Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202204317)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204317

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

4 December 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of smells from the bin store located beneath her flat.
2. Request to be moved.
3. Request for a rent reduction.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Request to be moved.
2. Request for a rent reduction.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a members complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The resident advised this Service that part of the complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her request to be moved and for a reduction in rent due to living above the bin store. The complaint of 23 March 2022 did not make reference to moving or a reduction in rent and this Service can only consider matters that the landlord has had the opportunity to respond to formally. The landlord confirmed to this Service that a separate complaint had been logged in relation to these matters following a meeting in September 2022.
For clarification, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of smells from the bin store.

Scope of investigation

The resident advised that she had been experiencing issues of smells from the bin store for 7 years. This Service has previously investigated a complaint about smells from the bin store and request to be moved under reference 202100690, concerning the landlord’s final response dated 27 November 2020. In accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon. The scope of this investigation will therefore be limited to events after this, as this Service will not reinvestigate matters that have already been considered.
The resident described her medical conditions and how she believed this had been caused and/or exacerbated by the condition of the bin store. 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. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts. This Service can, however, consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failures by the landlord.

Background and summary of events

Background

At the time of the complaint the resident was an assured tenant of the landlord and lived with her daughter in a 1-bedroom flat on the first floor of a communal building. The flat is located directly above the communal bin store.
The landlord stated that it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident however, the resident had stated that she struggled with her mental health.

Policies

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk assessment procedure to assess whether a home is decent and free from any hazards. A hazard is any risk of harm to the health or safety of an actual or potential occupier of accommodation that arises from a deficiency in the dwelling, building or land in the vicinity. The HHSRS is concerned with hazards that are attributable in whole or in part to the design, construction and or maintenance of the dwelling. Landlords should consider the circumstances carefully in the interests of the occupiers of the dwelling before concluding that a hazard cannot be dealt with effectively. Section C of the HHSRS refers to domestic hygiene, pests and refuse identifying hazards such as inadequate and unhygienic provision for storage and disposal of household waste. It says:
1. Refuse facilities should not cause hygiene problems.
2. Stores should be designed to reduce invasion by pests and should be designed so as not to let air from the store enter any living space.
The tenancy agreement states that for communal areas the landlord will “take reasonable care to maintain common entrances, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways, rubbish chutes and any other common parts”.
The estate inspection procedure says that each estate and block in receipt of services will have a specification covering the scope, quality and frequency and standard of service and who is responsible for its delivery. The landlord encourages estate inspections to be carried out by neighbourhood officers along with surveyors and residents. Residents are also encouraged to carry out inspections independently.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and will be responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days.

