Habinteg Housing Association Limited (202411853)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411853

Habinteg Housing Association Limited

13 June 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of blocked drains and smell of chemical fumes within the property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association specialising in wheelchair accessible housing. The landlord has a record the resident has reduced mobility and has sensory impairment. The property is a 2-storey maisonette. The resident has made the landlord aware that she lives at the property with a male lodger who has asthma.
  2. On 20 May 2024 the landlord attended a neighbouring property, identified a communal blockage affecting the building and advised the neighbour to contact the local water company. On 21 May 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that she believed there was a chemical smell in her home coming from the drains and a blocked pipe. She emailed the landlord on 5 June 2024 advising she had confirmation from the water company that they had not used any chemicals when recently clearing the blocked drain. She chased a response 2 days later and submitted a formal complaint on 27 June 2024 due to receiving no response from the landlord.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 4 July 2024, apologising for not responding. It explained that her email had been forwarded to the wrong department and offered £25 compensation in relation to this failure. In relation to the blocked drain and smell of chemicals it advised the resident this was the local water company’s responsibility and did not uphold that part of the complaint.
  4. The resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 11 July 2024 dissatisfied with the response. She reiterated that the water company had advised her they had not used any chemicals when clearing the drains on 20 May 2024 but she continued experiencing the odour and had experienced this for several years. She provided a copy of the reply from the water company.
  5. The landlord refused her request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 12 July 2024. It explained the external drain was the responsibility of the water company. It believed the compensation offered was reasonable. The resident brought her complaint to this Service, and we accepted it for investigation in November 2024.
  6. The landlord reviewed its complaint handling and wrote to the resident on 24 December 2024. It said it had identified that it could have conducted a better investigation within its internal process. It acknowledged it would have been reasonable for it to have escalated the complaint to stage 2 at the time and apologised for its service failure. It offered £350 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident stated she had raised concerns about the fumes coming from her drains for a number of years. However, we have not seen this issue being raised as a formal complaint prior to June 2024. This investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the events leading to her complaint, namely her reports from May 2024 that were considered in the landlord’s response.
  2. In accordance with our Scheme, residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlord’s normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. Due to the nature of the complaint, the investigation is likely to also consider some events following the end of the internal complaints procedures.
  3. The resident reported to us that the smell on 20 May 2024 had affected her eyes and throat. She sated the smell had also affected her and her lodger’s breathing. 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 better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
  4. The resident has also highlighted she was unhappy with some comments made about her by the landlord’s staff, as seen in the information provided by the landlord in response to her Subject Access Request (SAR) following the end of the landlord’s process. The resident has been offered compensation towards those issues which she advised us was inadequate. As this was offered after the end of the landlord’s complaint process and if the resident wants to pursue this further, she should raise it as a new complaint and exhaust the landlord’s process before we can investigate. The issue will not be covered within this investigation.

Legal and policy

  1. The landlord’s tenant handbook sets out its repair responsibilities. This, in part, states that the landlord is responsible for the upkeep of the “structure and outside of the properties, including drains, gutters and outside pipes”.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance service standards set out how it categorises its repair types and its target timescales. For an urgent repair, the landlord must attend within 5 working days and a routine repair within 20 working days from when it was reported.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider making an offer of discretionary compensation in circumstances where “inconvenience has been caused by the landlord’s actions or failure to act”. The policy does not give any guidance on what level of financial redress should be offered.

