Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202220172)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220172

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

10 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports of a bad odour entering her property;
2. response to the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct;
3. complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a second-floor flat located in a building with similar properties.
The resident first reported a bad odour entering her property on 15 September 2020. She advised this occurred when the neighbours living below her used their bathroom. It is not evident that the landlord responded to this report.
The resident raised the issue again on 29 December 2020. An operative attended the resident’s property on 7 January 2021, but did not identify a bad smell on that visit.
The operative attended again on 18 January 2021, but this time they also visited the property below. The operative did not witness a bad smell from either property and the landlord’s notes record that the resident was informed that therefore no repair works could be undertaken. The landlord’s records also note that a further visit to the building was undertaken on 26 January 2021, in which the operative spoke with other residents to ask if they had experienced the smell, but none reported any issues.
On 1 February 2021, the resident called to ask for an update because she had not had any communication from the landlord about the smell. The landlord’s operative carried out a further visit to the property on 9 February 2021, but again did not witness the smell she had reported. The resident asked the landlord to fix the floorboardsto stop this smell from happening, as it only occurred when the resident below used their toilet.
The landlord’s records show that the resident had called on 5 February 2021 to ask for information regarding a complaint she made on 3 January 2021. The landlord informed her that it did not have a complaint recorded for that date.
Following contact from the resident, the landlord’s records show that the local authority undertook an external inspection of the property on 16 March 2021, in which the resident speculated that a waste pipe in the building that travelled underneath her property may be the source of the smell. The local authority then contacted the landlord to request that it undertake more in-depth investigations.
The resident made an initial complaint about the delay in resolving the issue of the bad smell on 28 April 2021. The landlord’s repair records show that a work order was scheduled for 5 May 2021 to check the building’s plumbing system. On 4 May 2021 the resident informed the landlord that her neighbours would not be able to provide access to her property to facilitate the appointment and would instead leave their keys under their mat. The appointment was subsequently cancelled as the landlord explained that its operatives could not enter the property without someone present. It therefore asked the resident to contact it to re-schedule upon the neighbour’s return. The complaint was subsequently closed and the work order suspended on 10 May 2021.
The resident left the country at some point in May 2021, and did not return until sometime in October 2021. Her return was delayed due to the restrictions in place at the time that did not allow people back into the UK from countries with high levels of coronavirus (COVID-19).
The repair work order was re-raised on 11 October 2021. The landlord’s repair records show that an operative attended on 29 October 2021. The records also stated that the operative witnessed the foul smell and they identified works to remove redundant waste pipes in the soil stack but this required scaffolding.
Subsequently, the landlord’s operatives attended on 1 December 2021 to erect scaffolding, but, despite informing residents that it needed access, cars were parked in the way, and consequently the work could not go ahead. It attended again on 11 December 2021, but had the same issue. The work was later completed to remove the redundant waste pipe on 11 January 2022.
In an email from the resident dated 17 February 2022, she updated the landlord on the works, saying work was supposed to be completed on 10 December 2020, but did not materialise because of miscommunication on the landlord’s part, as she alleged that it had advised the wrong flat to remove their car to facilitate the erection of the scaffolding. More importantly, she confirmed that a redundant pipe was subsequently removed on 11 January 2022, but this had not resolved the issue. On 18 February 2022, the landlord confirmed an appointment had been scheduled for 2 March 2022.
The resident informed the landlord that the operative did not attend on 2 March 2022. The landlord said this was because the operative could not access the building. A new appointment was scheduled and undertaken on 8 March 2022, which found no repair or structural issues, and no smell was present. It nevertheless recommended that all external gullies should be rodded and jetted.
The resident chased the landlord on 21 March 2022, as she had not heard anything more about the progress of the works since 10 March 2022. The resident said she did not think the operative was taking the matter seriously and asked for a specialist contractor to facilitate a permanent solution. The landlord’s records state that a drainage contractor attended on 23 March 2022. They jetted the manhole, removed some stagnant water that was sat there, and would be returning the following week to CCTV survey the area too.
Based on the landlord’s records, further appointments were conducted on 11 April 2022 and 20 April 2022, which resulted in the removal of another redundant pipe. This permanently resolved the issue, although it is noted that the resident had said the smell returned briefly in June 2022 but had not returned thereafter.
