us with evidence of these inspections. Nonetheless, this conflicting information would have been frustrating for the resident.
13. The resident raised her concern about the professionalism of the cleaners in her escalation request. She said they were not wearing what she would consider to be proper personal protective equipment. This did not reassure her. In its final response letter, the landlord confirmed the contractors followed their usual practice for this type of clean. It acknowledged this may not have met with her expectations, but it was happy with the work. The resident may not agree with the methods, but the necessary work was completed.
14. The resident said the landlord should have completed regular inspections of the soil pipe. The landlord did not agree this was necessary and also said it would not install an anti-blockage removal device in the soil pipe to manage any future blockages.  The landlord is entitled to manage its properties and rely on the opinion of its qualified staff concerning what inspections and works are needed. Social landlords have limited budgets and are expected to allocate funding appropriately to provide the best service to all residents. As such we find the landlord’s decisions not to carry out regular inspections of the soil pipe and install the anti-blockage device to be reasonable.
15. When the resident told the landlord about her belongings being damaged, the evidence suggested it gave the details of its public liability insurer. The liability insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord. The landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s decision or the claims process, aside from passing on the details of how to claim to the resident. However, the resident successfully claimed for her damaged belongings on her own home contents insurance. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was reasonable when it said the increase in her insurance premiums is the nature of insurance. We find the landlord reasonably dealt with the resident’s complaint of her belongings being damaged.
16. In summary, the landlord removed the blockage within 24 hours but left the resident to manage the sewage in her flat overnight. This included leaving her with a wet vacuum cleaner to deal with the sewage overspill from her neighbours’ toilets. We do not know if the resident could use her toilet, however with sewage coming from it, it would likely to be difficult and potentially unhygienic. The resident also reported putrid smells in the flat and her asthma being triggered It is likely to have been an uncomfortable and disrupted night for the resident. The landlord also failed to consider a temporary move for her. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of soil pipes backing up.
17. Where the landlord has accepted it has made errors, it is our role to consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
18. The landlord offered the resident £114 to represent half of the 3 weeks rent she paid while living away from the property. It said this was to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience the resident went through. We believe this sum did not reflect the full effect its service failings had on the resident. We have ordered the landlord to refund the resident the full rent she paid over that period of £279.84 This has been calculated using the weekly rent charge of £85.17 for 3 weeks and 2 days. This is because the property was not habitable over that period. We have also awarded £300 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience. This is in line with our remedies guidance which says such awards are appropriate where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident, but which lasted for a short period.

The resident’s transfer request.

19. The resident provided us with a doctor’s letter dated 13 January 2022. The resident spoke to the landlord on 4 occasions from March 2022 to February 2023. She clearly stated she wished to move out of area. The landlord said she would need to contact the council she wished to move to as it only had stock in the local area. The landlord also gave the resident advice about mutual exchanges. This was the reasonable advice from the landlord. We have seen that he resident applied to different housing providers.
20. We find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s transfer request. The resident’s request to move out of area would have meant, regardless of the doctor’s letter, it was not able to progress her request as it did not have stock out of area.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s soil pipes backing up including whether the landlord should have prevented this from happening and the resident’s belongings being damaged.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s transfer request.

Orders

22. The landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
23. The landlord is to pay the resident compensation totalling £579.84. This is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of £114. This comprises of:
    1. £279.84 to reflect the impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of her property for 3 weeks and 2 days.
    2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
24. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.