The landlords handling of blocked drains and the smell of chemical fumes

  1. Once the resident informed the landlord of chemical fumes entering her property and the problems this caused her, it should have responded to the matter in line with its obligations set out in the tenancy agreement, its published policies and procedures, and to ensure that it followed the relevant legislation.
  2. We have seen evidence that the landlord attended the neighbouring property following reports of a blocked drain on 20 May 2024. The resident’s email of 21 May 2024 said she had spoken to a member of the landlord’s staff that same day to report the smell and blocked drains in the property. While it acknowledged the resident’s service request the following day it failed to deal with it appropriately. The resident’s email advised the landlord the chemical fumes had affected her and her lodgers breathing. She reported that the smell was affecting her eyes and causing her a sore throat which made her open the windows for air. Its repair policy has little information as to what defines an urgent repair. However, in this case, with what had been reported it would have been an appropriate response to treat the report as urgent and attend within 5 working days.
  3. In its stage 1 response of 4 July 2024, the landlord apologised that it had not followed up on this service request as the resident’s email from May 2023 had been sent to the wrong department. It offered £25 for this failure. However, it did not take any further action to inspect the resident’s property further.
  4. We have seen evidence the resident sent 2 further emails regarding this service request on 5 and 7 June 2024 where she also stated that she had reported a smell and gases from her kitchen drain for several years. However, these were not reflected in the landlord’s response. These emails went unanswered and therefore there was a total of 3 missed opportunities by the landlord to attend the property, investigate the cause of the fumes and make a repair if necessary. There was a further missed opportunities for the landlord to attend the property when the resident attempted to escalate the issue to stage 2.
  5. This Service has seen no evidence to show how the landlord risk assessed the resident’s reports. Given the household vulnerabilities and reported affects, the landlord should have visited the property. However, in its responses it said it had relied on the experience of the contractor (who had not attended the resident’s property but the neighbouring one). This was not appropriate.
  6. The landlord wrote to the resident in December 2024 advising it had reviewed her case. The landlord acknowledged it could have conducted a better investigation at stage 1. The landlord again explained that the contractor who attended on 20 May 2024 did not smell any gases. However, it acknowledged that its surveyor had confirmed that sewer gases were normally present within sewage systems. It highlighted neither its contractor nor the water company operatives had encountered high levels of gas at the time of their visits.
  7. The landlord relied upon an assumption that as the resident had stated it was the external drain causing the fumes in her home it was the responsibility of the water company. It did not acknowledge at any stage that it should have treated her neighbour’s service request separately from her own and attended as per its repairs policy. This was unreasonable.
  8. The landlord conducted a smoke test on 23 September 2024 in response to a separate ongoing complaint of cooking fumes entering the resident’s property. Its findings showed there was a hole in the residents soil pipe near to her kitchen sink. The report further clearly stated that due to this hole an odour could be entering the property from “anywhere along the drain”. However, this was not reflected in the landlord’s review from December 2024.
  9. The resident reported to us the landlord had fixed this hole, along with other smaller holes on the soil pipe, identified during the works. Although we do not have the date, the resident stated the landlord had completed the work shortly after the holes were identified. The resident stated since the works completion she was no longer experiencing the fumes. This was however 4 months after the initial report on 21 May 2024 and only discovered as part of a separate investigation.
  10. The landlord, even after it completed its review, did not address the fact that it had not followed its own repairs policy. Although it was right to identify the external drains were not its responsibility, it did not acknowledge its responsibility as to inspect the property.
  11. In summary, there was an unnecessary delay in responding to the resident’s reports and investigating the issue. The landlord failed to risk assess the situation when the resident reported the household’s health concerns. As such, it failed to provide timely resolution of the issue and acknowledge the impact on the resident (even in its review following the end of the internal process). The £25 compensation offered at stage 1 was insufficient to put things right for the resident for the failures identified in this report. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of blocked drains and smell of chemical fumes within her property.

The associated complaint

  1. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 11 July 2023. However, the landlord refused to do so on the following day. There was a missed opportunity at the time to allow the resident to escalate her complaint in line with the landlord’s complaint handling policy which sets out its 2-stage complaints process. The Housing Ombudsman’s Service Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. If landlords decide not to accept a complaint, they must be able to evidence their reasoning. Each complaint must be considered on its own merit and in a fair way. We have seen however evidence (as below) to show the landlord did not consider this complaint fairly and appropriately.
  2. The Code states a positive complaint handling culture is integral to effectiveness with which landlords resolve disputes. The tone of some internal landlord emails, which we have seen, showed its culture on this occasion did not meet this standard. So, although it had explained why it had not escalated the complaint, it is clear that these emails had an influence on the landlord’s staff in refusing the escalation of the complaint. The landlord as such failed to show that the escalation refusal was based on the merit of the case and deprived the resident from a fair process.
  3. This specific landlord clearly provides accommodation for people who have a range of disabilities and its response to concerns is what creates trust. In this case the landlord could not demonstrate that it adopted a positive approach in creating such trust through its complaints process. As such, it missed an opportunity to assure the resident of its responsiveness and fair process.
  4. The landlord has since internally reviewed the complaint and acknowledged it would have been reasonable to have escalated the complaint to stage 2. It therefore acknowledged it had failed to follow the Code on this occasion. In recognition of this it wrote to the resident on 24 December 2024 and offered compensation of £350. Although the compensation amount was proportionate for the failures identified in this report related to its complaint handling, it was offered 6 months after the escalation refusal and only after the involvement of this Service.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of blocked drains and chemical fumes within her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to action the below points within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £625 compensation, made up of:
      1. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its lack of action.
      2. £350 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures in the associated complaint handling. This includes £350 which the landlord offered to the resident following the end of its complaint process (in December 2024). If the landlord has paid this already to extract it from this amount.
      3. £25 offered at stage 1.
    2. Write to the resident to apologise and provide reassurance further service requests/complaints will be actioned accordingly.

Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within 4 weeks.