Greenwich Council (202006184)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006184

Greenwich Council

26 July 2021


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 reports of an odour in his property.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 13 August 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that there was an unpleasant odour in his bedroom. He said he suspected that this was coming through an opening in his home connected to the communal bin chute. On 18 and 24 August 2020 the resident pursued an update and, on 24 August 2020 contacted the landlord’s chief executive. He said that on 24 August 2020 landlord’s repairs team told him to contact the caretaking team. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the issue.
  2. On 2 September 2020 the landlord advised the resident that it would clean the bin area. In reply, the resident asked the landlord to investigate how the odour got into his bedroom
  3. On 4 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It advised that its caretaking team said that the rubbish chute had been blocked on several occasions in the previous few months. The landlord believed that this, along with the warm weather, could have caused the odour in the resident’s home. The landlord said the chute was last unblocked on 28 August 2020 and, as of 4 September 2020, was clear of any blockages. The landlord said that if the resident remained unhappy with the response, the complaint would be reviewed.
  4. The resident replied that, even though the chute had been cleared, a strong odour was still present in his bedroom. He asked the landlord to visit his home to investigate and expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the issue.  The landlord called the resident on 8 September 2020 to advise that an appointment had been raised to ensure the chute was completely clear. The landlord noted that the resident asked for an inspection in his property, and it said it would await the outcome of the chute appointment.
  5. The resident wrote to the landlord’s chief executive on 13 September 2020. He was unhappy that the landlord had not investigated the odour in one of his bedrooms. He said the odour was causing distress to his family, and he asked for compensation. He pursued a response on 18 September 2020.
  6. On 18 September 2020 the landlord confirmed that it had booked an appointment to investigate on 21 September 2020. It did not clarify whether this was to investigate the rubbish chute or in the resident’s home. On 22 September 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that nobody had attended the appointment and he logged a complaint with this Service.
  7. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 30 September 2020. The operative who attended noted that the resident had showed him the built-in cupboard in the bedroom, and

“the odour from the cupboard was absolutely appalling and unbearable, almost vomit inducing. The cupboard was dry and had nothing stored inside. There were no vents or anything from where odours could come in. The cupboard is adjacent to the waste chute on the communal landing. I smelt the chute and the bin chamber below but although there was waste odours as one would expect they were nothing like the odour from the bedroom cupboard.”

