London Borough of Hounslow (202527944)

Background

1. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his reports of an ongoing smell of sewage in his flat. He said his health was being affected and asked it to repair the water system to resolve the smell.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. the resident’s reports of the smell of sewage in the property
   2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. no maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of the smell of sewage in the property
   2. no maladministration in its complaint handling

We have not made any orders for the landlord.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the smell of sewage in the property

4. The landlord responded to each of the resident’s reports of smells in the flat and investigated the issue appropriately. It gave clear explanations of its findings and acknowledged that the issue was causing him distress despite its findings.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord conducted an efficient complaint investigation, keeping to timeframes and providing clear responses.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

`

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.

6. Between 5 January 2024 and 16 January 2025 the landlord responded to 5 reports from the resident about the smell of sewage. It attended on each occasion and investigated his concerns within the 20 day timeline set out for routine work in its Responsive Repairs Policy, which was positive. It showed that it was taking his reports seriously and wanted to resolve the problem as soon as possible.
7. The landlord took proactive steps to try and identify a source of the problem. It conducted thorough inspections of water supply systems and smell checks in the property. It ensured that it stayed in the property for more than 30 minutes for a smell inspection as requested by the resident. It also spoke to other residents of the building to see if the issue with smells extended to other properties. It reported no record of smells in any of its visits and explained this clearly to the resident, along with the steps it had taken.
8. After the resident made his complaint, the landlord conducted a further visit on 7 April 2025. It was again unable to identify any faults with the water system or detect any smells. It told the resident that it would not be able to take any further actions on the issue and set this out in its stage 2 response. Given its thorough investigation into each report, this was a reasonable response. It acknowledged he would be disappointed with this outcome which showed it took an empathetic approach to the complaint.
9. The resident said his health was impacted by the issue and the landlord’s inaction. We cannot say if its actions directly caused a detrimental impact on health. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court where medical experts can assess evidence. We can look at whether the landlord considered the resident’s reports of health issues, and the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings.
10. The resident provided the landlord with extensive diaries of how he said the issue was impacting his health. The diaries included severe symptoms. While the resident had not reported any pre-existing long term health conditions to the landlord, it could have considered ways it could offer him support when he told it about the symptoms he was experiencing. While not a failing, this extra support may have been beneficial for the resident.
11. The resident told us in January 2026 that he recently organised a plumber to inspect his water system in the flat. He said the plumber recommended replacement of piping and the hot water cylinder. We have made a recommendation that the landlord speaks to him to discuss the findings of the inspection and identify any actions it may take as a result.

12. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code.”)
13. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord provided its stage 1 response within 10 working days (25 March 2025 to 8 April 2025) which was in line with the 10 days allowed in the Code
    2. the landlord provided its stage 2 response within 6 working days (10 June 2025 to 18 June 2025) which was in line with the 20 days allowed in the Code
14. The landlord demonstrated good time management throughout the complaint process. It gave clear responses that set out steps it had taken and responded to each of the concerns the resident raised. It can reflect positively on its complaint handling.

Learning

15. The landlord responded well to the reports the resident made. It explored multiple options for bringing about a resolution and communicated its findings clearly. It understood its limitations and empathised appropriately with him. It could reflect on further steps it could take to support him with the health concerns he has raised and could consider signposting him to relevant local provisions.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

16. The landlord kept clear records of steps it had taken to try and address the issue and was able to provide these for the investigation and in its complaint responses. It recorded that the resident’s water provider had also taken samples and found no issues which it used to support its findings.

Communication

17. The landlord communicated clearly and regularly with the resident. It acknowledged when its responses were likely to disappoint him, which showed empathy.

.