Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202119328)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119328

Notting Hill Genesis

11 May 2023

 

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 reports of sewage gases affecting the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of a one bedroomed flat on the third floor. The landlord is the freeholder.
  2. The resident and her husband experience mental and physical health conditions.
  3. In June 2020 the resident reported an ever-present sewage smell originating from the bathroom that affected the whole property. The landlord advised the resident that it was most likely a problem with her own plumbing.
  4. On being told this by the landlord, the resident hired a plumber to carry out an inspection of the pipework in the bathroom. The plumber found no issue with the resident’s internal pipework and the smell inside the property continued.
  5. The resident made a stage 1 complaint. In response the landlord asked its contractors to inspect the resident’s bathroom fixtures and pipework. The contractor identified no faults within the resident’s property but did identify the waste pipe serving the block was situated in the roof space above the resident’s property.
  6. On 17 September 2020, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response stating it considered its investigations were complete and the resident was responsible for further investigations.
  7. The resident was dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to stage 2. The landlord agreed to carry out further investigations and discovered there was a fault with the landlord’s pipework in the roof space above the resident’s property. On 9 December, the landlord rectified the issue with the sewage pipe which was seven months from the time the resident first notified the landlord.
  8. The resident continued with her stage two complaint and on 21 December 2020, the landlord issued its final stage two response. The landlord acknowledged its approach and actions caused delay in diagnosing and fixing the issue. It apologised and acknowledged the matter had put a strain on the landlord/ resident relationship, refunded the cost of the plumber the resident had hired, and offered the resident £250 compensation for the resident’s inconvenience and distress.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the matter and dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right, and;
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident.
  3. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.
  4. The resident’s lease with the freeholder states the landlord has responsibility for “all conduits and landlord’s fixtures within the premises which do not exclusively serve the premises.”
  5. On 1 July 2020, the landlord’s contractor confirmed the residents internal pipe work and sanitary fixtures and fittings were not the cause of the ever-present smell and recommended two methods of investigation. The first method (a smoke test) was preferred over the second method (creating an access hatch) as it was the least disruptive for the resident. The contractor duly carried out the first method of investigation and advised the landlord that the findings were inconclusive.
  6. Instead of instructing its contractor to proceed to the second method of investigation the landlord decided its investigations were complete and told the resident that no other resident had reported an issue and it was the resident’s responsibility to carry out further investigations into the smell. This was unreasonable and caused delay in identifying the source of the smell.
  7. The landlord was aware the roof space did not comprise part of the resident’s property and the resident had no access to the roof space. Therefore, it was unreasonable to decide the resident should be responsible for investigations that required access to the area.
  8. The parties entered into email communication about the landlord’s obligations under the lease. During the email communication about responsibilities under the lease the resident reported being disturbed by scratching and banging of rodents in the roof space during the day and night. The resident told the landlord she found this very distressing.
  9. As a result of the period of email communication, the landlord agreed to carry out the second method of investigation and on 9 December 2020, the landlord’s contractor inspected the roof space and confirmed the sewage smell inside the resident’s property was caused by a defect in the landlord’s waste pipework. The contractor also reported that because of the defective sewage pipe, rodents were nesting around the pipe, many rodent droppings were present, and a quarter of the loft insulation needed to be replaced.
  10. In discussion with the landlord about the contractor’s findings the landlord incorrectly told the resident that she would be responsible for the cost of replacing the loft insulation that had been damaged by the rodents. This caused the resident to be confused, stressed, and resulted in the resident having to spend time sending emails to the landlord querying why she would be responsible for this. The landlord later apologised for the misinformation and confirmed the resident was not responsible for replacing the damaged loft insulation.
  11. The Ombudsman finds the landlord delayed in carrying out a complete set of investigations in line with its contractor’s recommendation which resulted in delays in resolving the issue for the resident. At times the resident was given incorrect information about her responsibilities under the lease which undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord.
  12. In its final stage two response the landlord apologised for its misinterpretation of the lease writing ‘the lease can be difficult to interpret, and it is not uncommon for different interpretations to happen’. The Ombudsman is of the view, that as the expert, the landlord ought to be clear on the interpretation of details in its lease, so it provides residents with the right information first time around.
  13. Accordingly, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of sewage gases affecting their property.
  14. The landlord offered £250 in compensation for the inconvenience and distress and the additional time it took to resolve the issue. Looking at all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers this does not go far enough in recognising the cumulative impact and duration of the issues on the resident.
  15. The delays had a significant impact on the resident and the issue was not resolved as quickly as it should have been. At times, the resident was given incorrect information about her responsibilities under the lease and had to spend time and effort querying information that was given by the landlord. This undermined the landlord and tenant relationship.
  16. Additionally, the landlord did not consider the considerable loss of enjoyment of the property due the ever-present sewage smell. The resident advised the Ombudsman that she and her spouse had no relief from the sewage smell because it affected every room.
  17. The landlord was aware the resident and her spouse were experiencing considerable physical and mental health difficulties during this time. The resident told the Ombudsman the ongoing communication with the landlord left her and her spouse exhausted and the sounds of the rodents scratching at night impacted negatively on their ability to sleep, recover, and rehabilitate from their respective health difficulties.
  18. The resident stated to the landlord that, “The sewage gases caused us to experience nausea, headaches, insomnia, nightmares, and anxiety. We took sleeping pills and anti-nausea tablets. We no longer enjoyed life at home. Because we were home all the time, we did not enjoy life. We felt like prisoners, and we had nowhere else to go.”
  19. Documents provided to the Ombudsman show the landlord understood what      went wrong. The landlord included a lesson’s learned report as part of its learning from this complaint. The landlord’s stage two response was insightful and expressed a wish to work positively with the resident in the future. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the cumulative impact of all the issues on the health and wellbeing of the resident and her spouse.
  20. The Ombudsman considers an amount of £600 would be more appropriate to compensate the resident for the duration of the stress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment caused.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s report of sewage gasses affecting the property.

Orders

  1. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation totalling £1,320. This comprises:
    1. £720 for the loss of enjoyment of the home. This has been calculated at £30 for each week since the date of the reported sewage until it was resolved. The dates used in the calculation are the day after the resident reported the sewage smell (23 June 2020) until it was resolved (09 December 2020). This equates to 24 weeks.
    2. £600 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience. This is inclusive of the £250 originally offered by the landlord.
  2. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above order.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord’s lessons learned report does not acknowledge the matter of the resident being given wrong information about her responsibilities under the lease. The landlord should consider providing training to its staff in this area, so residents are provided with the correct information.