London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202015465)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015465

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

3 September 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of fumes from the vehicle garage below her home.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Her home is directly above a vehicle garage, which is privately rented from the landlord by a different tenant or member of the public.
  2. The landlord’s records show there was a petrol spillage in the garage on 2 May 2019. The resident reported smelling fumes from the garage on 5 May, and the fire service attended between 6 and 8 May to investigate. The landlord’s records also show it contacted the individual who rented the garage, and they advised they had attempted the clean the spillage.
  3. The resident made similar reports in September and October 2019. On 1 September, the landlord advised the resident that it had called the fire service who would attend and investigate. It is unknown whether this happened. The landlord again contacted the individual who rented the garage on 3 September, and asked them to “check the garage to see if any issue”. It is unknown what they reported back. A surveyor attended on 25 October. The landlord later explained to the resident that the surveyor did not detect any fumes, and did not make any recommendations.
  4. After a further report from the resident, the landlord wrote to her on 13 December 2019. It noted that during its visits (it is unclear which) some fumes had been smelt, and that its fire officer had suggested some action was potentially needed to better seal the garage. However, it said that the fumes appeared to be intermittent, and it needed a further inspection before deciding a course of action. It asked the resident for her availability. Attempts to arrange an appointment were made, but it is not apparent if these further visits happened.
  5. The landlord’s records show that the resident called the landlord on 3 May 2020 to:

“report strong smell of petrol, resident stated operative from [regional] Fire Station was with her and confirmed she could also smell petrol from what she believed to be garages underneath the resident’s flat. Called [landlord’s officer], for advice who stated he would not be attending or be sending an operative out to investigate this as he has been on site himself with the Neighbourhood Manager on several occasions, at different times of the day, On each occasion neither of them could smell petrol. Called resident back to advise…resident then stated …the smell will not help her medical condition – resident requested [landlord’s officer] call her back – at this stage the resident terminated the call – no further action has been taken at this stage due to the advise provided by [landlord’s officer].”

  1. The landlord’s records show it attended the property on 29 May 2020. It recorded “no smell of fumes and no other tenant complaint of fumes”. No other details about the visit were documented.
  2. On or around 10 June 2020 (the exact date is unknown) the resident contacted the landlord again. The landlord’s records show she was dissatisfied that it had not formally responded to the fumes issue. The landlord logged her concerns as a formal complaint on 10 June.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 12 June 2020. She said the smell persisted. She said the individual who rented the garage had placed a cover on the ceiling of the roof, but this had not blocked the smell. She said, “the only solution [was] to have it concreted or cemented”.
  4. On 12 June 2020 the landlord emailed the resident. It explained that:

“You mentioned you are not happy with the oil/grease/petrol smells coming from Garages [under your flat]. Usually we don’t investigate a smell, we only investigate repairs. However I will arrange for a surveyor to attend the garage area and your property to ascertain the source of the smell and if we can conduct repair to resolve the issue. If we find that the smell is coming from activities of the garage owners and not the structure of the garage, this will be a matter for your property manager to deal with.”   

  1. The landlord further explained that due to the COVID-19 pandemic it was only carrying out emergency repairs, and would advise the resident when its normal service had resumed to book an appointment. It is unclear whether this was the landlord’s formal stage one complaint response.
  2. Separately, the landlord’s repair records show it attempted to arrange for pest service to attend the resident’s home from August 2020 until March 2021 in response to her reports of a pest infestation.
  3. On 10 February 2021 the resident reported fume smells again to the landlord. She reiterated that the garage had gaps in its ceiling which was directly below her bedroom. The landlord advised her the following day that it could not attend to repairs until its normal service had resumed. The resident asked to escalate her complaint.
  4. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 18 May 2021. It reiterated that it had only been carrying out emergency repairs. It said its normal service had resumed, and that a surveyor would attend to carry out a full investigation. It said it would advise her of the appointment date once it had been confirmed. It assured her that it would act on the surveyor’s findings and recommendations.
  5. The surveyor attended at the end of May or beginning of June 2021 (the exact date is unknown). The landlord’s records show:

“We attended site last week and the person renting the garages attended also…All ceilings to the garages have been sealed with membrane by the user and again the floors are spotless…The more likely reason for any smell would be from people using the carpark in front of the garages.”

  1. The landlord concluded that it did not need to carry out repair work to the garage or the resident’s home.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure and exterior of the resident’s home. It classes an emergency repair as one which presents an immediate danger to the resident, or members of the public.
  2. The landlord acknowledged in December 2019 that the fumes smell was intermittent. It explained to the resident that it needed to conduct further investigations to determine the best course of action to resolve the issue. However, no evidence has been provided for this investigation to show that further visits happened. In the circumstances of a potentially toxic situation, it was unreasonable for it not to follow through with what it had said, and a failing.
  3. In May 2020 the resident again reported fumes. The landlord’s records show it said it would not attend to investigate because it already had in the past, and had not detected any problems. This contradicts what it had explained to the resident in December 2019 when it acknowledged that there was an intermittent smell which required further investigation. It was therefore unreasonable for it to dismiss her reports, as it was already aware that there was potentially a real basis for her concerns.
  4. The landlord explained to the resident in June 2020 that it was unable to arrange an appointment with its surveyor as it was only carrying out emergency repairs due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, from August 2020 until March 2021 the landlord attempted to arrange for pest services to attend. It is therefore unclear why the landlord took steps to resolve a pest infestation, but did not promptly attend in response to her reports potentially toxic fumes entering her home. It was unreasonable for it not to have treated her fume concerns with the urgency that they required.
  5. The landlord also explained to the resident in June 2020 that it did not usually “investigate a smell”. That was an unreasonable response, as the resident had explained that she believed there was a potential repair issue (with the garage ceiling) allowing the smells to enter her home. Obviously, the landlord would not have been investigating the smell itself, but rather the reason why it was apparent in the resident’s home. The landlord nonetheless agreed to investigate, but the comment was misguided and unnecessary.
  6. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend in May or June 2021. The surveyor found that the garage ceiling was sealed, and did not make any remedial recommendations. Therefore, the landlord’s conclusion that it would not take any further action at that stage was a reasonable one. Nevertheless, there was an unreasonable delay in arranging this appointment (almost one year), and as explained above, its reasoning for the delay (COVID-19) was unreasonable in the circumstances.
  7. Overall, while the landlord’s final conclusion about the garage was reasonable, there were several failings in its handling of the resident’s reports. Taken together, these failings were significant enough to be considered maladministration.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The evidence shows the landlord did not treat the resident’s concerns with the urgency they appear to have required. There is no evidence of it carrying out an investigation as it said it would in December 2019 or early 2020, it dismissed her reports in May 2020, and unreasonably delayed organising an appointment with a surveyor.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience that will have been caused by the service failures identified in this report.
  2. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. Evidence of payment in that time frame must be provided to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is not appropriate to dismiss a resident’s reports of a potential emergency repair matter, even if there are grounds to believe it may be a false alarm. There are reasonable processes for handling such situations (for example, managing a resident’s expectations, or potentially recharging costs for repeated false alarms), but there is no indication in this complaint that any such processes were utilised.
  2. The landlord is urged to consider this investigation’s findings, and consider what work can be done with its policies and procedures to reduce the likelihood of such situations arising again in the future.