Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202449582)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202449582

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

29 September 2025

 

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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a sewage smell in the property.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He lives in a 1-bedroom, second floor flat in a communal building which is part of the landlord’s ‘private rental sector’ accommodation.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 June 2023 to report a strong smell of sewage coming from the bathroom. He said the smell was causing him to vomit. He made further reports of the smell to the landlord between July 2023 and April 2024, stating that it had not been resolved despite numerous visits.
  3. On 22 October 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about the issue. It responded at stage 1 of its complaint process on 23 October 2024 and said that it would attend on 28 October 2024 to investigate the issue further. It said it would monitor repair work and address compensation once it completed repairs.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 3 January 2025. He was unhappy that it had failed to resolve the smell. He said the property was uninhabitable due to the issue.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 6 February 2025. It said it needed to attend on 7 February 2025 to investigate the smell further. It recognised several visits had already taken place in relation to the issue and offered £130 in compensation to the resident, which it broke down as:
    1. £80 in recognition of the resident’s time and effort in resolving the complaint.
    2. £50 for distress caused by the situation.
  6. The resident brought his complaint to us as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He is seeking increased compensation and for the landlord to complete repair work to eliminate the sewage smell.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said his health was affected by the conditions in the property. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman assesses landlords’ handling of residents’ complaints to ascertain whether they took reasonable steps to resolve these within their internal process. This investigation has, therefore, focused on the events and evidence leading up to its final response on 6 February 2025. Any events following its stage 2 response are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.

