London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202008433)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008433

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

24 June 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:

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of odours in the property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a one-bedroom second-floor flat in a block of flats with communal areas, including a lift, car park and bin stores under an assured tenancy which began on 26 October 2015 for a 6-year fixed period. It is assumed it was renewed. The landlord had vulnerabilities recorded for her including her mental health and learning difficulties.

Legal and policy framework

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord was obliged to ensure it kept the lift and other communal areas repaired. Emergency and urgent repairs related to internal not communal repairs. The services provided in the block included refuse collection, refuse equipment hire, pest control, lift maintenance, a cleaning contract and ground maintenance for which the resident paid a fixed service charge and for which, under the repairs policy, the landlord was responsible. Under the policy, the landlord was also responsible for the bin stores, the bin stores doors, bulk rubbish removal and other clearance and pest control. The landlord was also responsible for keeping internal pipes in the resident’s property in repair. When diagnosing repairs that were reported by vulnerable residents, it would consider whether the defect was putting the resident at risk because of their physical or mental health. Under its repair policy, it would charge tenants for removing any of the residents’ belongings or rubbish from communal areas.
Under its estate management policy, the landlord would carry out inspections on a monthly basis. Estate inspections were used to monitor the upkeep and condition of its estates and to identify issues such as repairs and maintenance, health and safety, and environmental nuisance. They also helped to assess the quality of estate services including cleaning, caretaking and grounds maintenance within neighbourhoods. Property managers (PMs) should advertise all estate inspection dates on noticeboards to keep residents informed, conduct estate inspections on any scheduled date, and ensure that the inspection schedule was completed on time. The policy set out the standards the landlord was to meet, including that :
1. Bin stores areas were clean and tidy as well as free of bad odours, were well maintained, and in good condition.
2. Bin chutes were free from blockage.
3. There was no bulk rubbish or hazardous items in the communal areas.
The PMs were to ensure they correctly graded an estate after each inspection. A standard “Not met” would include a “sudden excessive” number of repairs/issues than normal in communal areas. This could give rise to the PMs raising actions for improvement. The standards were monitored and formed part of the landlord’s performance monitoring.
The estate management policy also provided that there were two designated residents who would assist the PM in carrying out visual checks of the estate/neighbourhood and to inform the PM of any issues or concern and to give their views on what action should be taken. The policy set out a detailed procedure for inspections every month and the landlord could also arrange ad hoc inspections. The inspections would include bin stores. Signs of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) would have to be recorded on the estate inspection application for the specific communal areas being assessed. Examples of ASB included dumping bulk rubbish.
Under the tenancy agreement, tenants were prohibited from doing anything that caused or was likely to cause nuisance, interfere with the peace, comfort or convenience of other people living in the local area. The landlord was also obliged to keep any communal areas free from rubbish, put all refuse in appropriate bin bags and dispose of them in the communal bin areas. Breaching a condition of the tenancy could constitute, in certain circumstances, grounds for repossession.
The landlord’s complaints procedure was a two-stage process. It would respond to the complaint in writing within 10 working days after it received a complaint with the outcome of its investigation, how it would resolve the complaint and the timescales. If the resident was dissatisfied with the outcome, they could request an escalation of their complaint to Stage two. The landlord would respond within 20 working days of the request to escalate.