On 19 October 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of the bad odour in her property:
1. She wanted compensation for the length of time it had taken to resolve the issue, which she said had started in April 2020. She said she had to endure a highly unpleasant, harmful, and hazardous environment for two years, in a property that she contended was not fit for human habitation. She concluded that the landlord had been in breach of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 because it had not kept the installations for sanitation in good repair. She was not happy with the poor communication from the landlord, and felt that she had not being listened to, had to repeatedly chase the landlord to get the matter resolved, and even had to raise a complaint in January 2021, which it had no record of. Moreover, she said that the situation had driven her to leave the country in search of some respite.
2. She said that the some of the contractors who visited the property were often rude, dismissive, unprofessional, confrontational, and aggressive, and not always punctual, with some even missing scheduled appointments which were then not acknowledged nor admitted to. She also said she felt discriminated against due to her race and gender.
3. She said she had raised a complaint on 3 January 2021 via the landlord’s website, but the landlord did not have a record of this.
4. As an outcome, she wanted £10,000 compensation for the damages caused, due to the negligence in dealing with the repairs, which she said had caused physical and mental health issues.
In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, dated 17 November 2022, it provided the following:
1. It acknowledged that, having first reported the issue on 29 December 2021 to its out-of-hours emergency service, there were delays in resolving the matter, which inconvenienced the resident.
2. Regarding the appointments on 2 March and 8 March 2022, it said that the contractor did attend on 2 March; however, they struggled to gain entry to the building.
3. With the 8 March appointment, it felt that there may have been some wires crossed as the contractor was scheduled for an afternoon appointment (12-4.30pm). Even so, it acknowledged that, due to the number of colleagues and contractors being involved over a long period, its communication had not been what it would have hoped or strived for. The landlord apologised for this and said it would put steps in place to help deal with complex cases such as this, to mitigate similar issues in the future.
4. It said that it could not locate a prior complaint around the alleged aggressiveness of the drainage contractor who attended on 23 March 2022, but said it was happy to investigate further.
5. Overall, having reviewed the notes and speaking to staff, it did not find any evidence of its staff being rude, unprofessional, or dismissive. It said that it was not the case that it had discriminated against the resident due to her race and gender. It said it treated all customers, colleagues, and members of the public equally and without bias.
In conclusion, the landlord partly upheld the complaint. It offered £100 compensation in recognition of the delays in resolving the matter and for the inconvenience caused. The landlord acknowledged that the issue had had an impact on the resident’s health, for which it offered an apology. However, it said that, in accordance with its compensation policy, it did not compensate for any mental or physical distress or illnesses. Instead, it provided its insurer’s details should the resident wish to make a personal injury claim.
On 23 November 2022, the resident escalated her complaint because she was not happy with the investigation conducted. She accused the landlord of reducing the timeline of events, inaccuracies regarding dates, merging events, not listening to call recordings, and missing many failings. She said that the circumstances had caused extreme anxiety and depression but this was not taken seriously.
The resident highlighted that the stage one response did not correctly establish the date the bad smell was first raised. She reiterated that she first reported the issue in August 2020. She said that up until December 2020 she had made several phone calls, yet no one retuned her calls. She said the only reason an operative attended on 7 January 2021 was because of her persistent phone calls. She said the landlord had sent incompetent contractors to diagnose the issue, which prolonged the matter, and meant she had to repeat herself. She said it was her who had taken the initiative by looking at the building’s structure and prompting a solution. She said she had suffered financial loss, because she was compelled to leave the country which resulted in her accruing debt. She said it was her who would continuously chase the landlord but would often be ignored and the landlord never once took the initiative to proactively contact her to inform her about the next steps and expectations. She blamed the landlord for the confusion regarding the scaffolding because she claimed the landlord had informed the incorrect resident to remove their vehicle. She disagreed that the contractor attended on 2 March 2022 and could have called her if her could not enter the building. Regarding the appointment on 8 March 2022, she said it was her that had to chase the landlord for the operative to attend. She also specifically wanted to highlight, as an example, the timeframe between 9 February 2021 to 28 April 2021 wherein she said she had been totally dismissed and abandoned.
