Southwark Council (202435193)
|
Case ID |
202435193 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Southwark Council |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority / ALMO or TMO |
|
Occupancy |
Secure Tenancy |
|
Date |
18 December 2025 |
- The resident lives in a first floor flat within a block of flats. He first reported foul smells in his property to the landlord in 2020. He complained that the landlord had not resolved the issue. He said he had been sleeping in his vehicle because of the issue and it was causing him ill-health. He has disclosed he has a lung condition. The resident reports the smell has not been resolved.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a foul odour in the property.
- We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We found there was:
- No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a foul odour in the property.
- Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a foul odour in the property.
- The landlord responded to the resident’s reports and carried out appropriate investigations of the plumbing system. It has carried out works in an attempt to resolve the reported issue. As the landlord did not detect a smell in the property its actions were proportionate and we have not identified further actions it would should reasonably have taken.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
- While the landlord’s stage 2 response was delayed, it offered appropriate redress for this. However, it failed to log the resident’s first complaint. This unnecessarily delayed the complaint handling process and caused the resident avoidable time and trouble.
Putting things right
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.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 15 January 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise the time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. This is in additional to the compensation offered in the landlord’s stage 2 response. |
No later than 15 January 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord should consider the plumbers reports provided by the resident. It should carry out further investigations inside and outside the property with these reports in mind. |
|
The landlord should consider carrying out an inspection on an evening or weekend when the resident reports the smell is at its worst. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
10 June 2023 |
The resident said he had been asking the landlord to raise a complaint regarding the smell in his property. He said the water provider had told him the vent stack needed to be cleared and repaired. The landlord did not raise a complaint at this time. |
|
14 November 2023 |
The resident complained that, due to a foul smell from his drains, he had been sleeping in his vehicle since 2020. He asked the landlord to provide him with temporary accommodation until it resolved the smell. He also requested compensation as he had lost use of his home as it was too “unpleasant” to live in. |
|
29 November 2023 |
The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said:
The landlord did not uphold the complaint as it said there was no evidence of any odour. It had responding to all the resident’s reports. |
|
7 August 2024 |
The resident escalated his complaint. He said the issues from his stage 1 complaint had not been resolved. |
|
10 December 2024 |
The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said:
The landlord did not uphold the complaint. It had made reasonable attempts to remedy the issue but it had not identified any smell. It had however issued him with a diary to keep a log of when the smell arose to see if it could identify a pattern. It offered the resident £50 compensation for complaint handling delays. |
|
December 2024 |
The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman as he states the landlord has not resolved the smell in his property. As a resolution to his complaint he wants the landlord to identify the source of the smell and carry out any required repairs. |
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.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a foul odour in the property. |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
- We acknowledge the resident first reported a smell of sewage in the property in September 2020. The evidence however indicates a gap in his reports between February 2021 and March 2023. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlord at the time the events happened. With the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable which makes it difficult to carry out a thorough investigation to make informed decisions. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from March 2023 onwards. This is where records indicate the beginning of events leading up to the resident’s complaint.
- In March 2023 the resident told the landlord he had been sleeping outside in his van “for months” due to the smell of sewage in the property. He said he had developed lung disease due to the smell and attached a copy of a medical letter.
- The landlord responded to the resident on the same day and said it had visited the property and had been unable to witness any smell. It said it had spoken with the water supplier who confirmed they had been working on a blockage in the area and suggested he contact them directly. The landlord said it would arrange a drain survey urgently. It advised it would not provide temporary accommodation as there was no evidence the property was uninhabitable. It said it would however review this decision if things changed. This was a reasonable response.
- However, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about his health in its response. It would have been reasonable for it to do so, and this would have demonstrated appropriate empathy.
- The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. The investigation of personal injury or damage to health and related compensation are more appropriately addressed through an insurance claim or a personal injury claim. We will however consider any distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by failures by the landlord.
- In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord outlined several inspections and repairs it had carried out. It has not provided repair logs to corroborate these actions however the resident has not disputed that they took place.
- The landlord attended 6 times between March and October 2023 and:
- Carried out a CCTV survey.
- Inspected the pipework for blockages.
- Cleared blockages, renewed waste to bath and sink in bathroom and fitted non return valves.
- Cleaned out the washing machine hose.
- These works were appropriate and proportionate to the resident’s reports. On each occasion the operatives reported that they could not smell any odour.
- We acknowledge that the resident has raised concerns that operatives have told him during inspections that they could smell sewage then gave different accounts to the landlord. He has also raised concerns about how thorough the inspections have been. As we have no evidence that the operatives have changed their account or carried out substandard work, we have been unable to assess this concern.
- The resident continued to report a sewage smell. The landlord carried out 6 further inspections in December 2023 and September 2024. It looked for both plumbing issues and any damp and mould that could cause a smell. This was a reasonable approach. On each occasion the operative reported they could find no issues and there was no smell.
- There was a long delay between the landlord suggesting a damp and mould inspection and carrying it out. However, as it found no damp or mould, we do not consider the delay impacted the outcome in the case.
- The landlord also knocked on the resident’s neighbours’ doors to see if they were experiencing similar issues. They reported no smells. It was reasonable that the landlord carried out these investigations.
- The resident has reported several times that the smell is worse on an evening and weekends. It would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to consider an out-of-hours appointment to see if it could witness the smell. That it did not do so was a missed opportunity. However, in its final complaint response it asked the resident to complete a diary logging when he could smell the odour. It said this may allow it to detect a pattern and identify the source if the smell. This was reasonable. We have not seen that the resident completed this diary.
- After the landlord’s complaint procedure the resident provided reports from 2 plumbers he had employed to inspect the property. The reports point to issues in the plumbing system but differ about the cause of the smell. We have recommended that the landlord consider the plumbers’ reports and carry out further inspections of the property with their findings in mind.
- Overall, the landlord has investigated the resident’s reports. It has carried out several inspections and more detailed investigations of the plumbing system. It has also replaced several components. As it was unable to detect a smell in the property its actions were proportionate. We therefore find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a foul odour in the property.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s first stage 1 complaint in June 2023. The landlord therefore failed to adhere to its complaint policy and delayed the complaint handling process.
- It took the landlord 11 working days to respond to the resident’s second stage 1 complaint. This slightly exceeded the timeframe in its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, the delay was minimal.
- The landlord’s stage 1 response was appropriately detailed and addressed the issues raised by the resident in line with the Code.
- On 16 October 2024 the landlord apologised for the delay in providing its stage 2 response. It said it would respond no later than 30 October 2024. However, it failed to adhere to this extended timeframe.
- It took the landlord 75 working days to respond to the stage 2 complaint. This vastly exceeded the 20-working day timeframe in the Code and the landlord’s policy. It did however acknowledge the delay in its response and offered the resident £50 compensation. This was appropriate.
- The landlord’s stage 2 response reasonably addressed the issues raised by the resident in the complaint.
- Overall, while the landlord’s stage 2 response was delayed, it apologised for this and offered appropriate redress. However, its failure to log the resident’s first complaint caused him to have to raise a further complaint. This unnecessarily delayed the complaint handling process and caused the resident avoidable time and trouble. We therefore find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
- We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 for time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures. This is in line with our remedies guidance.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- We did not find any issues in the landlord’s record keeping.
Communication
- There were no issues in the landlord’s communication with the resident.