Nottingham City Council (202420013)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420013

Nottingham City Council

5 September 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

The resident has complained about:
1. The landlord’s response to their reports of a foul odour in the property.
We have also investigated:
1. The landlord’s record keeping.
2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy agreement. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a high-rise building. In November 2023 the resident reported a foul odour, described as a burning chemical smell, in the property.
The landlord’s records show on 8 May 2024 the resident complained about the landlord’s response to her reports of the odour. In the notes provided by the landlord, the resident said this odour had been present since the previous year and she had to regularly chase the landlord to try to resolve the issue. The resident said the smell had made her ill, resulting in her being hospitalised. The resident has not disputed the landlord’s account of her complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 14 May 2024. It agreed to insulate and board a service cupboard in the resident’s home to eliminate the smell, which it said was entering the property from the ducting system. The landlord said it would carry out the work the following day, and it apologised to the resident.
The landlord’s records show the resident escalated her complaint on 24 June 2024. The landlord’s notes show the resident complained that the odour had not been resolved. The landlord’s records also say the resident reported the landlord had not contacted her since approximately the 3rd week of May 2024, and she said it had not taken ownership of the issue. The resident also noted she had been living with her mother because of the odour.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 22 July 2024. It said it had been unable to find the source of the odour. It noted previous work it had completed to the resident’s washing machine and to the internal ducting to try to eliminate possible sources. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience and that it had not yet identified the cause of the odour. It acknowledged that the resident had been living with her mother because of the odour and it offered her £150 for the distress she had experienced. It said to resolve the issue it planned to:
1. Survey and replace any existing copper waste pipe fittings with plastic in the kitchen and bathroom. It said the odour could be due to corrosion, based on reports of the smell being metallic.
2. Remove and inspect all ventilation ducts. It said other flats had not reported an issue, so it was unlikely the odour was coming from the buildings ventilation system, but it needed to eliminate all possible sources.
On 21 August 2024 the resident brought her complaint to this Service. She said the landlord had not resolved the odour. The resident said to resolve matters she would like the landlord to completely remove the odour and to refund her the rent she paid during the period she was not able to live at the property. The resident also said she would like the landlord to permanently rehouse her if it was unable to resolve the odour.
The landlord’s record’s say it completed further work to the service cupboard in Mid-August 2024, but this did not resolve the issue. It appears that in September 2024 a further investigation from the District Heating Team was arranged. It seems this was completed in early November 2024, and the records say lagging on the heating pipework was removed, as the landlord thought this was causing the odour.
The landlord’s records say it first discussed temporarily moving the resident to alternative accommodation on 4 December 2024. On 13 January 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident, requesting her agreement to a 3-month temporary move. The landlord said it identified a suitable flat in March 2025 but was unable to arrange a viewing as the resident was not contactable and did not respond to its correspondence. It is unclear when the resident responded to this letter.
The resident has recently told this Service the landlord did not complete the work set out in its stage 2 complaint response and it did not move her into alternative accommodation until June 2025. She has said the landlord completed further work to the airing cupboard between 16 June 2025 and 16 July 2025. At the time of writing this report, the resident has not reported to this Service that the odour has returned.

Assessment and findings

Scope

Part of the resident’s complaint is that she became unwell because of the odour. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Assessment

Having carefully considered matters, we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s response to the foul odour, record keeping, and complaint handling. We have set out our findings, recommendations and orders below.

