London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202212405)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212405

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 January 2024

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 handling of:
1. Reported smells that affected the resident’s property.
2. The replacement of the kitchen sink cupboard.
3. The associated complaints.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy which began on 3 October 2016. The property is a 3-bedroom house and the landlord is a housing association.
In May 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that a strong smell was affecting her property. She had contacted her gas provider, water provider and the fire service and asked them to investigate. The gas provider had attended and confirmed that there was no gas leak. The fire service had investigated and had not been able to identify the cause of the smell. The water provider had attended and identified some issues with the sewer pipe and drainage but had also not been able to identify the source of the smell.
The resident’s stage 2 complaint dated 30 May 2022 explained that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the smell she had reported. She highlighted that the landlord’s contractor had failed to attend an appointment on 30 May 2022 to investigate the smell and to replace the kitchen sink cupboard.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply to the resident on 14 October 2022 and confirmed that it had carried out a CCTV drain survey but had not been able to identify the source of the smell. The findings from the CCTV survey had recommended that no further drainage works were needed and therefore the landlord had concluded that it would not take any further action in relation to the drainage. However, it confirmed that it would reimburse the resident for expenses incurred due to her temporarily leaving the property because of the smell. The landlord also offered her compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that it had not been able to establish the reasons for the delays in renewing the kitchen sink cupboard.
The resident contacted this Service on 9 September 2022 and explained that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the smell that had affected her property and the replacement of the kitchen sink cupboard. She was also concerned that she had not received a reply to her stage 2 complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 May 2022 and reported that members of her family had felt sick because of the smell in the property. She also wrote on 5 October 2022 and reported that one of her cats almost died from respiratory issues as a result of the strong smell in the property. The Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s statements. However, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would include impacts on the health of pets. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer. The Ombudsman has, however, investigated the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the smell in the property.

