Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202201859)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201859

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

19 May 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of a sewage smell coming from the kitchen sink.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident’s tenancy started on 29 January 2021. The property is described as a two-bedroom flat.
3. The resident first reported a sewage smell emanating from the kitchen sink in February 2021. The landlord initially contacted the building developer to alert it of this problem, as the property was a new build and under warranty. The landlord was later informed by the developer that this would not be a warranty issue.
4. In April 2021, a contractor attended the resident’s property. The contractor did not find a sink blockage causing the smell. The contractor advised that the resident clean the washing machine pipes as it was suspected that this was where the smell was originating from.
5. There were no further reports of a sewage smell from the kitchen sink until December 2021. The resident stated that she believed that the contractor who attended previously did not inspect the pipework and sink correctly and as such, she would like a new inspection to take place. The landlord agreed to the resident’s request and an inspection was scheduled for 22 February 2022.
6. In February 2022, an inspection took place at the resident’s property, the exact findings of this inspection were not provided to this Service. However, a further appointment was scheduled for 17 March 2022. This appointment was attended to and the contractor identified that it appeared an attachment for the washing machine had caused the sewage smell. The resident was advised to clean her washing machine and keep the sink filled with water whilst it was in use.
7. Following this appointment in March 2022, the resident formally complained to the landlord stating that the sewage smell from the kitchen sink continued to be a concern. The resident stated that despite receiving advice that the source of the smell was her washing machine cleaning the washing machine and completing the recommended actions the smell continued. The resident stated that if the landlord did not resolve this concern, she would employ a third-party plumber and bill any costs incurred to the landlord.
8. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord completed a drainage inspection in April 2022. This did not detect a defect in the waste pipes or to the drainage system, that could account for the sewage smell reported by the resident.
9. The landlord attended the property again in June 2022. The contractor found that a plinth was not supported under the sink which was allowing stagnant water to sit in the pipework. As a resolution, the contractor propped the pipework to allow the wastepipe to drain.
10. In its July 2022 complaint response, the landlord apologised that the resident was still experiencing the sewage smell in the kitchen. It acknowledged that over the period where national lockdowns were enforced its operations and repairs were slowed down, and a back log of repairs occurred for which the landlord was still recovering from. However, it stated that it had attended the resident’s property on numerous occasions and a variety of repairs were made. Therefore, it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint as it attended as quickly as practicable given the circumstances being faced over the period it was being reported.
11. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service in September 2022. The resident stated that the sewage smell coming from the kitchen sink is still ongoing and the outcome she is seeking is for the smell to be resolved.

Assessment and findings

Sewage smell from kitchen sink.

12. Upon receiving reports of a smell emanating from the kitchen sink, it would be reasonable for the landlord to attend the resident’s property and complete inspections and conduct any repairs, or follow-up work identified. In total the landlord completed inspections on at least four occasions. This included three inspections of the internal pipework, under the kitchen sink and an inspection of the drainage system. These inspections did not identify a blockages or failure of the drainage system.
13. The inspections that took place identified a number of different reasons that the smell may be emanating from the kitchen sink. This included the washing machine pipe and the fall from the wastepipe. During every inspection, the contractor provided the resident with advice on how to deal with the smell. This ranged from cleaning the washing machine and filling the sink with water whilst the washing machine was in use. In addition, a contractor also propped up a wastepipe which it believed was the cause of the issue. At each inspection, the landlord was entitled to rely upon its contractors reports as they are experts in this area and the landlord had no reason to dispute their advice. As such, the landlord at times believed that it has provided a reasonable response to the resident and a solution to her concerns as it was assured by its contractors that it had identified the reason for the smell reported by the resident.
14. However, despite these visits and attempts to identify the reason for the smell reported by the resident, this has not been resolved. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is obliged to keep in good repair and to maintain the drainage in the resident’s property. Therefore, the landlord should continue to investigate the cause of this smell and look at potential remedies it has not yet explored.
15. Looking at the available information, there were delays to the repairs service which has been identified by this Service. The landlord’s repairs policy states it should attend the property within 28 working days of a repair being reported.
16. In the evidence provided, it appears that there was a degree of confusion when the resident first reported the repair in February 2021 as to who was responsible for carrying out the repairs. This was due to the property being within its warranty period at the time. Therefore, a small delay in completing any work would be reasonably expected whilst the landlord confirmed who was responsible for the repairs. In this case, a small delay did occur as the landlord did not receive confirmation from the builders that it would not be a matter dealt with under its warranty until April 2021, despite the landlord chasing this on two occasions. Therefore, it is acknowledged that this delay would have been inconvenient to the resident; however, it was unavoidable for the landlord. As such, there was no failure in this aspect of the landlord’s service.
17. Further reports were received on 27 December 2021 that the smell emanating from the sink were continuing and this was affecting the clothes that the resident washed and was affecting the resident’s preparation of food. The repairs policy says that the landlord should have attended to this report within 28 working days; however, it did not attend until 22 February 2022 which was 41 working days later. It is noted that the national Government introduced Covid 19 restrictions in December 2021 and it started to lift those restrictions in February 2021. In its complaint response, the landlord has said that its operations were impacted by the operational changes that it had to implement during this period. However, during this period, there is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated regarding the delays in getting a contractor to reattend her property. This was not appropriate as the smell from the kitchen was having a direct impact on the resident and her family.
18. The other inspections were completed within the required 28 working day timeframe as set out in the landlord’s repair policy.

Complaint handling.

19. The landlord’s complaint procedure states that it will respond to the resident’s complaint within 10 working days. At stage one of the complaint procedure, the landlord did not provide a written response. This is in direct contrast to this Service’s Complaint Handling Code, which states that at both stages of the complaint’s procedure the landlord must confirm its decision in writing to the resident.
20. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that a stage two response should be sent within 20 working days. However, in the evidence provided a stage two response was not provided until 34 working days later. This was not in accordance with its policy obligation.
21. In addition, the landlord did not meaningfully engage with the resident’s complaint and did not provide detailed responses to the issues raised. The landlord provided basic, uninformative and repetitive version of events and it did not seek to work with the resident to resolve her complaint. The incomplete responses from the landlord would have inevitably caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
22. The Complaint Handling Code states that each response must confirm the decision on the complaint and the reasons for any decisions made. The landlord’s complaint response did not do this. Furthermore, the landlord’s position remained unclear throughout the complaints process, with information being relayed from contractors instead of being explained and explored by the landlord itself. 

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a sewage smell coming from the kitchen sink.
24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way the landlord handled the associated complaint.

Orders

25. The landlord is to write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
26. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 for the poor complaint handling. This is broken down as:
    1. £50 compensation for its failure to communicate effectively with the resident.
    2. £100 compensation for the poor complaint handling including a lack of engagement with the complaint.
27. If it has not already done so, the landlord is to contact the resident to establish whether the smell from the kitchen sink is still continuing and to arrange a mutually convenient appointment for a further inspection to take place.
28. The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.