The landlord’s response to the reports of the foul odour

A landlord’s repair responsibilities would normally be set out in the tenancy agreement and repair policy. These are also established in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. In this case, the landlord has not provided a repair policy, and the tenancy agreement does not include its responsibilities. However, there is no dispute that resolving the odour was the landlord’s responsibility, nor is there any dispute that it accepted this responsibility.
The landlord’s ‘Housing service offer’ says the landlord aims to respond to priority 2 repairs in 30 working days. The resident first raised concerns about the odour on 3 November 2023. The landlord’s repair records show on the same day a repair job was created for the District Heating team (DA) to attend. The landlord has said the DA attended on 6 November 2023 and at this time it checked the property was safe and confirmed this to the resident.
The resident has said she continued to report the issue between November 2023 and April 2024, and she reports that while the landlord carried out several visits during this period it did not take action to resolve the issue. There is a gap in the landlord’s records from 3 November 2023 to 8 April 2024. So, it is unclear what action, if any, the landlord undertook during this time to resolve the issue. This means we are unable to conclude the landlord acted reasonably or appropriately in response to the resident’s reports during this time. This also demonstrates issues with the landlord’s record keeping that are considered further below.
The landlord’s records say it raised repair jobs on 8 April, 9 April and 10 April 2024, and on 7 May 2024. However, it is not clear from the landlord’s records when or if it attended the property and what action it carried out. This also demonstrates an issue with record keeping.
The landlord has said that due to the odour being an intermittent issue, it was challenging to locate the source of the odour and determine what action would resolve the matter.
Taking the above into account, it seems the landlord attended several times between 3 November 2023 and 8 May 2024. We recognise that an intermittent issue may, by its nature, cause challenges. However, the lack of evidence showing what action the landlord took means it’s not possible to say the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the odour were in line with its repair obligations or were fair and reasonable.
There’s no dispute that the landlord completed the work set out in its stage 1 response. However, the resident has told this Service the landlord did not complete the work it agreed to in its stage 2 letter. It is unclear whether the resident accepted the goodwill payment.
The evidence the landlord has provided does not show if or when the works set out in its stage 2 response were completed. It seems the landlord raised one repair job in July 2024 under the reference 4973985/1. This appears to be a job sent to the DA. While the job description refers to finding the source of the odour, there is no mention of replacing the waste pipe fittings or inspecting ventilation ducts. So, the Ombudsman cannot say the landlord completed the work agreed in its stage 2 response letter.
Part of the resident’s complaint is that from November 2023 to May 2024 the landlord did not take ownership of the issue. The information the landlord has sent us also suggests this. In an email dated 22 July 2024 the landlord confirms the odour had been reported multiple times, and while it had completed several visits no one had taken ownership of the issue and corelated the works carried out. This is a failing by the landlord.
The resident reports that the odour’s impact on her health made the property uninhabitable. She has said she would like the landlord to reimburse her rent during the period she did not live at the property. She has provided a letter from her doctor which she feels supports this.
It is not our role to assess medical evidence, and we cannot draw this conclusion from the letter the resident has provided. However, we can consider the landlord’s response once it was aware of the resident’s health concerns. And we would expect the landlord to demonstrate that it had taken such reports seriously by factoring it into its decision making. While it is not clear whether the resident shared the doctor’s letter with the landlord, it is clear she reported her concerns as early as May 2024.
The landlord has said it is not aware of the outcome of any contact between the resident and its letting team in relation to her request for a reduction of rent. It has said it checked the property was safe and it is only aware of one occasion in July 2024 when it decided not to enter the property because of the odour. It has said on that occasion, the property had not been ventilated as the resident was not living there at the time. The landlord has shared emails which say it attended on 30 July 2024 and during that visit “…the odour was so severe no person could enter the property”, and “…no one can be expected to live with the smell.” The landlord has not provided evidence to show what checks it carried out to determine the property was safe and habitable.
It appears the landlord has a process whereby its letting team must receive confirmation that a property is uninhabitable before it will consider a reduction in rent. The landlord has provided emails which appear to show it started this process in July 2024 with a request for staff who had attended the property to confirm whether it was unliveable. While it appears staff who attended gave the opinion that the property was unliveable, it seems the landlord did not consider this further.
The landlord and the resident have provided different opinions on whether the property was safe and habitable. These opinions, including the landlord’s comments in the emails mentioned above, have not been supported by expert evidence from a surveyor or an otherwise suitably qualified person. So, it’s not clear whether it was appropriate for the resident to live in the property.
It is not for this Service to determine whether there was a health and safety risk or to decide whether a property is habitable. However, the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 says the landlord must ensure a property is fit for human habitation and free from hazards from the start, and throughout, a tenancy.
As our investigation process is evidence based, we would expect the landlord to be able to demonstrate that it has taken suitable steps to ensure the property was habitable. Given the resident’s reports and the landlord’s own account of the severity of the odour when it attended in July 2024, it is concerning that the landlord has not provided evidence to show it considered this.
The landlord has said to address the resident’s concerns it agreed to temporarily rehouse her. However, based on the evidence available the landlord did not consider this until early December 2024, which is approximately 6 months after it became aware of the resident’s concerns about her health and the habitability of the property. And more than a year after her original reports of the odour. We also note this was offered because the landlord needed to carry out destructive work to the property, and not because it had considered whether the odour posed a health and safety risk or made the property uninhabitable.
The landlord has said it could have offered to move the resident sooner, but she was reluctant to move. However, it has provided no evidence to support this. And this seems unlikely, as the resident had already temporarily moved out to live with a relative.
Based on the evidence provided we cannot say whether the property was uninhabitable or that the landlord should reimburse the resident her rent for the periods she lived away from the property. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was a failure by the landlord in not demonstrating that it had considered the resident’s concerns about health and safety, the habitability of the property, and the rent she was being charged for it.
It is clear this caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience, including the impact she felt the odour was having on her health. This ultimately led to her decision to intermittently move out of the property for what she has reported was a period of approximately 3 months, causing significant inconvenience.
In recognition of the distress and inconvenience the landlord’s failings have caused, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident £800 compensation, inclusive of the £150 has it already offered her. This is not intended to reimburse the resident the cost of any rent she has paid, rather, it is to ensure the landlord’s failures for this aspect of the complaint are recognised through the overall compensation offer. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which is available on our website, in cases where there has been a significant impact over a prolonged period of time.
Additionally, to bring about a lasting resolution, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to complete a follow-up visit for the latest work completed to ensure the foul odour no longer persists. And the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to send an apology, from a senior member of staff, for the failings in its response to the resident’s concerns about the foul odour.