Reports of sewage smell

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for maintaining fixtures and fittings provided for water and sanitation as well as drainage. It also states it will:
    1. Attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours.
    2. Complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.
  2. Upon receiving the resident’s report of a sewage smell coming from the bathroom on 20 June 2023, the landlord logged a repair which it attended on 4 July 2023. This was within the timescales set out in its policy. Its records on this report do not specify what action it took in response, thus, we cannot ascertain if it was proportionate. As the resident made contact with the landlord regarding the issue again on 14 July 2023 it is reasonable to assume that it had not provided a lasting fix to the issue.
  3. Following this contact from the resident, the landlord attended on 7 September 2023 to investigate the issue. This was 31 days later than the timescales set out in its policy. It said it could find no issues with pipework in the bathroom to explain the cause of the smell. It noted that the wooden boxing around the toilet pipework was in poor condition and required replacement. It subsequently returned on 4 October 2023 and replaced this.
  4. On 19 September 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended the property to investigate and treat mould that the resident had reported in the bathroom. They fed back that they had noted a strong smell of sewage that would require further investigation. The evidence shows that in response its surveyor recommended conducting a CCTV drainage survey to determine the cause of the issue. Internal confusion regarding repair responsibilities ensued as the repair team believed it was not responsible for conducting this work in its private rented scheme accommodation. There is no evidence that the landlord took any further action at this point to determine its repair responsibilities or communicate these to the resident.
  5. The landlord contacted the resident regarding another matter on 6 December 2023. In responding to this he requested an update on his reports of the sewage smell. He said that he was unable to sleep in his bedroom due to the strength of the smell and wanted the issue resolved. It is apparent it failed to keep the resident updated on the matter, resulting in him needing to chase up contact. On 13 February 2024 he requested an update and said along with the smell he had noticed insects were appearing in the bathroom. There is no evidence that it responded to this contact which likely left the resident feeling ignored and frustrated.
  6. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 4 March 2024 to conduct separate repair work and recorded the resident’s concerns regarding the smell in its repair notes. He contacted the landlord on 14 March 2024 to chase up what action it would take next. Given that it had previously noted a drainage survey would be appropriate, it would have been reasonable for it to review its repair records and ensure it sent an operative equipped to carry out this work. Instead, it raised a repair job for a plumbing operative to attend on 16 April 2024, who fitted valves to pipework in the bathroom. Its failure to follow its earlier recommendation meant it missed an opportunity to accurately identify the source of the problem and respond appropriately.
  7. We have not seen evidence of any further reports by the resident regarding the sewage smell until 6 months later in October 2024, when the landlord logged his complaint that the issue was ongoing. Whilst it did not complete a post-works survey of the repairs it had carried out, in the absence of any further reports from the resident, it was reasonable for it to assume that the repairs had likely resolved the issue.
  8. In its stage 1 response on 23 October 2024, the landlord summarised that it had previously inspected the bathroom pipework and was unable to find any issues. It said as the sewage smell was still present it would carry out further investigations and would address compensation with the resident once it completed any necessary repair work. It did not however, demonstrate that it had fully investigated its repairs records with consideration to the number of visits that had taken place or delays that had occurred. It failed to address the resident’s frustration that it had not identified the cause of the sewage smell despite several visits.
  9. Between 29 October and 19 December 2024 the landlord carried out 5 visits to the property. It conducted inspections of the ventilation system, as well as pipework in the bathroom. Through its inspections it highlighted several measures it could take to locate the cause of the issue. These included removal of the boxing of pipework in the bathroom, conducting a CCTV survey of the soil stack and removing the cavity wall in the bathroom. There is no evidence that it subsequently arranged any of these recommended works and did not communicate plans with the resident. This led to him requesting escalation of his complaint on 3 January 2025.
  10. Upon receiving the resident’s escalation request it would have been reasonable for the landlord to review its records and arrange the recommended follow-on work it had identified. However, it instead arranged for another inspection which it scheduled for 13 January 2025. This indicates a lack of corroboration between the landlord’s teams dealing with complaints and repairs and led to further delays for the resident. Following its visit on 13 January 2025, the resident told the landlord he was “deeply dissatisfied” that it had failed to identify the cause of the smell or a solution to eradicate it.
  11. It was appropriate that in the landlord’s stage 2 response on 6 February 2025 it apologised for the distress caused to the resident by the ongoing issue. It made an offer of compensation of £50 due to this. It said that it needed to carry out a further inspection to investigate the cause of the smell. It failed however, to detail what this would involve, indicating that it had not considered recommendations made in its previous visits. Its response did not recognise that it had missed opportunities to identify the source of the problem thus delaying a resolution of the issue for the resident.
  12. In summary, while it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the distress the situation had caused to the resident, it failed to recognise it had missed opportunities to identify the cause of the sewage smell and that its communication around the issue had been poor. This meant its responses did not recognise the true extent of the detriment caused to the resident. At the time of its compensation offer, the matter had been ongoing for 19 months and was outstanding, with no explanation offered as to its cause. As such, we have determined its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident and did not fully put things right for him.
  13. Following the landlord’s final response, the local authority Environmental Health Team conducted an inspection of the property and identified the sewage smell as a hazard. They requested it carry out repair work to resolve the issue. We are aware that to date the landlord has not identified the cause of or resolved the issue and it remains outstanding. With consideration of our remedies guidance, we have made orders for it to pay increased compensation and complete specific actions to resolve the issues. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. Although we have not seen evidence indicating the date of the resident’s original complaint, it has not been disputed that he submitted this on 22 October 2024. The landlord acknowledged and sent a decision at stage 1 of its complaint process on 23 October 2024, within the timescales set out in its policy.
  3. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 3 January 2025 due to his dissatisfaction that the landlord had not yet resolved the substantive matter. Its records indicate that during its conversation with him on 9 January 2025, he agreed to keep the complaint at stage 1. This was inappropriate. Given the resident had expressed he remained unhappy following its response, it should have acted in line with the Code and recognised this warranted escalation to the next stage of its process.
  4. Following a visit from the landlord on 13 January 2025 to deal with the substantive issue, the resident contacted it and requested escalation of his complaint again. He chased a response to this request on 15 and 24 January 2025. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this contact.
  5. On 3 February 2025 the resident contacted the landlord to ask for its complaints manager to contact him. It subsequently issued its stage 2 acknowledgment the following day. This was 12 days later than the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
  6. The landlord’s final response on 6 February 2025 failed to mention its delays in escalating the resident’s complaint, which was a shortcoming. However, its offer of £80 in compensation for the resident’s time and effort regarding the complaint was reasonable given its delayed response. This amount is line with our remedies guidance for situations like this where a delay has caused inconvenience, and thus constitutes a reasonable offer of redress

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a sewage smell in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to take the following action and must provide evidence of its compliance:
    1. Pay the resident, and not offset against the rent account, the sum of £300 for its failures in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a smell of sewage (£50 offered in its stage 2 response can be deducted if already paid).
    2. Arrange for a drainage engineer to conduct a CCTV survey of the pipework and any relevant installations in the bathroom. It must produce an inspection report which:
      1. Confirms if there is any repair work required to the pipework or installations.
      2. Provide a schedule of required identified repairs and include a timeline for the completion of these works.

 Recommendations

  1. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the landlord pays to the resident the sum of £80 offered in its stage 2 response if not already paid.
  2. The landlord should consider training to ensure that its staff are clear on its repair responsibilities concerning properties within its private rented scheme portfolio.