The resident also reiterated how the contractors were dismissive, unhelpful, unprofessional, incompetent, and rude, often leaving her in an unresolved situation because they could not locate the source of the problem. She referenced an incident whereby she felt mocked by a contractor as she was told he could not see an issue, and told her to record a video or take a photo next time or use air freshener. Moreover, she confirmed that the drainage contractor was aggressive when asked if it could investigate further. She disagreed with the landlord’s conclusion that she was not discriminated against, and asserted that she was treated this way because of her race and gender, and thereby it failed to adhere to its promotion of equality. She also reiterated that she had submitted a complaint on 3 January 2021 but never had a response and the landlord held no record of it.
In the landlord’s stage two complaint response, dated 20 December 2022, it responded as follows:
1. From its investigation, the landlord concluded that it did fully acknowledge the problem and it did respond to her. It said that, as the smell was not present during its initial visits and as there was no obvious disrepair, several surveys were needed to find the issue. As the resident left the country in May 2021 and could not return until October 2021, it was unable to carry out any investigations or works during this time, which added to the length of time it took to resolve this. That said, it accepted that it had taken time to identify the cause of the issue and ultimately resolve the smell, and therefore offered £100 compensation. It also acknowledged that it had missed the resident’s initial report on 15 September 2020. In recognition of this, it apologised and offered a further £100 compensation. Other than the initial report of the smell in September 2020, it found that each time the resident had reported this issue, it had responded to every request for support accordingly.
2. The landlord found that a staff member had investigated the resident’s claim that the drainage contractor was rude and aggressive at the time, and did not find this to be the case. In addition, from reviewing the communication, it could not see any evidence of discrimination, concluding that communication was professional, helpful, and positive.
3. It said that it did not have a record of the complaint made on 3 January 2021, which it said was explained at the time. Following a complaint made on 28 April 2021, it raised a further job to do a full survey of the whole building and the plumbing system on 5 of May 2021. However, this complaint was subsequently closed in agreement with the resident, as she was unable to facilitate an inspection due to being out of the country. In regard to inaccurate dates from the stage one response, though, it apologised for this and offered a further £25 compensation.
The total amount of compensation offered was £225 broken down as follows:
1. £100 compensation in recognition of the delays in resolving the matter and for the inconvenience caused.
2. £100 compensation in recognition of it not responding to her initial report in September 2020.
3. £25 for the poor response letter provided at stage one of the complaint procedure.
It reiterated that its compensation policy did not cover compensation for mental or physical distress or illnesses, but was aware she had begun a personal injury claim.
The resident brought her complaint to this service on 21 December 2022, because she was not happy that the landlord took two years to resolve the issue. She was unhappy that, on many occasions, the landlord and its staff were unprofessional. As an outcome, she wanted an increased amount of compensation to reflect the circumstances she had to endure.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has explicitly linked the landlord’s handling of the odour issue as a direct cause and exacerbation of her mental and physical health issues. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her medical conditions, but this service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nevertheless, this report will consider the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident.
It is also noted that the resident pursued a personal injury claim regarding the impact on her health that has subsequently been rejected. This service cannot comment on the findings of an independent liability insurer and therefore the resident should seek legal advice should she wish to pursue the matter further.
Equally, allegations of discrimination are usually determined and better suited to the legal process, because it is ostensibly quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of discrimination (race and gender) by its staff, as the Ombudsman expects landlords to investigate concerns about bias through their complaints procedure.

Odour

The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. It should ensure that its properties are ‘fit for human habitation’, meaning they are safe, healthy, and free from things that could cause serious harm. Prolonged or acute exposure to sewage smell has the potential to adversely affect a human and could constitute a possible hazard. And being as the smell originated from outside the resident’s property (redundant pipework in the building), this would be the landlord’s responsibility to resolve. This is in accordance with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the resident’s tenancy agreement, and the landlord’s repairs policy. In short, the landlord was required to consider whether any such reports amount to a hazard that required remedying.
Though the resident’s reports were intermittent and, when they did occur, the smell would dissipate after 15 to 20 minutes, the nature of the smell (sewage) should nevertheless warrant a more urgent approach. Based on appendix B in the landlord’s repairs policy, a report of a bad smell entering the property should be attended to as a priority repair, because these are defined as causing a customer discomfort, inconvenience, and nuisance and it is likely to lead to further deterioration if the problem persists. Appointments for priority repairs should be made at the first available date within 15 calendar days.