The landlord’s record keeping

As highlighted above, the landlord’s record keeping has been poor in this case. It has not provided contemporaneous reports of the outcome of repairs and visits. This has made it difficult for this Service to assess whether many of the actions taken by the landlord were fair and reasonable.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is unclear whether the landlord does not have this information, if no record was kept, or if the landlord simply failed to provide it for the purposes of this investigation. Regardless, this is a record keeping failure. Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report.
We have recommended the landlord review and consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report.
We have also recommended that the landlord’s senior management team review this case so it can learn from what went wrong and consider what information to provide this Service in the future.

The associated complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) aims to improve complaint handling across the housing sector. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is obliged to establish and maintain a complaints procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman.
The Code says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions. In her initial complaint and stage 2 escalation the resident raised concerns that:
1. The landlord had not resolved the odour.
2. She had to keep chasing the landlord for a resolution.
3. She had become unwell and was hospitalised because of the odour.
4. The landlord had not taken ownership of the issue.
5. She had been unable to live at the property.
The landlord did not address ‘b’, ‘c’ or ‘d’ in its complaint responses. So, it has not answered the resident’s complaint in accordance with the Code. This is a failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for not addressing all the points she raised.
The Ombudsman has not identified any other issues with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a foul odour in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £800 compensation for the distress and inconvenience, inclusive of the £150 it already offered.
2. Revisit the property and establish whether the odour has been resolved.
3. Send the resident a written apology, from a senior member of staff, for its failings in its response to the resident’s concerns about the foul odour, and for its failure to address all her complaint points.
Any amount of compensation ordered by the Ombudsman is to be paid directly to the resident. The landlord is to ensure that evidence of compliance with this order is provided to us within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

We recommend:
1. The landlord review and consider the findings and recommendations of our ‘Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management’ report.
2. The landlord’s senior management team review this case so it can learn from what went wrong and consider what information to provide the Ombudsman in the future.