The landlord’s handling of reported smells that affected the resident’s property

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) guidance for landlords states: “The dwelling should not contain any deficiency that might give rise to a hazard which interferes with, or puts at risk, the health or safety, or even the lives, of the occupants”.
Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is required to “keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house (including drains, gutters and external pipes)”.
The landlord’s repairs policy states:
1. “For emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, we will attend within 24 hours”
2. “For emergency works that occur out of hours, we will attend within 4 hours”.
3. “For routine day to day repairs, we will aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 May 2022 to report a strong smell in her property. She stated that her gas provider had attended and confirmed there were no gas leaks and the fire service had also attended but had not been able to identify the source of the smell.
The landlord’s contractor attended on the same day to check whether the smell was due to a gas leak and confirmed there were no gas leaks. The landlord’s records show that the resident was distressed about the situation and was concerned about the possible gas leak. Therefore, although the gas provider had already visited, it was appropriate that the landlord had raised an emergency order and that the contractor had attended on the same day. The resident reported that the contractor’s operatives felt unwell while in the property due to the smell.
The landlord raised a further emergency order on 20 May 2022 for a drainage contractor to investigate whether a manhole was causing the smell. However, the drainage contractor did not arrive until 6pm the following day, even though the resident had been advised that the contractor would attend within 4 hours. As the order had been raised as an ‘out of hours’ emergency call-out, it was inappropriate that the contractor had not attended within the landlord’s prescribed 4-hour timescale. The resident continued to be distressed about the smell and had to wait until the evening of the following day for the contractor to attend.
The landlord accepted in its stage 2 reply that the drainage sub-contractor had not been given the full address of the property and this had contributed to the delay. As a result of the delay, the resident paid for a private drainage contractor to attend.
The landlord’s drainage contractor attended on 21 May 2022 and investigated all of the drains but was unable to find the source of the smell.
The resident stated in her stage one complaint, which she made on 23 May 2022, that she had been unable to remain in the property due to the smell. She also stated that one of the contractor’s operatives had advised her not to remain in the property. The resident therefore stayed in a hotel on 20 and 21 May 2022 (for one night). The resident contacted the landlord about the smell on 25 and 26 May 2022.
On 30 May 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that one of the contractor’s operatives had agreed to attend on that morning to investigate the smell from the kitchen (and to replace the kitchen sink cupboard). However, the operative had not arrived. The resident phoned the operative and he advised the resident that he had been sent to a different job. The operative advised the resident that a different operative would be attending that afternoon. However, the resident was unavailable in the afternoon as she had a pre-arranged appointment elsewhere. It was unreasonable that the contractor had missed the appointment to investigate the smell from the kitchen and had not contacted the resident to tell her it could not attend.
The resident has confirmed to this Service that the smell was at its worse during 20 to 22 May 2022 but that it did continue for a short period after this. For example, the resident wrote to the landlord on 30 May 2022 to report that she had to call her water provider on 30 May 2022 as the smell was persisting in the kitchen. The resident reported that the water provider had carried out investigations on the same day and found:
1. There was a ‘belly’ (or dip) in the sewer line.
2. The pipes at the front of the house were ‘backing up’ with waste.
3. The Osma chambers were facing the wrong way (an Osma chamber allows access to carry out underground drainage inspections).
4. There was a smell of petrol in one of the chambers.
As a result of the resident advising the landlord about the water provider’s findings, the landlord raised a new repair order on 1 June 2022 for its contractor to investigate the drainage at the front of the house. This was reasonable as the landlord had acted on the information received from the resident about the findings from the water provider.
The landlord’s drainage contractor attended on 6 June 2022 without an appointment. This was inappropriate because although the contractor did not require access to the resident’s property, the resident needed to speak to the contractor to explain the problem and to understand the work the contractor would be carrying out. Therefore, in the interests of good customer care, the landlord or contractor should have advised the resident beforehand about the contractor’s visit, particularly as the repair had not been raised as an emergency.
Following the drainage company’s visit on 6 June 2022, the landlord advised the resident on 8 June 2022 that it had arranged for a CCTV drain survey to be carried out. Given that the water provider had identified potential issues with the drainage, it was reasonable for the landlord to investigate these through a CCTV drain survey. The survey would provide the landlord with information about the condition of the drains and pipework and enable the contractor to check the issues identified by the water provider.
The resident advised the landlord on 17 June 2022 that she was unhappy with the time it was taking to carry out the CCTV survey. The survey was carried out on 17 June 2022, which was 9 days after the landlord had raised the order. At this point, the resident had not been given an indication of when the CCTV survey would take place. The lack of communication was inappropriate as the resident had previously had to leave her home due to the reported smell and was therefore understandably anxious about the situation. Earlier communication from the landlord would have provided the resident with reassurance that the matter was in hand.
The CCTV drain survey report stated that the pipework was in good structural condition with no visual defects and was free-flowing. The report concluded that no further drainage work was required at that time.
During August and September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on various occasions to request a reply to her complaint (this is covered in more detail later in this assessment under the landlord’s complaints handling). The resident stated that she was seeking compensation for having to leave her home and stay in a hotel for one night due to the smell.