It should be noted, however, that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as a bad odour, because it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue, and in some cases different investigations and repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. Nevertheless, a landlord should ensure that it is working toward a resolution and that its communication is clear and timely regarding the next steps and expectations. In this case, though, communication was not always timely and clear, and this, as a result, caused delays in getting the matter resolved.
For example, having first reported the bad odour entering the resident’s property on 15 September 2020, the landlord did not respond, meaning the resident had to raise a further report on 29 December 2020. This caused an initial delay of approximately three months and was an acknowledged failing on the landlord’s part.
While it is recognised that the resident has said that she made a number of phone calls in the interim period (between September and December 2020), chasing the landlord for a response, the evidence provided does not support this claim. The Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s contention that she was actively pursuing the landlord, but this service relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions based on the information provided. Where there are instances that are disputed with insufficient evidence to confirm either way what events took place, it would not be possible for the Ombudsman, as an independent arbiter, to make a decision. In other words, the time taken (time and trouble) pursuing the landlord in the aforementioned interim period will not be considered in this report when looking at the impact on the resident, because it cannot be substantiated in the evidence provided. That said, the delay itself, and the lack of a response, will be considered.
Following the second report on 29 December 2020, the landlord this time did respond in line with its obligations, scheduling an inspection of the property within 10 calendar days on 7 January 2021. Further inspections were undertaken on 18 January 2021 and 26 January 2021. However, because operatives did not witness the bad smell in either the resident’s property or in other properties in the building, and could not find any obvious repairs that were needed, it was reasonable at this point to rely on the conclusions of its contractors.
However, this did not mean that the issue was now resolved and the landlord’s work complete. As mentioned above, the smell was intermittent and, according to the resident, disappeared after around 15 to 20 minutes; therefore, there was a strong chance that an operative would not witness the smell at all, as was the case during the January 2021 visits. Moreover, just because there were no immediate repairs needed, this did not mean that further, more in-depth investigations were not required, especially if we consider the nature of the reported smell being potentially hazardous and in light of the resident reporting that this was impacting her health.
The landlord should have, therefore, devised a plan of action at this point, one which included the provision of more in-depth investigations, one that facilitated a better strategy to witness the smell, and one that set clear next steps and expectations for the resident, so that it could work toward a viable and timely resolution. There is no indication in the evidence provided that the landlord considered or investigated why the resident was experiencing so many reports of a bad smell in such a short time period, which is a fundamental aspect of basic repair management. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to hasten a resolution, which caused further delays, time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience.
Instead, the landlord did not provide any next steps and the resident was left to pursue the landlord again on 1 February 2021 for an update. And though a further appointment was attended on 9 February 2021, within the stipulated timescales for a priority repair, this too did not witness the smell and the resident was again left with no plan of action moving forward.
In fact, it was the resident herself who, having speculated that the likely root cause of the smell was due to internal waste pipes within the building, proactively sought a solution, contacting the local authority who, in turn, prompted the landlord on 17 March 2021 to undertake a more in-depth investigation of the building.
Despite this, the landlord’s response was still not timely as an appointment to investigate the building’s pipework was not scheduled until 5 May 2021, almost two months after being prompted by the local authority. What is more, it seemingly took the resident raising a formal complaint on 28 April 2021 to prompt this repair being scheduled. In short, between 9 February 2021 and 5 May 2021 the landlord’s involvement in proactively devising a solution was minimal, as too was the communication with the resident, and this resulted in further unnecessary delays.
Now, while it is the case that the landlord did schedule an appointment on 5 May 2021, the decision to postpone the appointment at this stage because the resident could not provide access to her property, due to her being out of the country, was reasonable in the circumstances. It may have been helpful had the landlord undertaken provisional examinations of the pipework in the building at the time, but the reports of the smell were concentrated in the resident’s property, and therefore access would have been an important part of its investigations.
Moreover, though the resident’s inability to return to the property, due to the restrictions in place at the time, were a cause of frustration, this approximate five-month delay between May 2021 and October 2021 could not be foreseen and could in no way be attributable to the landlord. Likewise, any associated costs or losses as a result of the resident being out of the country would not be the landlord’s responsibility to reimburse.