Summary of events

The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 23 March 2022. She said:
1. She was writing again to complain about the bins directly beneath her home and attached photographs of the bin store area.
2. Every summer she was forced to suffer with the “stench” due to the poor upkeep of the bins and felt she had no choice but to escalate this to the landlord. She had complained over a number of years, but no solution had been found. She needed help and said that cleaning the bin store cupboards was not enough.
3. A meeting needed to be held with the residents as the issue was getting worse and not being managed. She needed a solution as she could not deal with another summer like the previous one. She was unable to open the windows due to the smell from the rubbish below.
4. She said it was “highly infuriating” and asked for it to be resolved. She had copied in the environmental health officer to the email who was aware of the issue.
On 25 March 2022 environmental health (EH) wrote to the landlord stating that it had visited the resident and although it had not witnessed a statutory nuisance (odour) it may have missed opportunities in the past and it was likely there was odour nuisance. It requested a meeting with the landlord and resident to plan better management of the bin store. It said if this was not forthcoming it may consider a notice on the landlord for “likely to cause nuisance.”
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 March 2023 requesting a banding review for a transfer. She said she had suffered for over 6 years living directly above the bin store. The sight of the bins was causing her anxiety and depression. She said, “its making me unwell and I now have a problem as I am so sensitive to smells its obsessive”. She had thrown out everything thinking it smelt because her entire flat “was engulfed in the bin store stink”.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint on 29 March 2022 and said it would provide a response within 10 working days.
On 4 April 2022 the landlord sent a letter to all residents of the block about refuse. It said that residents were not disposing of refuse in the correct manner or contributing to maintaining a clean and tidy building. The bin area was of “great concern” as this was the central refuse point which needed to be kept free and clear of debris to prevent possible pest infestations. It urged residents to make every effort to clean up any spillages accidently caused and dispose of rubbish appropriately.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 6 April 2022. It said it was concerned to hear that the resident was unhappy with its service and apologised for any inconvenience caused. It appreciated that this must have been a frustrating time for her. It said:
1. Its understanding of her complaint was that it concerned the ongoing issue with the communal bins. It had liaised with its housing team who advised that they were aware of the issue and had received an email from EH. It was waiting for the proposed meeting to discuss the way forward.
2. In the meantime, its contractor had been made aware of the issue and confirmed:
  1. The cleaner was on site on Mondays for the bin collection. It would inspect and clear the bin store whilst on site.
  2. It was agreed last year when this issue first arose that the contractor would carry out monthly jet cleaning of the bin store and this was still in place. The most recent treatment took place on 29 March 2022.
  3. The contractor understood the issue and had given assurance that it would monitor the bin store when it was on site.
3. It said that the other issue was how residents were disposing of refuse. The housing officer would be writing to all residents reminding them how to dispose of refuse. This would include details of the impact of continued behaviour which could result in an increased service charge as well as action against individuals carrying out this unacceptable behaviour.
4. It had not upheld the complaint, although it appreciated her concerns on the matter. Measures were in place and had been carried out within an appropriate timeframe since reporting the issue.
It was not clear from the evidence when the resident requested to escalate her complaint however the landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 21 June 2022. It said it was sorry that the resident felt dissatisfied with the response given at stage 1. The reason the resident wanted to escalate her complaint was she felt the communal bins were still a cause for concern and this was impacting her health. The resident had said the bins were hazardous and the new cleaning schedule was not being adhered to.
1. It repeated is response from stage 1 in relation to the monthly jet washing and its contractor being on site each Monday.
2. It had made contact with the estates contract manager regarding the escalation of the complaint, who had in turn spoken with the contractor. The contractor confirmed that the schedule was being followed and it was checking the bin store every day with the most recent jet wash having taken place on 17 June 2022. It said that its contractor was in line with the schedule, and it could not see issues for the bin store.
3. It had investigated the way her concerns had been managed at stage 1 as part of its stage 2 review. It said it was reassuring to see that the complaint co-ordinator had contacted the relevant stakeholders responsible for resolving her concerns and this evidenced that they followed procedure and did what was required to provide her with the appropriate outcome at the time.
4. Following the escalation to stage 2, it had continued with the outcome at stage 1 and not upheld her complaint, on the basis that its contractor was adhering to the cleaning schedule and the estates contract manager confirming that there was no additional cleaning work required.
5. It was not upholding the complaint for the reasons above. It appreciated the resident’s frustrations; however, it had done everything to assist with the complaint.
The resident’s mother wrote to the landlord (date unknown) and said she had attended her granddaughter’s birthday party. This should have been a “wonderful occasion” but due to the stench of rotting waste in the flat it was impossible to enjoy. She was concerned for her daughter and granddaughter’s health. Her daughter had suffered with depression, was compulsive cleaning and had dermatological skin problems all of which were affecting her mental health. She urged the landlord to move her daughter to a different property.
On 6 July 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord stating she was “really upset” with the stage 2 complaint response. She said she wanted compensation for the past 7 years. She had suffered and was contacting a housing solicitor to seek compensation. This was her formal request asking to be compensated for living in such conditions.
The same day she wrote to her MP, coping in EH and the landlord. She outlined how she was suffering from the smell from the bin store:
1. Her asthma, blood pressure and skin were getting worse.
2. She needed to be moved and compensated.
3. She said that the landlord thought that cleaning the bin store would change the fact it had been 7 years of grime, damp and bacteria that was ingrained in the walls and the floor.
4. She was constantly buying air fresheners and candles and it was embarrassing to invite people to her home.
5. The weather was warming up and this had triggered OCD and she could not stop sniffing and throwing out items as they had become contaminated with smells.
6. She attached pictures of her face and said she had a GP appointment booked and had been referred to a dermatologist. She said the environment was affecting her health and skin and she would continue to suffer until relocated.
7. She was “disgusted” with the landlord who thought it appropriate and safe to place humans above 6 industrial bins. She could not open her balcony or windows for air as bin smells and bugs swarmed into her home daily.
8. She was “losing her mind” and no one should have to live that way. She was being repeatedly ignored. She was asking the MP to help her acquire compensation as she had been forced to endure living above bins for 7 years and could not go a moment more without some accountability from the landlord.
9. Her rent had not been subsidised despite several complaints. She had been left to suffer and “wanted justice”.
On 5 September 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord. She requested compensation for a list of items, including candles, air purifiers, air fresheners, bleach and other cleaning materials. She said that none of this had been taken into consideration. She asked how the landlord could refuse to acknowledge her request for a rent reduction when she was living “like a pig in trash”. She had a constant smell of toxic waste. She was repeating herself over and over to the point where she felt like harming herself as she was not being heard. She made reference to going to the newspapers due to being mistreated and ignored. She said she was “physically sick and exhausted”.
In correspondence with this Service the landlord provided the following update:
1. A meeting had taken place on 29 September 2022 with EH, the resident and its contractor. It was agreed to increase the cleaning and refuse management in the bin store below the resident’s home. For a temporary period until Christmas, it would jet wash the bin store fortnightly. Bulk collections would be made every Monday to help with built up rubbish from the weekend. Inside bin washing would be arranged as soon as possible.
2. At the meeting the resident said that the smell from the bin store had affected her mental health and she was receiving support from her GP. It had asked the resident to speak with her GP and request to be referred to the mental health team for additional support. It had also referred the resident to its Empowering Futures team to offer support and link her to other mental health agencies.
3. With regard to the request for re-housing, it had sent the letter from her GP and mother to a panel for consideration and to be re-assessed. The panel had since met, and the resident’s banding had been increased. The resident had remained unhappy about this, and a new formal complaint had been logged along with her request for a rent reduction.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinions, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Reports of smells from the bin store located beneath her home.

