Newlon Housing Trust (202002118)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002118

Newlon Housing Trust

21 April 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 level of compensation offered by the landlord, in response to the resident’s reports of an odour from nearby communal bins.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident’s property is within a building and part of an estate which is owned by an external freeholder. According to the lease agreement between the landlord and the freeholder, the freeholder is responsible for “inspecting, rebuilding, repainting, repairing, cleaning, renewing, redecorating or otherwise treating as necessary and keeping any bin stores… in good repair order and condition”. The freeholder appointed a managing agent (MA) to carry out any work to all communal grounds.
  3. On 22 April 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that there was an odour coming into her bathroom from the nearby communal bins.
  4. The landlord advised the resident on 23 April 2020 that it did not “attend to smells”. It asked the resident to send in photos if the bins were overfilled so it could inform the MA.
  5. According to the landlord’s records, the resident said in a telephone conversation on 24 April 2020 that she had “loose panels” in her bathroom. In the resident’s later correspondence with this Service, she explained that the smell was “coming through the bath panels, one under the sink and one by the bath tub”. The landlord then advised her in its telephone conversation that it would take “some time for repairs like this to be completed” due to the COVID 19 restrictions.
  6. The landlord has provided evidence for this investigation of it enquiring with the freeholder and MA, on 30 April, 7 May, and 21 May 2020 to find out when the communal bin storage had last been cleaned, and to inform them of the resident’s concerns.
  7. On 21 May 2020 the resident emailed the landlord. She asked for an update of “actions to be taken and possible outcomes”. She said that as the weather was getting warmer, the smell was getting stronger. She said that she had not received an update concerning repairs to the loose panels.
  8. The landlord responded to the resident’s email on 21 May 2020. It said that it had contacted the MA three times about the issue but had not received a response. It said that if the MA did not respond within two working days, it would “escalate the matter on [the resident’s] behalf”.
  9. The resident advised the landlord on 8 June 2020 that she had not received an update. She asked the landlord to complete repairs to the loose panels.
  10. Following involvement from this Service, the landlord raised the resident’s concerns as a stage one complaint on 17 July 2020.
  11. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 30 July 2020. It explained what had happened since the resident first reported the odour, and that it had not received a response from the MA. It said that it had arranged for an appointment on 4 August to inspect her bathroom and the smell. The landlord explained that it would wait until any necessary repairs were completed before it offered the resident compensation. It is not wholly clear why the landlord thought it might need to offer compensation, or whether the resident had asked the landlord to consider his.
  12. The landlord concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate the complaint if she was dissatisfied with the outcome.
  13. The resident escalated her complaint on 30 July 2020. She said that it had taken the landlord 60 working days to take her complaint “somewhat seriously”. She said that the landlord had not “stuck by [its] contract between [itself] and [its] tenants to provide a great service”. She said that the service she had received from the landlord had been unacceptable.
  14. Contractors confirmed with the landlord on 17 August 2020 that repair work to the resident’s bathroom panels had been completed. The first appointment had been carried out on 4 August. 
  15. On 26 August 2020 the resident told the landlord that, in terms of compensation, as she had not paid her rent for “the period [the landlord had] taken to deal with this, the two months”, she wanted it to keep her “one month’s advance payment (i.e. deposit)” and clear the remaining rent arrears that she had accrued at that point.
  16. On 27 August 2020 the landlord asked the resident to confirm whether she wanted “the sum of £1405.50 to be paid in respect of this complaint”. It explained that in accordance with its compensation policy it would reimburse rent “only in the case where a property was uninhabitable, and the person had to move out”. The resident responded on the same day, confirmed that she wanted £1402.50 and said that “living in communal bin smell [was] uninhabitable” and that the landlord had “failed to respond to this complaint in a timely manner”.
  17. The resident reported to the landlord on 10 and 22 September 2020 that the odour from the bins had returned. The landlord then arranged for its contractors to reattend.
  18. On 2 October 2020 the landlord updated the resident. It said that its complaint case panel would review the resident’s escalated complaint on 9 October.
  19. According to the landlord’s records, on 22 October 2020, following the resident’s reports that the bin smell had returned in September, further repair work was completed in the bathroom. 
  20. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 26 October 2020. It apologised that it had not dealt with the odour more quickly. It acknowledged that in April it could have explored in greater detail what the resident wanted. It apologised for not escalating matters with its MA as it said it would on 21 May. It also acknowledged that it had initially focused on finding out whether the MA had cleaned the bins, rather than considering the repairs needed to the resident’s bathroom. It apologised for this. It said that it had still not received a response from the MA concerning the cleaning of the bins, even though they were responsible for it. It said that the repair work to the resident’s bathroom had been completed and was successful.
  21. The landlord offered the resident £125.00 compensation which was broken down into:
    1. £25.00 for the delay in recording the complaint
    2. £25.00 for the delay in resolving the complaint
    3. £25.00 for the handling of the repair
    4. £25.00 for the time taken to complete the bathroom repair
    5. £25.00 for the delays in complaint communication.
  22. It concluded by explaining to the resident has she could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied with the outcome.
  23. The MA responded to the landlord on 10 November 2020. It confirmed that the bin storage was “being cleaned on a weekly basis”, but said that the insides of the bins were not being cleaned.

