Notting Hill Genesis (202008956)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008956

Notting Hill Genesis

21 May 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 an offensive odour in her kitchen.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident has explained to this Service that while installing a new kitchen bench top on 28 July 2020, contractors damaged pipework beneath her sink. The resident then reported a “sewage like” smell to the landlord on 28 July. A contractor attended the same day to unblock the kitchen sink.
4. The landlord’s records for 20 August 2020 show that the resident again reported a smell in her kitchen. The landlord organised for a contractor to attend the property and investigate. The contractor attended on 28 August 2020. He concluded that he was “unable to smell any foul smells” and said that he believed the smell was from the washing machine when it was in use, as there were “no other causes of [the] smell”.
5. The landlord’s records show that it arranged on 2 September 2020 for a contractor to attend and investigate the issue further. It is unclear if or when the resident had reported that the smell problem was continuing. On 15 September the contractor attended and “carried out jetting work to descale the stack and restore full flow”.
6. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 6 October 2020. She said that that there was still a smell in the property, and she wanted the landlord to rectify it.
7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 20 October 2020. It described the action it had taken since the resident’s report on 20 August. It explained that contractors attended on 28 August and 15 September. It said that it had not received further reports from her about the smell since 15 September, and had therefore assumed it was resolved. It asked her to confirm if the smell persisted, and explained how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
8. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 October 2020. She said that she had been complaining to the landlord since 28 July, and that the smell was still occurring. She said that this was “not professional, and unhealthy” for her and her family.
9. The landlord raised a repair order on 22 October 2020 to investigate the smell again. On 27 October, the contractor found broken condensing pipework, which had caused a sewage smell to escape, and leaks behind the kitchen units. The contractor repaired the damaged section of the pipework.
10. The landlord told the resident on 28 October 2020 that its contractor had attended on 27 October and had “resolved the problem”. It asked the resident whether she was happy for it to close the complaint without further escalation.
11. On 28 October 2020 the resident confirmed that she did not want the landlord to close the complaint. She said that it “was total negligence if [its] contractors could not figure out exactly what that issue was”. She said that she and her family had “been inhaling this for three good months” and that she had not “been treated right from the get go”.
12. On 17 November 2020 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It described what had happened since the resident first reported the issue in July until the issue was resolved. It said that although the time to resolve the problem was “quite lengthy”, it had raised jobs to investigate the issue following the resident’s reports, and could therefore not see any failings on its behalf. It explained that the root cause of an issue was not always identified straight away and that issues were sometimes resolved following a process of elimination. It said that this had been the case with its contractors but said that it had communicated with them the need to thoroughly investigate an issue when attending jobs. It apologised, and offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £100 for the inconvenience caused by the need to raise the issue on “numerous occasions”, and for the “intermittent smell”.  It explained how she could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied with the outcome.
13. The landlord emailed the resident on 4 February 2021. It explained that it had reviewed her complaint and decided to increase its offer of compensation to “reflect the inconvenience caused”. It offered her an extra £225 compensation for “partial loss of use of [her] kitchen during the time the smell was not resolved”. It is not clear from the evidence provided what prompted it to review the complaint.

Assessment and findings

14. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for the repairs of pipework in a resident’s property. It aims to complete routine repairs (non–urgent work to rectify or prevent damage to, and ensure the proper working order of the property and its fixtures) within 20 working from when the issue is first reported. The tenancy agreement also sets out that residents are responsible for advising the landlord “promptly of any disrepair, or defects”.
15. The resident first reported her concerns with a smell in her kitchen on 28 July 2020. Work was then completed on the same day to unblock the sink. The resident reported a similar issue on 20 August. A contractor attended on 28 August and said that he could not detect the smell that the resident was reporting. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord not to have arranged any further repair work, as it was entitled to rely on its contractor’s findings, and had not found evidence indicating that there was an issue it could resolve.
16. After the resident reported a continuation of the problem on 21 October 2020, the landlord inspected again on 27 October, identified the source of the problem, and repaired it. This was within the relevant repair timeframe. As explained above, the resident is responsible for advising the landlord of any disrepair, and the landlord would therefore only have been expected to take action when the smell problem was reported to it, which is what it did.
17. The resident was understandably frustrated with the time it took the landlord to identify and resolve the problem. The landlord correctly explained, in its stage two complaint response, that the source of any problem is not always immediately identified. It is also true that in some cases, multiple attempts might be needed before a repair problem is fully resolved. For the landlord to be considered to have failed in its service to the resident, evidence would need to be seen indicating that the eventual cause and resolution could, and should, have been identified in the first few visits. It is beyond the remit of the Housing Ombudsman to make such a technical finding, and so, this investigation must rely on the documents, records, and other evidence relating to the underlying issue, and the complaint. None of the evidence provided indicates that the time taken to resolve the repair was a service failure.
18. The compensation offered by the landlord to the resident was not due to any specific service failure. It was in recognition of the inconvenience she had been put to by the situation, and a reasonable gesture of goodwill.

Determination (decision)

19. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

20. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and resolve the resident’s reports of a smell in her kitchen. Even though multiple visits were necessary before the root of the issue was identified and resolved, the landlord responded and acted promptly in response to the resident’s reports.