Hyde Housing Association Limited (202128018)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128018

Hyde Housing Association Limited

6 October 2022


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 an odour pervading her home, and;
    2. the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident advised the landlord of a foul smell pervading her property in September 2019. The landlord has stated that it attended the property on 25 October 2019 to inspect and try to determine the cause of the smell, but found no smell was present. Between October 2019 and February 2020, the landlord states that it received multiple reports from the resident regarding the smell and attended these, but could not perceive a smell. The landlord determined the case closed in March 2020 as it stated that the resident did not respond to its communication. It says that it reopened the case when the resident contacted it in June 2020.
  3. The landlord has stated that it visited again at this time, but again no smell was found. It states that its contractor carried out an inspection in July 2020 which found no issues or smells. The landlord said that its follow up communication with the resident was not responded to, and that in August 2020 Thames Water confirmed that there were no issues in the area. The landlord said that as the resident could not be contacted in October 2020, it again closed the case.
  4. The resident states that she raised a formal complaint with the landlord in December 2020 concerning its handling of the reported smell issue. As she received no response, she chased the landlord up, who said it had not received her letter, and so she sent another copy on 2 February 2021 (which the landlord acknowledged). The landlord provided a stage one response in April 2021.
  5. The landlord states that it raised an investigation with its Environmental Health Team in July 2021, and says that its Product Quality Team and its Property Team also attended the property a number of times to inspect, and reported no smell. The landlord states that a further investigation was carried out by its contractor, which advised that the ventilation system be serviced. The landlord says that due to ‘unforeseen circumstances’ there was a delay in raising the order for this, and so an appointment was not made until March 2022. At this appointment, no smell was present.
  6. In the meantime, the resident escalated her complaint to stage two in April 2021, chased this up in August and December 2021, and again in January 2022.
  7. In its final complaint response dated 21 March 2022, the landlord explained that it had investigated the smell on several occasions and it had exhausted all actions it could take. It offered the resident compensation of £100 as an apology for the delayed stage two response.
  8. The resident contacted this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s investigation outcome. She has since arranged a move from the property , and is seeking compensation of £3,000 to cover the cost of moving expenses and items of furniture. The resident stated that the landlord had caused her “an enormous amount of suffering”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. Generally, the Ombudsman’s investigations consider matters that were brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within six months of them occurring. In this case the issues began in September 2019, but the resident did not make a formal complaint until over a year later. However, the landlord did address matters dating back to 2019 in its formal response to the complaint, and the information available indicates that the resident pursued the matter with the landlord regularly from 2019. In light of this, the investigation extends to encompass events from September 2019.
  2. The resident has described the adverse affect the issue has had on her health. The Ombudsman was sorry to hear this and does not doubt the resident’s description. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions/inaction, and the resident’s health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement between the landlord and the resident states that it is responsible for making sure the structure and outside of the property are kept repaired. This includes drains, gutters and pipes.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage internal complaints procedure. At stage one, it is to provide a response within ten working days of the complaint. At the final stage, it is to provide a response within 20 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the reports of odour pervading the resident’s home