Furthermore, the resident’s contention that she was compelled to leave the property because it was causing her considerable distress is understandable, especially in the light of the above identified failings, but this would not negate the importance, and indeed expectation, of ensuring that access is given to the property when needed, as per the landlord’s repairs policy, which states that residents are responsible for allowing access to their homes to carry out inspections, repairs and maintenance works including safety checks. In short, from the date the repair was scheduled (5 May 2021) to the date the resident returned to the country (early October 2021), this service has not identified a failing by the landlord.
Upon the resident’s return to the UK, the landlord re-raised the work order on 11 October 2021 accordingly, scheduling the appointment toward the end of the month as the resident was isolating. Thereafter, it is the case that there were some further delays in getting the matter fully resolved, albeit not all could be attributable to failings by the landlord.
For instance, there was a slight delay following the visit on 29 October 2021 (which according to the information provided was the first time an operative had witnessed the smell), because it identified that scaffolding was required to complete the works. The fact that scaffolding was required, meaning that further appointments were needed, was not a failing on the landlord’s part. As mentioned previously, this was a complex issue that required in-depth investigation and a number of repairs to fully resolve the matter. Consequently, certain delays such as this were inevitable.
When the work was re-scheduled for 1 December 2021, vehicles were parked where the scaffolding needed to be erected and therefore needed to be re-scheduled again, causing a further delay. In this particular instance, the resident claims that it was the landlord’s poor communication that led to the delay in erecting the scaffolding. This was raised as part of her complaint but was not addressed. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the lack of communication between the landlord and its residents was the cause of the delay. Nevertheless, the landlord should ensure that it addresses all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions; this is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (available on our website). This was a further failing on the landlord’s part.
When the initial works to remove a redundant waste pipe on 11 January 2022 were undertaken, the landlord’s decision, post the completion of the works, to allow the smell to gradually dissipate over time, as the odour may still be circulating inside the cavity walls of the building, was reasonable when deciding what steps would be best to take next, because it was based on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors. Thus, a wait-and-see approach was the most rational approach at this point, as the suspected cause of the issue had been located and removed.
As we know, this did not resolve the issue permanently, and further works were required, but this delay was part of the holistic, trial-and-error approach described earlier and did not constitute a failing for that reason. And when the resident informed the landlord, on 17 February 2022, that the smell still persisted, it duly scheduled an appointment on 2 March 2022, within the stipulated timeframe for a priority repair.
However, the 2 March 2022 appointment did not take place and there is a dispute between the landlord and the resident about why this was the case. The resident believes the operative did not turn up that day, whereas the landlord contends that they did, but could not gain access to the building. The landlord did, in this instance, use its internal complaint procedure to clarify how it reached its decision, explaining that the operative did not hold a key to the building, but must have rang the bell and called the resident as its system would not allow an operative to record a ‘no-access appointment’ if a call had not been made. This corresponds broadly with the landlord’s position at the time.
As previously mentioned, when there are conflicting accounts of what happened, with insufficient evidence to confirm either way what happened that day, it would not be possible for the Ombudsman to establish either parties’ position based on the evidence provided. Whilst the Ombudsman is not able to reach a conclusion on this aspect of the complaint, the landlord has demonstrated that it took adequate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and explain its position to her at the time and during the complaint process. Similarly, this was the case with the re-arranged visit on 8 March 2022, where the landlord explained at the time and during its internal complaint procedure that the operative was delayed but did attend, and it could not be substantiated that this was due to the resident’s contact that she said was the reason the operative turned up that day.
However, following the 10 March 2022 email update, in which the landlord explained that the operative who attended on 8 March 2022 had recommended that all external gullies were rodded and jetted to ensure no back smell, the resident had to chase the landlord again on 21 March 2022 as she had not received an update. This was indicative of the landlord’s handling of the matter, as the resident was once again the one who was proactively pursuing the landlord to get the matter resolved; this was a further failing on the landlord’s part.
This did nevertheless prompt a chain of events that ultimately resolved the issue, which, from 21 March 2022, was timely and reasonable in light of the circumstances. The drainage contractor attended on 23 March 2022, to carry out the jetting of the drains and gullies. An inspection was undertaken on 11 April 2022 that found a further redundant pipe, which was subsequently removed on 20 April 2022, permanently resolving the matter.