In its stage 2 complaint, the landlord confirmed that it was not intending to take further action in relation to the drains as the CCTV drainage survey had recommended that no further action was required. The report confirmed that the survey had covered the drainage located at the front of the property, which could have been connected with the smells, and had found no issues. The landlord provided a link to the survey footage so that the resident could check the footage.
The landlord concluded that based on the feedback from its contractors and the visits from other agencies, it had not been able to definitively identify the source of the smell that had affected the property. The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord had taken reasonable steps to identify the source of the smell by:
1. Arranging for its gas contractor to attend on 20 May 2022 to check for a possible gas leak.
2. Arranging for its drainage contractor to carry out visual checks of the drainage system on 21 May 2022 and 6 June 2022.
3. Arranging for a CCTV drain survey to be carried out on 17 June 2022.
The evidence shows that as well as the landlord’s contractors being unable to identify the cause of the smell, the same was also true of a private drainage company called by the resident, the fire service, the gas provider and the water provider. Therefore, it was reasonable in the Ombudsman’s view for the landlord to advise the resident that it had not been able to identify the cause of the smell. Although the Ombudsman recognises that this response was frustrating for the resident, the landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its drainage contractor and on the findings from the CCTV survey.
The evidence shows that the resident wanted the landlord to carry out further investigations into the issues identified by the water provider. This would potentially have required some excavation at the front of the property. However, the landlord confirmed in its stage 2 reply that it would not be taking further action in relation to the drainage because of the results of the CCTV survey.
The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider all relevant information when making its decision about whether to carry out further works. In this case, the landlord considered both the report from the water provider and the CCTV survey findings and decided not to take further action. Therefore, as the landlord had considered the relevant information available, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord acted reasonably in making its decision.
The resident had mentioned to the landlord that a possible cause of the smell was mould behind the kitchen sink. However, this Service has not seen any evidence from the contractors or agencies that attended the property confirming this.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 reply that the situation had been stressful for the resident as she had left the property to stay in a hotel. It had therefore reimbursed the resident £401 for the cost of the hotel, her meals while she was in the hotel and for the cost of calling out a private drainage company.
The resident temporarily moved out of her home on 20 May 2022 until 21 May 2022 due to the reported strong smells in her property. The resident’s emails show that she found the situation distressing and was concerned about the health of her family and pets. The landlord is responsible under the HHSRS for addressing deficiencies that may give rise to hazards in the home. The evidence shows that the resident regarded the smell as a hazard to members of her household and her pets. There is also evidence suggesting that this view was shared by the one or more of the contractor’s operatives. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to reimburse the resident for her costs as she had legitimate concerns about the safety of her family if she remained in the property.
The Ombudsman has noted that during the landlord’s investigation of the resident’s complaint, it failed to obtain statements from the operatives who had visited the property on 20 May 2022. The landlord’s records stated that one of the operatives did not remember the incident. The landlord’s failure to obtain notes from the operatives was a shortcoming on its part as it is important to gather all relevant statements as part of an investigation. However, in this case, the landlord did not dispute the resident’s report that the smell was very strong and did not question the need for her to leave the property temporarily. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s view is that the operatives’ statements were unlikely to have affected the outcome for the resident.
As well as reimbursing the resident for her costs, the landlord offered her compensation of £300 in its stage 2 reply. The landlord stated that this sum was to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble that the resident and her family had been through. The amount offered is in the range of redress recommended in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures that have had an adverse impact on the resident. In this case, the failings identified in relation to the landlord’s handling of the reported smells were:
1. The drainage contractor failing to attend within 4 hours on 20 May 2022;
2. The contractor had failed to attend an appointment on 30 May 2022 to investigate the smell from the kitchen;
3. The resident was not advised of the drainage contractor’s appointment on 6 June 2022.
4. The resident was not kept updated about the date for the CCTV survey.
The resident’s emails show that the events of 20 to 22 May 2022 were distressing for the resident and her family. However, the evidence shows that the landlord was previously unaware of any problems regarding strong smells entering the property. Therefore, the landlord could not reasonably have known that the problem would occur.
The Ombudsman’s view is therefore that the landlord’s offer of £300 (in addition to the reimbursement of the resident’s expenses) was reasonable redress to put things right in terms of its failings in responding to the reported smell affecting the property. The Ombudsman has therefore found that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident.
During email exchanges between the landlord and resident in October 2022, the resident rejected the landlord’s offer of compensation as she felt it did not reflect the level of detriment in relation to her health and the health of her cat. The landlord advised the resident that she would need to contact its insurance team regarding any health claims. This was reasonable as landlords’ public liability insurance is designed to deal with compensation claims relating to personal injuries, loss or damage to property.