This Service empathises that the resident felt her peace and quiet enjoyment of her home was disrupted by the smells from the bin store. The investigation has considered whether the landlord responded appropriately to her concerns.
Under the terms of the tenancy the landlord is responsible for maintaining communal areas of the block and therefore had a responsibility to investigate the reports of smells from the communal bin store.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it was aware of the ongoing issue with the bin store and had received an email from EH. It also referred to the prior year when the issue was previously raised. It is also noted that in this Service’s previous determination of case, 202100690, the landlord had stated in its stage 1 response that it was aware of the odour from the bins and this had been an ongoing problem, particularly in the summer months. It therefore accepted that there was an issue.
While EH wrote and said that it had not witnessed a statutory nuisance it was considering a notice on the basis of “likely to cause nuisance”. In response to the resident’s formal complaint the landlord’s stage 1 response said it was waiting for a meeting with EH to find a way forward. However, there is no evidence that a meeting took place until September 2022 after the resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.
It had made its contractor aware of the issue. The contractor was on site on Mondays and would inspect the bin store and monthly jet washing was already in place from the previous year. While the landlord made its contractor aware, there was no evidence to suggest that the landlord itself inspected the bin store or considered that any additional remedies may be required.
It said it would write to all residents about potential increased service charge and action against individuals if the behaviour continued. However, the landlord’s letter of 4 April 2022 made no reference to this, only advising residents to dispose of refuse appropriately. There was no evidence of any further letters sent to residents. The response also did not mention how the landlord aimed to identify individuals inappropriately disposing of rubbish.
The response did not address how the landlord would monitor the situation, other than its contractor checking the bin store, or how it would further communicate with the resident should the problem persist. There was also no evidence to suggest that the landlord had visited the resident in her home to try and witness the smells from the bin store or discuss the impact this was having on her.
Furthermore, no evidence has been provided indicating that the landlord had considered any alternative solutions such as appropriate ventilation or odour filtration to minimise the build-up of odours. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have considered seeking advice from EH or its maintenance department.
The landlord’s estate inspection procedure outlined regular inspections by the housing officer, surveyors and residents however, no evidence was provided to suggest that any inspections had taken place other than those carried out by its contractor. It would have been good practice to have set up regular inspections with the resident to monitor the bin store and its condition. This would have demonstrated a commitment to monitoring the issue. It would also have been helpful during inspections to have visited the resident’s home, particularly during the summer months, which would have provided the landlord with evidence of any smells permeating the resident’s home.
The landlord’s stage 2 response repeated its stage 1 response. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the bins and that it was impacting her health however it failed to consider any detriment to the resident or distress this was causing. It also failed to consider the historic nature of the issue given that it referred to the problems the previous year and that this Service had previously determined a case relating to bin store smells in 2020. The resident has said that the contactor was not adhering to the cleaning schedule however the landlord’s response was dismissive in stating that it was and there were no issues with the bin store.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint, explaining how the smells were affecting her mental health. There was no evidence provided that the landlord had responded to the resident or acknowledged her communication. It is not known whether the landlord took any safeguarding measures in relation to the resident’s correspondence whereby she referred to “harming herself”.
Following completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process a meeting was held with EH, the resident, landlord and its contractor. Cleaning was increased from monthly to fortnightly for a short period of time and the resident was referred to the landlord’s Empowering Futures team for support with her mental health. However, this was not considered during the complaints process.
The landlord, in correspondence with this Service said that upon completing its review, it confirmed that the resident’s concerns had been adequately addressed by the actions taken and compensation awarded to reflect any detriment caused. However, the landlord’s responses did not reflect any compensation or consideration of any detriment caused.
The landlord’s responses failed to fully explore the resident’s reports of smells and were generally dismissive in nature. While it apologised for any inconvenience caused it did not empathise or consider any detriment to the resident. It failed to demonstrate any learnings from the complaint or acknowledge the historic issues.
For the reasons above, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports. Compensation awarded has considered the landlord’s lack of empathy in its responses.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of smells from the bin store.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the resident’s request to be moved is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, the resident’s request for a rent reduction is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

The landlord failed to appropriately investigate the smells reported by the resident. It failed to consider any detriment to the resident or explore any alternatives to resolve the matter. The landlord’s complaint responses were dismissive and lacked empathy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £550 broken down as follows:
1. £200 for its failure to appropriately address the resident’s concerns in relation to the reports of smells from the bin store.
2. £200 for distress and inconvenience to the resident.
3. £150in consideration of its complaint responses.
Arrange for an apology to be made in writing to the resident, by a senior member of staff, for the failings identified in this report.
Within 5 weeks of this determination provide evidence to this Service of its compliance with the above.