Chronology

The resident’s reports relevant to her complaint and the landlord’s actions in relation to the resident’s reports are summarised as follows:
1. There were reports of fly-tipping on 16 July 2019, 1 November 2019, 16 and 17 January 2020, 6 March 2020, 15 and 18 May 2020, 16 July 2020, 17 July 2020, 22 July 2020, 18 August 2020, 22 September 2020, 22 and 23 October 2020, 3 and 18 November 2020, 2 December 2020, 18 December 2020 (delay over the Christmas period), 7,13 and 15 January 2021, 3, 5 and 17 March 2021. Actions included removal of the refuse and cleaning the areas with disinfectant.
2. A report of rodents on 5 November 2020 was attended to by a pest control contractor on 19 November 2020. A similar report was made on 6 January 2021 and works were completed on 12 February 2021. On 13 April 2021, a job was raised to cut trees back in response to the resident’s reports of rodents. It also recommended a bait programme.
3. Bin doors were reported as unable to close on 17 January 2020, 2 and 25 November 2020. Remedial actions are referred to in the chronology below.
4. Reports of drains overflowing with sewage affecting the communal entrance on occasions including the lift area, footpath, moving along the street, and including, on occasions, human waste and dirty water were made on 22 October 2019, 24 October 2019, 13 March 2020, in April 2020, 13 May 2020, on 8, 17 and 30 June 2020, on 2,3, 6 and 7 July 2020 (when a local utility company attended and an environmental clean to the communal areas to ground floor of the block took place), 14 July 2020, 3 August 2020, 12 August 2020 (when a drain collapsed due to a root ingress).
According to the landlord’s repair records, the landlord acted upon those reports on the same day or a few days later.
On 5 July 2019, the resident’s local authority had refused her application for rehousing as she did not meet the high threshold for inclusion on medical grounds. According to the landlord’s records, the landlord attended the property on 9 July 2019 in response to the resident having reported a metallic smell inside her flat. The landlord’s officer did not identify the odour in the property but did identify a smell of cannabis from outside.
The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on 26 July 2019 asking it about a management move due to the reported metallic smell in the flat, given she was refused a move by the local authority.
The landlord replied (but the date was not evident) that it was not able to identify the source of the smell. It had made some enquiries as to whether other residents had reported the same. Its lettings officer would contact the resident.
On 15 August 2019, the MP wrote again with concerns about the resident’s vulnerability. The MP enquired whether it was aware of the “metal pipe” she had reported and whether she had been offered additional support. The MP also enquired regarding progress with a transfer.
On 16 September 2019, the MP wrote again regarding the resident’s condition which made her sensitive to odours.
On 14 October 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident advising that it was addressing the smells in the communal areas but the housing officer did not detect the smell reported by the resident. No other residents had reported the odours so it was unable to take any steps. It had advised the resident the best route for a move was a mutual exchange.
On 23 November 2020, the resident made a complaint about smells from the communal areas which were affecting her home. The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day and said it would investigate her complaint. It would write to her with an outcome by 4 December 2020. Also on the same day, it noted that a contractor had cleaned the area following a leak/flood. It made internal enquiries. It also arranged a joint inspection of the communal areas around the resident’s home and considered inviting the resident. It considered whether the smells came from the bin stores and which contractor and who to involve. It reported later in the day that it inspected the premises both externally and internally. It did not identify any issues. It noted that the resident had reported that a dirty-looking cloth and mop were being used for the handrails and door handles.
According to an internal email of 27 November 2020, in response to the resident’s report that the building required a “deep clean”, it had investigated the property a few days previously. It had not detected any smells or identified if anything needed a deep clean. It noted the resident’s comment regarding the use of a dirty cloth and there had been a sewage leak. The leak had been repaired, but it noted that the resident reported there was sewage water under the lift. It would investigate. In relation to the fly-tipping, it had arranged to replace the gate with a higher fence to prevent this. It had also raised a job for the bin store doors to be changed to two metal doors, as these were damaged. It was seeking an estimate for a rear gate, bin store doors, security light to the front and rear of the building, and to block off an area in the car park.
On 3 December 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage one response. It reported the property manager’s inspection of 24 November 2020 and his findings. Another neighbour had made a similar report.
The landlord wrote to the MP’s office on 4 December 2020. In addition to what had already been reported, it said that the inspection noted that the cleaning at the block was being done. It was unable to support an offer of a tenancy elsewhere, as it did not deem the resident to be at risk of harm or in immediate danger. It would ask the lettings officer to provide advice, in particular on a move by mutual exchange.