  1. In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord was obliged to investigate the resident’s report of a foul smell, to determine whether this was caused by a repair issue.
  2. As part of this investigation the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide evidence to show how it went about this, such as copies and records of the resident’s reports of the odour, contact notes and copies of correspondence between the landlord and the resident concerning this, records of the investigations carried out by the landlord’s environmental health organisation, its property team, repair/works logs, records of dates property attended, and copies of any survey or inspection reports, or feedback from other employees or contractors in respect of the matter.
  3. In response the landlord provided:
    1. An email from the local authority’s environmental health team stating that it had visited due to the resident’s reports of a foul drain like odour, which they had not been able to smell, and concluded would not be caused by the stack pipe. It was suggested that the likely source of the odour was the continuous ventilation system and asked the landlord to investigate this.
    2. A repair record dated 2 August 2021 which records an attendance where no smell was present, and suggesting that the inlet and outlet vents of the ventilation system be checked as a cause of the smell.
    3. An email dated 23  September 2021 confirming that the landlord had visited the property on 5 August 2021 and no smell was present, and that an order had been raised for a drainage contractor to inspect.
    4. An email dated 10 August 2021 stating that the property had been visited the previous day and no smell was present and no possible cause of a smell could be found.
    5. A repair record dated 23 September 2021 for a drainage contractor to investigate sewage smells.
    6. Further repair records dated December 2021 and January 2020 to investigate sewage smells.
  4. While the copy of the repair records provided date back to and include issues from 2019, there is no record of the resident’s reports of odours, or evidence of the landlord investigating or otherwise taking action in response to the resident’s concerns prior to August 2021. Therefore, there is no evidence to support its response to the complaint or the actions it states that it took in 2019 and 2020. Neither have any records been provided of it trying to make contact with the resident during this period as stated, and it has not provided copies of the resident’s initial complaint or her subsequent escalation (which the Ombudsman also requested).
  5. This is a failing on the part of the landlord. Clear record keeping and management is a core landlord function, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.
  6. The resident has provided a detailed time line of events from 2019. In this she sets out that she first reported the smell to the landlord in September 2019. She states that she was directed to the product quality team because the property was a new build. The resident states that someone from that team attended and promised to raise jobs for plumbers and maintenance to attend. When the resident called to chase this up in December 2019 she was told that no jobs had been raised. The resident explains that she continued to chase this matter over the following months with no assistance being offered by the landlord, and being told by the landlord that as the property was still within the defect period it was not for the repairs team to investigate.
  7. The resident states that when she received an ‘end of defects period’ letter in May 2020 she called the landlord again to report the ‘defect’ and then had to chase this up as the landlord provided no response. The resident explains that she then sent a letter to the landlord in June 2020 about the matter. In July 2020 the resident recalls that a contractor attended to inspect, advised that the smell may be due to the position of the property and the stack pipes, but did not include this information in their subsequent report.
  8. The resident details numerous other calls and letters sent to the landlord throughout 2020 and into 2021, including a formal complaint in December 2020 via recorded delivery, which was responded to in April 2021. The resident escalated the complaint in a letter dated 6 April 2021. The resident has also provided a copy email from her MP to the landlord dated May 2021, detailing the impact the matter was having on her health and that the smell was worse at night, and a copy of a letter her advocate sent to the landlord in August 2021 chasing a response to the April 2021 escalation request and again advising that the smell was worse at night and during heavy rain, and requesting that the landlord visit at this time to try and witness it.
  9. The resident’s timeline records that a surveyor attended in August 2021 and said that the pipework would need to be inspected. A drainage company then attempted to attend while the resident was away in December 2021, and later attended on 10 January 2022 and suggested that a camera survey of the stack pipes was required, but this did not then go ahead. The resident states that another contractor attended in March 2022 to look at the ventilation system, and advised that this would not be the cause of any smells.
  10. It is noted that the resident has provided proof of postage of the letters she has referred to being sent to the landlord. In lieu of any records or evidence from the landlord of its actions in relation to the matter prior to August 2021, this investigation is based on the resident’s account of events. This indicates that the landlord failed to take meaningful action to investigate and address the resident’s reports from September 2019 until August 2021, which also accords with there being no evidence of if having done so during this period.
  11. Even from the landlord’s own account as set out in its response to the complaint, it took no action to investigate other than attending to try and witness the smell from September 2019 until July 2020 (and has not provided evidence of the outcome of the inspection in July 2020). This was a significant failing on the part of the landlord. The resident’s account also indicates that the landlord failed to respond to many of her communications. These failings, over a prolonged period, led to time and trouble, inconvenience, and distress to the resident.
  12. This also means that the information that the landlord provided in its responses to the complaint (which is summarised in the background section of this report) is not supported: For example the suggestion that it visited numerous times between 2019 and February 2020 is not supported by any evidence or details of these visits.
  13. From August 2021, both the resident’s account and the landlord’s repair records show that investigations were undertaken to try and determine the source of the smell, and that no repair issue was identified as the cause. These investigations were reasonable, and show the landlord taking steps to try and address the matter. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified contractors, as well as the environmental health team, when no repair issue could be found that would explain the smell that the resident was experiencing. However, the investigations should have happened much sooner. Further, the  repair records show that the landlord was made aware by the environmental health team in July 2021 that the unwanted smell may have been the result of the ventilation system. However, this was not inspected until March 2022. While it is noted that no fault was found with the ventilation system and so this delay did not affect the outcome of the matter, it would have caused additional frustration and time and trouble to the resident.
  14. Finally, there is no indication that the landlord considered attending at the times when the resident said that the smell was most usually present: At night, and during heavy rainfall.
  15. In light of the above, an order for compensation is made. The amount takes into account the adverse affect that the resident experienced due to the long delays and poor communication identified above, over an extended period, alongside the fact that even had the delays not occurred, this likely would not have impacted the overall outcome, as there is no evidence that repair issues for which the landlord would be responsible were the cause of the smell reported.
  16. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s request for £3000, the compensation that is ordered below is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, which sets out that amounts of  between £100 and £600 are appropriate in cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, as well as cases where a landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. In line with its complaints policy, the landlord should have responded to the resident’s stage one complaint within ten working days. The landlord’s complaints department appears not to have received the recorded delivery letter that the resident sent in 2020. However, even when this was re-sent in early February 2021, it took the landlord two months to respond.
  2. Stage two complaints should be responded to within 20 working days. The resident requested to escalate the complaint to stage two in April 2021, and has provided proof of postage. She has also provided copy letters sent to the landlord chasing this up in December 2021, and again in January 2022. The landlord issued its stage two response in March 2022. This was a significant delay, with no evidence that the resident was kept updated, and no explanation for this provided.  
  3. Overall, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in a suitable timeframe. Combined with the lack of evidence to support some of the information given in the complaint responses, there were significant failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, which would have caused the resident additional time and trouble, frustration and distress. The landlord’s offer of £100 compensation is inadequate to address this. As such, an increased amount is ordered as a remedy.

Determination

  1.  In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord the handling of the resident’s reports of an odour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £700, comprised of £400 in relation to the handling of the resident’s reports of an odour pervading her home, and £300 in relation to the complaint handling.

If the  £100 previously offered by the landlord has already been paid, it can be deducted from this total. 

  1. Review its record keeping practices in relation to issues reported during the defects period, responsive repairs, and complaint handling. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained. As part of its review, the landlord should consider whether a record management policy and staff training are required. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman confirming this review has been completed and detailing the outcome.
  2. Review its processes for addressing issues reported during the defects period, taking into account the failings identified in this report, and considering whether action has been/needs to be taken to address this. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman confirming this review has been completed and detailing the outcome.