Even so, having first reported the odour on 15 September 2020, it had taken approximately 19 months to resolve the matter. On the one hand, there were a number of delays that were not the fault of the landlord and it was clear that at times its communication was good. Conversely, there were a number of failings by the landlord that did unnecessarily elongate the resolution of the matter, causing the resident considerable distress and inconvenience over a protracted amount of time.
While it is acknowledged that the landlord did identify some failings during its internal complaint procedure, offering £100 in recognition of the delays in resolving the matter and for the inconvenience caused, as well as a further £100 for not responding to her initial report in September 2020, the redress offered was disproportionately low in light of the failings identified in this report.
Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay £500 compensation. This is broadly in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for severe impact and this service’s own remedies guidance (published on our website) which suggests a payment from £100 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration by a landlord. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. For clarity, this amount has taken into consideration the complexity of the repair, the intermittent reports, the periods that the smell was not experienced, and the unforeseen delays that could not be attributable to the landlord during the 19-month period.

Staff conduct

When a resident raises concerns regarding staff conduct, the landlord would be expected to carry out a thorough investigation into these concerns, ensuring that it relays the findings to the resident in a clear and timely manner. And while it is the case that the landlord said that it did investigate the resident’s concerns and relayed its findings via its complaint procedure, only limited information has been provided by the landlord in relation to this.
For example, the landlord’s stage two complaint response concluded that a staff member had investigated the resident’s claim that the drainage contractor was rude and aggressive at the time, and did not find this to be the case. However, information regarding this investigation (i.e. how this investigation was conducted, who the landlord spoke to etc.) has not been provided to this service for review.
Similarly, no specific mention was made about the resident’s concerns about an incident whereby she felt mocked by a contractor on 9 February 2021, apart from the landlord concluding in general that it found no evidence that its staff were unprofessional.
Therefore, this service is not satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns during the investigation process. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts with the staff members involved, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
In view of this, while we cannot conclude that an investigation did not take place, the lack of evidence to support a thorough investigation into allegations of poor staff conduct is a failing on the landlord’s part. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further amount of compensation of £100 to reflect its poor record keeping. This is broadly in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for moderate impact and with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, which recommends a payment from £50 in cases of service failure of a short duration that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome.
Unlike the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct, the resident’s reports of discrimination were not specific and were broadly aimed at the landlord as a whole. Because of this, the landlord took the best course of action by reviewing the communication and by offering the resident the opportunity to provide supporting evidence for the landlord to investigate.
As explained in the scope of investigation paragraph, allegations of discrimination are usually determined and better suited via the legal process. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman expects landlords to investigate concerns about bias (race and gender in this case) through their complaint procedure which the landlord has done accordingly.
Ultimately, the landlord has reasonably investigated this matter further and provided a formal response to the resident. As it found no evidence of discrimination to suggest the landlord treated the resident differently based on her personal characteristics, and was not provided any information that would contradict its position, there was no further action the landlord could take. In view of this, while we cannot make a determination on whether the resident was discriminated against, the Ombudsman has not found a failing in its response to this aspect of the complaint.

Complaints handling

It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the apology and £25 compensation offered at stage of the complaint procedure for the poor stage one complaint response was proportionate for the failings identified. Though it was the case that the errors identified were a cause of frustration and only added to the sense that the landlord was not taking the matter seriously, the impact was minimal and of short duration, and the landlord was able to correct the inaccuracies in the stage two response. Therefore, the amount of £25 was sufficient and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for minimal impact.
The resident had also raised concerns that a complaint she had raised on 3 January 2021 had not been acknowledged nor addressed. Based on the information provided, there is no evidence that a complaint was made on this date and the resident was unable to substantiate this claim. Therefore, the landlord’s response that it did not hold a record of a complaint being made was adequate and no failing has been identified here.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s reports of a bad odour entering her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, in relation to its complaint handling, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £600, comprising:
1. 500 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a bad odour entering her property;
2. £100 for its poor record keeping in relation to the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord) must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should reiterate its offer of £25 in relation to its poor complaints handling, if this is yet to have been accepted.