On 14 December 2020, the landlord noted that the lift would not be in service if there was water underneath it and the repairs would have involved getting rid of water as there were electric points in the lift area. It would, however, make enquiries with its contractors’ engineers.
On 23 December 2020, the resident wrote to her MP in relation to smells in the building as well as a burning smell from a “tube” in her flat. The landlord had contacted her regarding a move. It was going to provide a weblink but had not yet done so.
On 4 January 2021, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord requesting an update regarding the resident’s email of 23 December 2020. The following day, a local city-wide rehousing scheme accepted the resident’s housing application. She was given a low banding.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s MP on 18 January 2021 to report that it had not identified a “prevailing smell” within the building on inspections. It would make enquiries with other residents on future inspections. It was aware there was fly-tipping which could result in smells.
On 11 February 2021, a joint inspection was arranged to investigate the reported odours in the communal areas on 10 March 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 February 2021 advising that, having heard from this service, it would escalate her complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s MP on 24 February 2021 that it had contacted the police requesting patrols to be carried out at the building. Its Property Manager offered to meet with the resident on his next inspection in order to discuss the matter in more detail. It explained it was unable to move the resident as she was “adequately housed” and the issues she was reporting including fly-tipping were generic to the whole building. It was unable to “corroborate” her reports of smells in the building. It again suggested a move by an exchange.
According to the landlord’s notes, the landlord’s Property Manager arranged an appointment with the resident for 10 March 2021 to discuss the reported smells. It had completed an estate inspection prior to the meeting, and found all communal areas had met satisfactory standards, with no cause of concern. The resident reported the smells were coming from two copper pipes in her property which she described as “burning metal”. The landlord’s officer could not smell anything. The resident reported that the smell became apparent in the evening. It said it would investigate the two pipes and get back to her. The officer and resident went into the communal area to further investigate the smells but the landlord’s officer could not smell anything there either. It would write to all the residents in the building at the end of March 2021 in order to invite reports of such smells.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 March 2021 explaining that she did not fit in with the criteria of a management move for a “severe and urgent need” to move and suggested she apply to exchange.
Another property manager of the landlord spoke to the resident on 17 March 2021. The resident stated that she wished to move. The landlord stated it was for her to apply for an exchange. It offered her support which she declined.
On 30 March 2021, the landlord informed the resident’s MP that it would raise an order to a specialist contractor to clear any rubbish and disinfect communal areas on the ground floor and lower level within 5 working days of a report.
The resident wrote to her MP on 30 March 2021 that she considered that the landlord was lying to her when it denied there was a problem. She felt she could not apply for a mutual exchange due to the issues she had reported in the building.
The landlord wrote to the resident with its second stage response on 12 May 2021 as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay.
2. It noted that it had inspected the block, attended on her by telephone and at her property. It had raised an order on 22 March 2022 for its contractor to carry out a deep clean. It had raised several orders for fly-tipped rubbish to be removed from outside the bin chambers.
3. It understood that fly-tipping was very unpleasant and an issue that needed to be tackled.
4. It removed items when reported and was taking action to better maintain the external areas. For example the bin chamber door has now been blocked off in order to prevent fly-tipping inside the chamber, and the paladin bins placed outside. It had arranged for an estate inspection with a view to recommending some estate improvements that would improve the appearance and management of the external area.
5. It had investigated the lift shaft as a possible source of foul odour. Its relevant team had confirmed that water had not been left at the bottom of the lift shaft following substantial repairs carried out earlier that year, as the bottom of the lift shaft contains electrical wiring.
6. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint but recognised that it needed to carry out some general improvements to her block.
The resident reported to this service on 13 May 2021 that she was unhappy because the building was “in a bad condition with very bad smells” and “between the metallic tubes in the flat”, affecting her health and wellbeing. The issues continued despite the landlord fixing them.
On 13 August 2021, the landlord suggested a multi-agency visit, in order to provide support for the resident but did not receive a response from her. It was prepared to send a surveyor.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of odours in the property.

