Pinnacle Spaces Limited (202405672)

Background

1. The resident has lived in her 6th floor flat since July 2021. She reported a chemical smell to emergency services on 20 January 2023. She said the smell affected her breathing and that of her 7 year old son. As a result, she has not returned to the property since February 2023. She has also reported a leak, noise from above and plaster beetles in the property. The landlord is the managing agent of the property and manages it on behalf of a freeholder.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

a.             The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

b.             The resident’s report of pests.

c.             The resident’s report of a chemical smell.

d.             The resident’s report of a leak.

3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB is outside of our jurisdiction.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of pests is outside of our jurisdiction.
6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:

a.             The resident’s report of a chemical smell.

b.             The landlord’s complaint handling.

7. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s report of a leak.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

8. We found that:

a.             The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of a chemical smell. It collaborated well with external companies to investigate the reports, ensure the safety of the resident and respond to her requests to move.

b.             The landlord failed to provide comprehensive records on how it dealt with the leak. There were large gaps, it placed the onus on the resident to raise a new repair despite not resolving the initial leak report and it could have made better use of its complaint handling investigation.

c.             The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in appropriate timescale.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

9. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months of the matter arising.
10. The resident raised a formal complaint on 15 May 2024 relating to noise incidents that last occurred in October 2022 which the landlord apparently then investigated. There is no evidence she raised a complaint at the time which exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and was brought to us for investigation. We have not seen evidence she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate the complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.

11. The resident raised concerns regarding plaster beetles on 3 January 2023. She alleged that this was reported to the site manager back in October 2021 and she was told then that the beetles would disappear as the plaster dried out.
12. This was part of the resident’s initial complaint. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated its contractor would contact the resident to arrange a visit.
13. The resident did not make any further reference to the pest issue in her escalation request.
14. We may not investigate matters that have not exhausted a landlord’s complaints process. There is no evidence the resident raised the complaint about the pest issue at stage 2 and there was no complaint handling failing by the landlord in this regard. As the pest issue was not escalated and not investigated at stage 2, we will not investigate that matter.

What we did not investigate

15. The resident has described how the alleged chemical smell impacted her health. While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. While we cannot consider the effect on health, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced due to any landlord failings.

What we did investigate

16. The landlord’s repairs policy states emergency repairs will be attended to within 24 hours and it aims to repair any identified issue within 5 working days. It advises situations such as a gas leak would constitute an emergency.
17. The resident first reported a chemical like smell coming through the air conditioning vents on 20 January 2023. She advised the landlord she had contacted Environmental Health, who had then referred her to the Fire Brigade. She alleged the smell caused her son to experience vomiting as well as eye and nose irritation. The Fire Brigade reported not detecting anything harmful but recommended further investigation.
18. The landlord responded appropriately to the initial reports. The records show it contacted the resident the same day to arrange a visit. It advised her that it would liaise with the Fire Brigade for guidance in this situation. This was an appropriate response and the Fire Brigade ruled out any immediate risk to the resident.
19. The resident reported a further incident on 25 January 2023. She alleged her son’s coughing progressively worsened until he left the flat. She stated hearing drilling and banging noises during the times the smell appeared. She requested the landlord investigate and provide information on any paint or chemicals that were used during ongoing work in the block.
20. The landlord responded appropriately by contacting the resident the same day to discuss the issue. The records show further communication over the next 2 days, during which it arranged an inspection for 30 January 2023. During the inspection, the landlord’s technical manager reported no smells present in the flat albeit it is noted that the visit took place a few days after the reports (due to the weekend). The landlord could have told her to contact it as soon as the smell was present so it could try to witness what the resident was experiencing at the time but its overall attempts to investigate were reasonable.
21. The resident responded by requesting a property move until the contractor could resolve the issue. The landlord advised that any decision regarding a move would be made by the local council and would also require evidence of a problem with the property, which to date had not been found. This was appropriate advice at this stage.
22. In order to investigate further, it arranged to visit the property again on 16 February 2023. On this occasion, 2 members of staff attended. The records show that they did not detect any smells within the flat. The officers also visited a neighbouring property to investigate if any works were taking place. This response shows the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and completed a thorough investigation.
23. During the visit, the resident referred to using her own air monitoring device. At the time of the visit, there were no unusual readings recorded. However, following the visit, the resident reported an increase in the readings which she believed to be formaldehyde. She also reported having a sensitivity to fibreglass particles as well as certain adhesives.
24. The landlord responded by advising it would arrange a third party air quality test. The tests would include both the flat and external hallway. It confirmed it would also change the filters within her ventilation unit. The records show it also visited all properties within the block to check for any similar reports. It offered a temporary hotel stay which recognised the resident’s distress. This response was reasonable and demonstrates the landlord continued to take the concerns seriously even after initial efforts did not locate any problem. It recognised the potential impact to the resident and was resolution focused.
25. Environmental Health and a third party contractor conducted air quality tests between 23 February 2023 and 31 March 2023. The tests took place inside and outside of the flat. Neither company detected any harmful elements and referenced the resident’s concern about formaldehyde. The report shows that, despite having a distinct smell and being detectable at low levels, no traces of this had been found. The reports do note that if issues continued, a more prolonged test may be beneficial. In this case, the landlord appropriately relied on the advice and guidance provided by the specialist contractor.
26. The resident raised a complaint on 15 May 2024. She raised worry about returning to the flat as the landlord had not provided an explanation for the reactions she and her son experienced. She alleged her furniture had been contaminated so was out of use and asked the landlord re-consider her request for a move.
27. In its complaint responses, the landlord provided further information on the investigations it had completed. It clarified that the results of the tests detected no harmful elements. It also confirmed it had checked with all of its contractors regarding usage of formaldehyde in any part of the flat or block. It provided full and open accounts of the investigations it completed. It reiterated that without evidence chemical smells meant she could not live in the property, it was unable to approve a permanent move.
28. Overall, the Ombudsman finds there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a chemical smell. The landlord acted in a timely manner consistent with its policy for an emergency repair. It conducted prompt and appropriate inspections to attempt to identify any air quality problems. When it could not detect any smell, it appropriately engaged the services of specialists to confirm its findings. Its decision not to approve a move was evidence-based.

29. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs into 3 priorities – emergency, urgent, and non-urgent. It categorises an uncontainable leak as an emergency and would therefore attend within 24 hours. Due to the absence of a repairs log, we are unable to identify how the landlord categorised the reported leak.
30. The resident notified the landlord of a potential leak on 1 September 2023. She said her water provider contacted her regarding water usage during the previous month. She advised that, as she had not been in the property since February 2023, this implied there was a leak.
31. The landlord responded within 4 working days by sending an engineer to the flat. It has provided no information to show this was a pre-arranged appointment, despite the resident advising she was not at the property. Where a landlord has not provided records, we may be unable to conclude that an action took place. We expect landlords to keep robust records of repair attempts. This ensures we can build a clear picture of events and establish what specific actions were taken.
32. The landlord’s records are then silent until 12 September 2023. The record indicates the contractor had pre-arranged this appointment. On this day the landlord contacted the resident to advise an engineer was on site but no one was answering. It is noted due to her health concerns she had requested a specific appointment time as opposed to a morning or afternoon appointment. It was reasonable for the landlord to meet this request due to the ongoing access issues.
33. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 14 September 2023. The engineer reported finding no leak but allegedly left the property due to feeling unwell. At this point, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to follow up on the report of high water usage and finish its investigations into the reported leak. Its failure to do so left the resident with an unresolved issue that caused her further time and trouble later in the timeline. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to apply a more proactive approach to arrange appointments with the resident to ensure access was granted in a timely manner.
34. The records are silent again until 22 November 2023 when the landlord raised a new appointment. We have seen evidence that the appointments arranged for 28 November 2023 and 14 December 2023 were attempted but it could not gain access. There was no service failure by the landlord in this regard.
35. In her complaint to the landlord on 15 May 2024, the resident referred again to her excessive water consumption. She stated water was leaking from the meter under the sink and the pipes were now corroding. She also referenced an intermittent damp smell in the flat.
36. The landlord’s stage 1 response failed to address how it would resolve this issue. It simply highlighted the number of failed engineer visits in September to December 2023. It also advised that any further failed visits would be chargeable to the resident. It stated she should contact them to re-arrange an appointment if she continued to receive high bills. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to propose a resolution, particularly given the resident gave it more detail on where the leak potentially was and the impact on the living conditions.
37. In her escalation, the resident alleged previous failures by the landlord’s contractors to fix older water leaks had led to this problem. She alleged other unresolved faults had caused the damp smell within the flat. She confirmed her water provider had applied a refund due to the excess water reading as proof the leak continued.
38. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that all repairs were attended to and necessary works completed. However, the landlord has provided no records to show how or when it resolved this matter. It offered no detail to the resident or the Ombudsman on what, if any, works were done to address her concerns of a leak.
39. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak. While it responded appropriately to the initial reports in line with its policy, it failed to follow up with the resident when access could not be gained in September 2023. It failed to investigate further even after the resident’s more detailed reports in mid-2024.
40. The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation for the time and trouble caused to her by the lack of proactive response to her leak reports. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failure which has adversely affected a resident. There is no indication that the leak is ongoing and the resident is still not at the property so we have not ordered any further actions regarding the leak.

41. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If a complaint is escalated to stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days. These timescales align with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
42. The resident raised a complaint on 15 May 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 8 working days later on 28 May 2024. This was within the timescale stated in its policy.
43. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 September 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 18 working days later on 24 October 2024. Again, this was within the timescales set out in its policy.
44. Overall, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The responses provided were in line with the timescales stated within both the landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Learning

Complaint handling

45. Recognising a complaint quickly and acting on it in line with the organisation’s policy and the Complaint Handling Code is essential for a fair and transparent service. The landlord responded within its policy timescales. However, it is essential for a landlord to fully investigate complaints and provide comprehensive responses. The landlord did not commit to fully resolving the leak in its complaint response even after the resident drew its attention to a meter and pipework. If this had happened at stage 1, the leak could have been investigated rather than asking the resident to wait for new water bills.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

46. Effective knowledge and information management is essential to ensure that landlords can manage repairs accurately and efficiently. In this case, the landlord provided limited records regarding management of the resident’s leak. The landlord must use its systems and processes to apply permanent corrective measures.

Communication

47. Clear and timely communication is critical when managing repairs. The landlord should always ensure it maintains communication with the resident where repair appointments have failed. This may reduce the risk of further repairs being required. Consistent communication builds trust and prevents unnecessary inconvenience.