London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202440220)

Background

1. The resident lives in a semi-detached 1-bedroom general needs bungalow. There are no vulnerabilities. The resident reported a smell to the landlord which she initially thought was linked to drug misuse and later considered to be a repair issue. The issue is not yet resolved.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to reports of a smell.
   2. Response to the resident’s request to be moved.
   3. Complaints handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s:
   1. Response to reports of a smell.
   2. Complaints handling.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to requests to be moved.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of a smell

5. It did not apply its ASB policy satisfactorily or manage the case effectively from the start. It did not communicate effectively with the resident or arrange a visit at an appropriate time.
6. The landlord did not log the drains as a repair and carry out further inspections.

Complaints handling

7. There were delays to the acknowledgement and issue of the stage 2 complaint. The stage 1 complaint did not cover all points raised in the complaint.

Request to be moved

8. The landlord responded appropriately to the request to be moved, explaining the process clearly and signposting the resident.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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.

What we did not consider

9. The resident has raised that a community trigger outcome was inaccurate. Community triggers are a local authority process and any complaint about them should be made to the local authority. We cannot decide if the outcome was inaccurate.

Handling of the smell as ASB

10. In ASB cases, it is not our role to decide if ASB occurred. We consider how a landlord has dealt with the reports it received, and if it followed its policies and good practice.
11. The landlord’s ASB policy classifies drug or substance misuse as ASB. It will review all reports, assess the level of risk and assign the case to an appropriate officer. High priority cases should be logged and assessed within one working day. Standard priority cases should be assessed within 3 working days. The policy does not set out how risk levels are determined. On 9 February 2023, the resident reported a strong smell from the neighbouring property. She said it was worse in the evenings and alternated between cannabis, perfume and burning. She said it was affecting her health and sleep. As suspected drug misuse the report met the ASB criteria and the landlord should have logged and assessed it promptly. It did open an ASB case on 24 February 2023, but this was 12 working days later. This is not in line with the required timescales.
12. The ASB policy states that the landlord will carry out a risk assessment, identify vulnerabilities and make support referrals. There is no evidence that these steps were completed. The landlord did, however, provide an action plan in line with its ASB policy. It contacted the neighbour, wrote to local residents, and liaised with the police. This was appropriate but the landlord delayed the action and only progressed it after the resident repeatedly chased for updates. The landlord conducted daytime visits but did not carry out an out-of-hours visit, despite the resident’s reports that the smell occurred mainly in the evening. Instead, it signposted the resident to the local authority’s environmental health team, as they may have been able to attend outside normal hours.
13. The landlord did act appropriately by attending and contributing to the community trigger meeting with environmental health and the police, in line with its policy. It did produce an action plan and attempt to investigate. However, overall, it did not apply its ASB policy satisfactorily or manage the case effectively from the start. It did not communicate effectively with the resident or arrange a visit at an appropriate time.