Whilst the Ombudsman recognises the distress and concern experienced by the resident, our role in such cases is to consider the responses and actions of the landlord, including whether it took proportionate and appropriate action to investigate the issues raised. The O cannot confirm the presence or cause of the smells that the resident reported, but has carefully considered the landlord’s actions and responses.
The landlord’s policies were detailed and specific. It was reasonable that the maintenance of standards formed part of its self-monitoring. The Ombudsman could not see evidence of how this was reflected in public documents such as an annual report, however the policies demonstrated the standards that the landlord held itself to and its willingness to be transparent.
The landlord did not dispute that it was responsible for ensuring that the communal areas were free from rubbish and were kept in good order and in repair.
While neither the landlord’s repair or estate policy set out a specific timescale for responses to reports of fly-tipping, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take steps within a reasonable time. The evidence showed that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of fly-tipping and rodents, and to the incidents of drains flooding on the same day or within a few days of the reports. Attendances by a pest control contractor appeared to have taken longer. However, it is also borne in mind there may have been a scarcity of such services at the time.
The evidence showed that there was an endemic problem in the block given the number of reports of fly-tipping which may have been sufficient to trigger a finding of standards “not met” in the landlord’s inspection under the estate management policy. Given the number of reports, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take a proactive approach. The landlord acted reasonably in not only arranging for the bulk removal of rubbish within reasonable timescales but it also took an overview at the underlying causes, such as the level of security of the bin stores and lopping the trees which were, or potentially were, providing access to the rodents reported in the area. It not only attended to the overflowing drains and the disrepair in the bins stores it but also arranged for an environmental clean.
The evidence showed that the landlord took the fly-tipping seriously and appreciated that it could be the source of smells. It also acted reasonably in attending the resident’s property and subsequently making enquiries from other residents of the block about the source of the smells, both in and outside the flat.
The Ombudsman was not provided with other tenants’ tenancy agreements but it is reasonable to assume that all the tenants in the block were subject to the same condition, which included not fly-tipping. Such behaviour was deemed to constitute anti-social behaviour (ASB) which was prohibited, as was causing a nuisance and interfering in the comfort of neighbours. The evidence was not clear whether the landlord addressed the fly-tipping as ASB or whether the landlord considered taking action targeted at the perpetrators. There was a reference to police patrols but that was likely to refer to other types of ASB. The Ombudsman would suggest the landlord considers taking other steps, such as putting up signage, sending generic warning letters, notifying the local authority (given fly-tipping is an offence enforceable by the local authority) and even, subject to its cost-effectiveness, considering the installation of CCTV.
The landlord also acted reasonably in investigating the resident’s report regarding sewage water under the lift. The explanation that the landlord provided in relation to water in the lift shaft was reasonable. In response to the resident’s reports on the cleaners’ use of cloths, the landlord reasonably organised a review of the standards of cleaning. It also sensibly suggested that the resident meet with the property manager on its next inspection.
It was appropriate that the landlord proposed to investigate the pipes inside the resident’s flat but there was no evidence whether it did so. There is no evidence that such an investigation would have produced a different result, given that a number of the landlord’s officers attended the property but did not identify a smell from the pipes, metallic or otherwise. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to fulfil its assurances. While such an inspection may have occurred after the conclusion of the complaint procedure, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
The Ombudsman would also expect the landlord to take account of the resident’s vulnerabilities as far as it was reasonable and proportionate to do so. Moreover, the repair policy set a higher standard of response for vulnerable tenants. Given the steps that the landlord took, including the steps to identify the source of the reported odours in the flat and to address the fly-tipping, the Ombudsman is of the view that the landlord took what steps it was reasonably able to do. While the resident concluded that the landlord‘s officers were misleading the resident and/or her MP, there was no evidence that the landlord was not truthful or sought to mislead.
The resident wanted the landlord to offer her a transfer to another property as a solution to the issues. It was reasonable of the landlord to consider a move. Its explanation was reasonable in that it did not deem that the resident was at the level of “risk of harm or in immediate danger” it cited from its policy. There is a significant shortage of social housing and it is noted that even the existing transfer schemes have been suspended due to high demand. It did, however, reasonably offer support in the resident applying for an exchange and the evidence indicated it provided a weblink to the city scheme which accepted her application.
While the Ombudsman has not investigated the period after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint procedure, as the period is outside the remit of this report, it has noted that the landlord has proposed an investigation with independent parties such as a support agency. It could also involve any of the designated residents referred to in its estate policy, which it may not have been able to do at the time because of the pandemic.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint in a reasonable way which complied with its complaint process. It addressed her points, it provided the outcome of its investigations and it set out the next steps that it would be taking. There was no evidence that the resident requested to escalate the complaint until this service wrote to the landlord on her behalf, in response to which the landlord escalated the complaint. It was reasonable of the landlord to agree to escalate the complaint despite the delay in the resident’s request.
There was a significant delay in the second stage response time, from 22 February 2021 to 12 May 2021. However, the landlord’s response again demonstrated understanding of the issues effecting the resident, and it set out what steps it had taken. The evidence indicated that the complaint process and involvement of the resident’s MP may have provided a benefit to the resident and encouraged the landlord‘s attentiveness in terms of communication and inspections. In all of the circumstances, while there was a delay, the Ombudsman does not find service failure in its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of odours in the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord was unable to identify the malodours the resident complained of. However, it took steps in relation to the reports of fly-tipping, rodent infestation and overflowing drains, it investigated the cause of any malodours, and sought to address the causes of fly-tipping.
While there was a delay in its second stage response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord investigated the matter and communicated with both the resident and her MP and demonstrated a responsive approach.

Recommendations

The landlord should, if it has not already done so, arrange an inspection of the pipes in the flat that the resident has complained of as producing a metallic odour.
The landlord should consider involving its designated resident or residents in its estate inspections.
The landlord should consider taking steps targeted at the perpetrators of fly-tipping such as signage, generic warning letters, reporting to the local authority, and proportionate attempts to identify the perpetrators and take appropriate action, such as specific tenancy warning letters and recharging.
The landlord should consider publishing its performance indicators on its block noticeboards in its annual reports in order to promote transparency.
The landlord should consider publishing its policies on its website, also to promote transparency and to manage expectations.