Assessment and findings

  1. As explained above, the landlord is not responsible for the cleaning or maintenance of the external bin storage. Therefore, when the resident initially reported the bad odour, it was appropriate for the landlord to have raised the issue and made enquiries with the freeholder and MA about problem. In its stage two complaint response the landlord said that it had initially focused too greatly on the cleaning of the communal bins as opposed to any relevant repair work and apologised for this. However, the landlord was aware of the root of the issue and who was responsible for it, and it took a course of action most relevant and likely to achieve a speedy resolution. Its actions were appropriate and reasonable.
  2. When the resident reported that there was a repair issue with loose panels in her bathroom the landlord promptly took responsibility for the repair, and advised the resident that it would arrange repairs once COVID 19 restrictions had been lifted. Given the COVID 19 lockdown at the time, the landlord’s decision to prioritise different types of repairs was not an unreasonable one. It was understandably a frustrating time for the resident, but, in the circumstances, the landlord acted fairly by immediately setting her expectations about the timeframes she could expect.
  3. No evidence has been provided for this investigation of the resident reporting her concerns of an odour problem prior to 22 April 2020. Landlords need the opportunity to resolve an issue before it becomes a complaint. Therefore, although the resident considered her report in April to be a complaint, and was dissatisfied with what she saw as the landlord’s delays dealing with it, her formal complaint cannot reasonably be considered to have been made to the landlord until July. The landlord promptly responded to, and attempted to resolve, the resident’s concerns or enquiries when she first reported them, often either on the day, or the day after. While the issue was not resolved when the resident first reported it, the evidence provided does not indicate that this was due to any inaction on the landlord’s behalf, especially as it was taking the logical approach by raising the matter with the MA.
  4. The landlord acknowledged in its stage two complaint response that it had not escalated the issue with the MA as it had said it would on 21 May 2020. It apologised to the resident for the omission. However, it remedied this shortcoming with its apology, and overall, the steps it took to address the underlying problem of the smells was reasonable. Specifically, it raised, and then chased the issue with the MA in May, acknowledged the repair needs, explained the delays that would be faced due to the pandemic, and followed through on the initial repairs in August.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy stipulates that in instances of “a failure of service”, it can offer £25.00 compensation in recognition of any inconvenience caused to the resident. Therefore, its offer of £125 compensation for what it believed were failings on multiple fronts was in line with its policy. The landlord explained to the resident why it would not compensate her to the level of rent reimbursement which she was seeking. This response was line with its policy, which says that it will consider compensating a proportion of a resident’s rent if major amenities are unusable (for example, the loss of water, heating, or total loss of rooms). The resident advised the landlord on 27 August 2020 that the odour from the communal bins had made her property uninhabitable. However, while there is no denying that what the resident was experiencing would have been highly unpleasant to live with, the circumstances of this complaint do not approach the general grounds of uninhabitability which would lead a landlord to consider a rent reduction. Because of that, it was reasonable for the landlord to have explained that the resident was not eligible for a rent reimbursement.
  6. Ultimately, the landlord immediately responded to the resident’s reports of an odour and took reasonable steps to make the MA, who was responsible for the issue, aware of it. It also managed the resident’s expectations by advising that the repair work would be delayed, and explaining its responsibility. In its stage two complaint response it decided there were failings in its service, and offered the resident redress for them. The amount offered was in accordance with its compensation policy and proportionate to the failings it had identified. However, overall, the landlord’s actions in response to the problem reported by the resident were relevant and reasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to this complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord promptly responded to the resident’s reports of an odour problem and managed her expectations concerning its repair responsibility and likely timeframes. It acknowledged what it considered its failings, and offered her compensation to remedy them. The amount offered was in line with its compensation policy and proportionate in the circumstances.