Handling of the smell as a repair issue

14. Despite our findings in the ASB assessment, the landlord was right to explore whether a repair issue could explain the smell.
15. The landlord arranged for a plumber to inspect pipework in both properties. On 22 March 2023, the plumber attended the neighbour’s home but did not visit the resident’s property as originally instructed. He did not detect any smell or plumbing issues. That same day, the resident reported new odours such as “toilet smells” and shaving foam. An opportunity was missed by the plumber as the resident was available and experiencing smells. The landlord may have been able to resolve the problem at this point. The resident requested an inspection of the party wall and loft space and asked for them to be sealed to prevent odour transfer. The housing officer arranged for the gas team to attend on 3 April 2023. They found no gas issues and detected no smell.
16. On 11 April 2023, the housing officer emailed a building surveyor to request a party wall inspection. It is not clear why this was delayed, when the resident had suggested this on 22 March 2023. The surveyor refused to attend, citing a poor sense of smell, the absence of findings from the plumber’s inspection and his belief that the issue was not a repair. He added that a property cannot be made airtight to stop smell migration. This response was unhelpful. Because the surveyor would not attend, the housing officer conducted an unannounced daytime visit to the neighbour’s property on 24 April 2023. He checked walls and vents and found no obvious cause of a smell, but he did not attend the resident’s property during that visit. This was another missed opportunity to attend the resident’s home and investigate the smell. It is not reasonable for the investigations not to have included the resident’s property.
17. The area housing manager agreed to an out-of-hours visit and offered the resident a 6-7pm appointment on 12 May 2023. This was a positive step to take, though overdue, however the resident declined. She explained that the smell was intermittent and that she would contact the landlord when it occurred. She attempted to do so twice in the following weeks, but the manager was unavailable each time. When they spoke on 23 May 2023, the resident reported that the smell had stopped. The landlord advised her to get back in touch if it returned.
18. The resident re-reported the smell to the landlord on 20 July 2023. It briefly reopened the ASB case, but there is no evidence that an out-of-hours visit was carried out or that additional investigations took place at that time. The records show that the landlord liaised with environmental health and the local MP, and it later took part in the community trigger meeting in February 2024. The resident made no further reports until her stage 1 complaint on 29 August 2024, when she confirmed the smell had persisted throughout this time. By then, the landlord had indicated it was unwilling to take further action, stating it had exhausted its investigations. This was inaccurate as the resident’s home had not been investigated.
19. While waiting for her stage 2 response, the resident said she now believed the drains were the source of the smell. On 2 December 2024, she requested a CCTV survey. She continued to seek an out-of-hours visit to witness the smell. In its stage 2 response the landlord relied on the plumber’s visit in March 2023 and said there was no evidence of a smell at that time. However, the plumber had not visited the resident’s home. It refused a CCTV survey, saying it was confident pipework was not the cause and that a pipe-related smell would be constant, rather than occurring only at night. It also refused to send a surveyor saying it could not identify what they would be inspecting. The landlord added that out-of-hours appointments were reserved for emergencies. Instead, it advised the resident to get a private surveyor’s report, which it would consider if it identified anything. However, more than 18 months had passed since the landlord had visually checked the neighbour’s pipework. The resident had raised a concern that the landlord should have investigated.
20. By this stage the landlord had still not taken the practical step most likely to resolve the matter, completing an out-of-hours visit to witness the smell when it occurred. It had assured the resident that it would do so. The landlord acted reasonably by exploring the issue as a potential repair when it could not identify the source. However, refusal to log the drains as a repair and carry out further inspections was a failure.

Overall handling of reports of a smell

21. While the landlord took actions to investigate the smell as an ASB and repair issue there were shortcomings. This led to multiple visits and ongoing communication that has not provided a conclusion to the issue, causing the resident distress, time and trouble.
22. The landlord did not investigate the report of a nuisance smell as thoroughly as it could have done. It did not communicate effectively with the resident. It did not arrange to visit the property at a suitable time to witness the smell. It has not admitted to any failings or offered to put things right. This amounts to maladministration.

23. The landlord’s rehousing procedure says it may add a resident to its rehousing list if they meet certain criteria. The resident requested a move as a resolution in her stage 1 complaint. The landlord responded appropriately to this, advising that her circumstances did not meet the criteria for its rehousing list. It also detailed other options available to her. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be moved.

24. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of logging the complaint. This can be extended by 10 working days for complex cases. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and send its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the request to escalate. This can be extended by 20 working days for complex cases. It does not normally accept complaints that are over 12 months old unless there are exceptional circumstances.
25. The landlord asked for an extra 10 days to complete its stage 1 investigation. It sent the response within 20 working days, in line with its policy. However, the response did not address key issues raised by the resident, including why no out-of-hours visit took place, why a surveyor did not visit the property, and why the plumber only visited the neighbour’s home. This led to the resident escalating her complaint to stage 2.
26. The resident requested by email that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 30 September 2024. She chased a response twice and received an acknowledgement on 14 November 2024. This was 34 working days after she requested the escalation, past the timescale of 5 working days in the policy. In an email on 27 November 2024 the landlord apologised for the delay, citing a technical issue and advising of a deadline extension to 23 December 2024.  The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 December 2024, this was 60 working days since the request to escalate, beyond the timescale of 40 working days where an extension is agreed.
27. There were delays to the acknowledgement and issue of the stage 2 complaint. The stage 1 complaint did not cover key points raised in the complaint. The stage 2 response did not identify the failings at stage 1. The landlord did not acknowledge any shortcomings and therefore did not offer compensation. This amounts to maladministration.

Learning

Communication

28. The landlord should communicate effectively to manage expectations around the availability of appointments and its limitations.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The ASB case did not include documentation of a risk assessment, any support referrals or identified vulnerabilities. The landlord should ensure it completes and maintains records of this information.

Complaint handling

30. The landlord should ensure if covers all points raised in a complaint. Where a resident has escalated a complaint to stage 2 because points were not covered at stage 1, the landlord should recognise this in its review.