The replacement of the kitchen sink cupboard

The landlord raised an order on 12 May 2022 to carry out repairs to the kitchen sink because the resident was unable to use the strainer and the sink was occasionally blocking. As stated earlier, the resident wrote to the landlord on 30 May 2022 and advised that the contractor had missed an appointment to attend the property on 30 May 2022 to replace the kitchen sink and investigate the smell from the kitchen. The landlord’s records show that that the contractor had removed the kitchen sink cupboard during the previous week due to a leaking pipe.
The landlord has advised this Service that the job to replace the kitchen sink cupboard was attended on 1 June 2022. However, the landlord’s repairs log shows that this visit was to carry out repairs to the bathroom taps.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 June 2022 to report that the contractor had removed the sink cupboard during the week preceding 30 May 2022 and had not returned to fit the new cupboard. The resident then wrote to the landlord again on 13 July 2022 to advise that the sink cupboard had still not been replaced, even though she had been told it would be done on 11 July 2022. It was unreasonable that the sink cupboard had been removed and 2 appointments to replace it had been missed (on 30 May 2022 and 11 July 2022). As well as causing inconvenience for the resident due to wasted time, it meant that the resident had been without a sink cupboard during this period.
The landlord replied to the resident on 13 July 2022, apologised for the missed appointment and offered a £20 missed appointment voucher. The landlord’s compensation policy states that £20 will be offered where the landlord fails to keep an appointment without at least 24 hours’ notice. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the missed appointment and to offer the resident a £20 voucher.
The landlord has advised this Service that the kitchen sink cupboard was replaced on 15 July 2022. However, in the resident’s email sent to the landlord on 10 August 2022, the resident stated that the kitchen cupboard was fitted on 21 July 2022 and this was not disputed by the landlord at the time. The resident also stated in her email that she had to wait a further week after 21 July 2022 for the plinth to be fitted under the sink cupboard. She stated that the operative had fixed the plinth temporarily with glue as he did not have the correct clips. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 reply that the work to the kitchen cupboard was fully completed with the fitting of the ‘trim’ on 5 October 2022.
It was unreasonable that it took approximately 2 months for the contractor to replace the kitchen sink cupboard. The contractor had removed the previous sink cupboard as it had been damaged by a leak and it meant that during the 2 month period, the resident did not have a cupboard under the sink.
In its stage 2 reply dated 14 October 2022, the landlord explained that it had not been able to establish the “logging failure” in relation to the renewal of the kitchen cupboard or the reason for the delay in replacing it. The landlord added that it had not been able to obtain a statement from the operative regarding the matter.
The landlord’s inability to identify the reasons for the delay is unsatisfactory and indicates a weakness in its record-keeping. Furthermore, the repairs history for the property sent to this Service by the landlord does not mention the renewal of the kitchen sink cupboard, including dates the work was carried out. Consequently, the Ombudsman has had to rely on emails to determine the dates of the contractor’s visits to carry out the work.
The landlord’s lack of adequate records affected its ability to pro-actively manage the kitchen cupboard repairs and therefore it relied on the resident to continually chase the landlord for updates. In addition, the landlord’s inability to identify the reasons for the delays means that it is unable to identify learning from its handling of the replacement of the kitchen cupboard.
In its stage 2 reply, the landlord offered compensation of £300 for distress and inconvenience (and £100 for complaint handling failures). However, it is not clear from the letter whether this sum was intended to compensate the resident for the failings in replacing the kitchen cupboard as well as the landlord’s handling of the smell. The Ombudsman’s view is that while the compensation was adequate to put things right regarding the landlord’s handling of the smells, it did not adequately reflect the detriment experienced by the resident in relation to the kitchen cupboard replacement. The resident was without a cupboard under the sink for 2 months and had to chase the landlord on various occasions due to its poor record-keeping.
Although the landlord had offered the resident a £20 voucher for one of the missed appointments, it did not mention the other appointment that had been missed.
The Ombudsman has found that there was maladministration by the landlord, which resulted in distress and inconvenience for the resident due to delays and missed appointments regarding the replacement of the kitchen cupboard. In making its finding, this Service has also taken into account the landlord’s poor record-keeping and inability to identify the reasons for the delays.
This Service has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £300, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for situations where the resident has been adversely affected and the landlord has not made a proportionate offer to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process: stage one complaints are replied to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If the landlord cannot meet either of these timescales, it will write to the resident within a further 10 working days to explain why.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 May 2022 to make a stage one complaint regarding a strong smell affecting the property. The landlord replied on 25 May 2022 to acknowledge the complaint and provide its decision. Although the reply was sent within the advertised timescale and was therefore timely, it lacked any substantive information to resolve the complaint. The reply simply stated that the landlord would investigate the complaint and respond within 10 working days.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code published in March 2022 states that landlords must address all points in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. In this case, the landlord had not investigated the complaint and it did not address the points within the complaint. As a result, the resident wrote to the landlord on 30 May 2022 stating she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s reply. The resident also submitted a further online complaint form on 30 May 2022 about the smell affecting the property.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 July 2022 to confirm that it had spoken to her about the complaint and would now escalate it to stage 2. The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 and 16 August chasing a response to the stage 2 complaint. The landlord replied on 10 August 2022 to advise the resident that it was working through a backlog of complaints.
The resident contacted this Service on 9 September 2022 to report that she had not received a reply to her stage 2 complaint. The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 September 2022 to confirm that it had spoken to her about the complaint and would reply by 14 October 2022.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 14 October 2022, which was four and a half months after the resident had advised the landlord she was dissatisfied with its stage one reply. The landlord’s records show that the landlord had written to the resident on 4 July, 10 August and 16 September 2022 and had spoken to her on 4 July and 16 September 2022. However, even taking these contacts into account, the delay in replying to the resident’s stage 2 complaint was excessive. The delay meant that the resident had spent further time and effort chasing the landlord and contacting this Service.
In its stage 2 reply, the landlord acknowledged its failings at stage one of the complaints process and the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £100 for these complaint handling failures. The Ombudsman welcomes that the landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failings and offered compensation in its stage 2 reply. However, the view of this Service is that the offer of £100 was not proportionate to the complaint handling failures identified in this investigation. The Ombudsman has therefore found there was a service failure due to the poor quality of the landlord’s stage one reply and the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint. Consequently, additional compensation of £100 has been ordered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the reported smells that affected the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the replacement of the kitchen sink cupboard.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £300 for its handling of the replacement of the kitchen cupboard.
3. Pay the resident a total of £200 for its complaints handling (this includes the £100 already offered by the landlord in its stage 2 reply for complaints handling).

Recommendation

The landlord should reoffer the resident £300 in relation to its handling of the smells that affected her property, if this has not already been paid.