  1. The landlord attended again on 8 October 2020 and found that a pipe in front of the cupboard led into the bin chamber. The pipe was leaking and wet in the bin chamber, and the operative noted that this could be the source of the odour. He also noted that the pipe needed to be tested for asbestos.
  2. The resident asked for an update on 16 October 2020. The landlord’s internal records state that the resident advised the odour had become unbearable.
  3. After receiving the asbestos test result, the landlord attended the property on 19 October 2020. It disinfected the pipe and applied expanding foam to the gap. Further finishing works to the pipe were required.
  4. The resident sent this Service an email update on 7 November 2020 and copied the landlord. He said that he had been unable to sleep in the bedroom from July to October 2020. 
  5. The landlord completed further works to the pipe on 10 November 2020. It attempted to call the resident on 18 November 2020 to confirm that the only works outstanding were to renew the boxing around the pipe on 30 November 2020. It asked the resident to confirm if this resolved the odour.
  6. In the landlord’s stage one response of 25 November 2020, it confirmed that, following the resident’s email of 4 September 2020, it cleared the rubbish chute on 21 September 2020, which was within its repair timescales for “this type of repair”. The landlord said that when the resident reported that the problem persisted, and it found the problem to be with a soil stack within the property leading to the bin chamber room, it ordered an asbestos test of the pipe. It received the results on 19 October 2020 and began works the same day, with finishing works scheduled for 30 November 2020.
  7. The landlord concluded that it acted appropriately since receiving the report of the odour, and there had not been any service failure which warranted payment of compensation.
  8. On 29 November 202 the resident said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response because:
    1. He reported the issue in August 2020 on several occasions and was passed between different departments.
    2. On 4 September 2020 he asked the landlord to complete an inspection within his flat to investigate the source of the odour. The chute was cleared on 21 September 2020, but this did not seek to establish why the odour was coming into the flat.
    3. The landlord first entered his home to investigate the odour on 30 September 2020, and took until 19 October 2020 to seal the openings around the pipe which was the source of the odour.
    4. The room was uninhabitable as a result of the odour and the resident was sleeping in the lounge.
  9. On 30 November 2020 the landlord confirmed it would review the resident’s complaint. It explained that if it was not able to investigate and respond within 20 working days, it would tell the resident why and provide a revised timescale.
  10. The resident pursued an update on from the landlord on 6 February 2020, and contacted this Service. On 22 February 2021 we asked the landlord to provide the resident with its stage two response within five working days. After no response, we pursued it again on 8 March 2020.
  11. The landlord sent its final response to the complaint on 8 March 2021. It said that there was no service failure in resolving the repair as out lined in its previous response, because it responded promptly to resolve the issue within its repair timescales. However, the landlord acknowledged its delay in responding to the complaint, which it said was due to staff shortages caused by the Covid-19 Pandemic. In recognition of this the landlord offered the resident £25.00.  The landlord explained that this was its final response and set out the next steps the resident could take if he remained unhappy.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s ‘repairs book’ gives the following repair priorities and timescales:
  1. Two hours for an emergency repair
  2. One to five working days for an urgent repair
  3. Up to 20 working days for a non-urgent repair
  1. In line with the landlord’s complaints procedure, it will acknowledge complaints within five days of receipt, respond within 15 working days of receipt of a complaint, and respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days of escalation. 
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy says that tenants can be potentially compensated for the complete or partial loss of one or more rooms, where they are uninhabitable during a period of repair work. To qualify the room must be out of use for more than one full week. The landlord’s compensation procedure also allows for discretionary payments.
  3. The landlord inspected the resident’s bedroom on 30 September 2020, 34 working days after his initial report of an odour in his bedroom on 13 August 2020.  While it was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the bin chute as part of its investigation into the cause of the odour, it seems that it would have been appropriate to also inspect the bedroom, given that that was the resident’s reported concern. When the room was inspected the cause of the problem was identified almost immediately. We cannot say for certain that the problem would have been found equally quickly if the room had been inspected when the problem was first reported, but it appears likely.
  4. The landlord explained, in its complaint response, that “The chute was cleared on the 21st of September 2020 which was within our timescales for response to this type of repair”. However, the resident did not report a problem with the chute. He reported offensive odours in his bedroom. The landlord’s response to the complaint was therefore incorrect. The operative’s account of 30 September 2020 corroborates the resident’s report that the odour in the bedroom made it unusable. After all, the operative described his first-hand impression of the smell as “absolutely appalling and unbearable, almost vomit inducing”. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may consider compensation for the loss or partial loss of a room, but there is no evidence of it doing so. In the circumstances, that was not reasonable. 
  5. The Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code advises that a complaint is defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. Landlords are encouraged to resolve disputes at the earliest possible opportunity, and even when a resident does not explicitly use the word ‘complaint’, it should not prevent a landlord from identifying it as such.
  6. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his reports on several occasions, including in his emails to: the chief executive on 24 August 2020 and 13 September 2020; the landlord on 22 September 2020, advising that he contacted this Service on 22 September 2020; and copying the landlord into his email to this Service on 7 November 2020. Despite the resident’s clear expressions of dissatisfaction in August and September, the landlord did not raise a complaint until contact by this Service on 11 October 2020, after which it sent its response on 25 November 2020 (32 days). The response was well outside the landlord’s 15 day timeframe. It did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay.  
  7. The landlord took 67 days, to provide a final complaint response. That was again outside the 20-day timescale set out in its complaints policy. The landlord did not update the resident, resulting in both this Service and the resident pursuing the response. The landlord offered £25 for this delay, but this was not proportionate to the delay and time and trouble that the resident put into pursuing his complaint, or in line with this Service’s remedies guidance. It also did not address the delays in the landlord raising and responding to the complaint at stage one.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an odour in his property.

Reasons

  1. While the landlord did check if the rubbish chute was blocked, it did not inspect the resident’s bedroom, which was the issue that had been reported. As a result, there was a delay in the landlord diagnosing and fixing the cause of the odour. The landlord did not consider offering the resident compensation for not being able to use this room. It offered £25 for its delay in providing its stage two response, but this was not proportionate to the significant delays at both stages of its complaint process.


Orders

  1. In light of the findings of this investigation, the landlord is ordered to, within four weeks of the date of this report, pay the resident £425. This is comprised of:
    1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delay in inspecting the resident’s home and resolving the odour problem, and its failure to consider whether the room was unusable.
    2. £75 for the time and trouble that the resident went to in pursuing his complaint with the landlord, and the landlord’s complaint delays.
  2. This payment is in addition to the £25 offered by the landlord in its complaints process, which it should also pay now, if it has not done so already.
  3. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.