Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Leeds City Council (202340244)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340244

Leeds City Council

24 January 2025


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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a chemical smell entering her property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The property is a supported living bungalow. The resident has confirmed in her communication to the landlord and the Ombudsman that she has medical vulnerabilities and a neurodiversity.
  2. The resident initially reported an intermittent “chemical smell” entering her property to the landlord in May 2021 via a councillor. She reported that the smell was affecting her asthma, and she smelt it between 3am and 4am which was impacting her sleep. She believed it was either hay fever, the local farmer spraying the field, or the water company flushing drains. She had put something over the vent in her bedroom and obtained an air purifier, but nothing had helped. She added that Environmental Health had said they could not assist unless she knew where the smell originated.
  3. Between May 2021 and September 2022:
    1. The landlord’s internal records confirm that it discussed the issues reported with the resident’s councillor. It confirmed it had received no previous reports of a smell from the resident or other people in the area. It contacted her on 25 May 2021 and established that there were no outstanding repair issues, and she did not know where the smell came from. It said it advised the resident to contact the water company and confirmed that Environmental Health (EH) and its own repairs team were unable to assist further without additional information.
    2. In August 2021, the resident reported that the smell persisted in her bedroom in the early morning most days, and that she was sleeping on the floor in her living room. The landlord’s records indicate she had expressed dissatisfaction that neither the landlord nor EH would help. Its records indicate she had confirmed that the landlord offered to support her in moving, but that she could not afford to move. The landlord’s internal communication at the time indicates that it had not received any other reports of a smell, the water company had confirmed no drainage issues, and no other matters had been reported to highways or EH. It was only able to act where it could corroborate evidence and determine the cause of the problem.
    3. On 28 August 2021, the landlord raised a work order to CCTV the drains at the property and subsequently found no issues which could contribute to a smell. On 29 November 2021, a surveyor attended but could not locate the source of any smell. However, it raised an unrelated repair to the drain which it completed in January 2022. It also raised a work order to seal up draughts around the bedroom window which it later cancelled.
    4. On 29 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report the smell again. She said an operative told her they would block the air vents to the bedroom in November 2021, but this had not happened. She believed the smell could be coming from a local farm and asked that the landlord investigate.
  4. A third party who said they were acting on behalf of the resident contacted the landlord on 28 November 2022 regarding her concerns about the chemical smell and the impact on her mental health and physical wellbeing. They attached a letter from the resident and noted the resident said that operatives had told her some building adaptations could rectify the smell but she had heard nothing further. They asked that the landlord investigate and resolve the issue as soon as possible.
  5. The landlord formally acknowledged the complaint at stage 1 on 30 November 2022 and confirmed that it aimed to provide a response by 19 December 2022 (in a letter to the resident). Records from 8 December 2022 indicate that it closed the complaint as the third party did not have authority to discuss the resident’s account or other details. It said it would contact the resident to discuss the situation and deal with the matter as a service request.
  6. On 31 May 2023, the resident called the landlord and said that no one had contacted her regarding her complaint from 2022 or her reports. The landlord attended and completed a jet wash of the external drains on 1 June 2023. She called again on 23 June 2023 as she had heard nothing further since someone attended. She said when they visited, the operative could not check the internal parts of the property as she was not in but called her to say they had found the location of the smell and would arrange a further visit.
  7. The landlord said it received a formal complaint on 14 August 2023. The call note indicates that the resident reiterated her concerns regarding the length of time the issue had been ongoing, a lack of action following previous inspections (including one where she was told the source of the smell had been located), a lack of response to a previous complaint, and that the smell persisted. The landlord acknowledged this as a formal stage 1 complaint on 30 August 2023.
  8. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint verbally on 13 September 2023. It confirmed that it had checked all drains and services and all other potential causes through a previous enquiry but had found no defects or repair issues causing the smell. It had attended on 1 June 2023 and cleared a blockage in the drain; however, this was unlikely to have been causing a chemical smell. It agreed that a technical officer would attend the property to discuss further. It initially agreed to attend on 28 September 2023; however, its later records suggest it booked this for 29 November 2023.
  9. On 11 December 2023, the resident reported that the landlord had not visited on 29 November 2023 as agreed and the smell was still present between 3 and 4am. She asked the landlord to escalate the complaint and maintained that the smell was impacting her health.
  10. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 12 December 2023. In summary, it said:
    1. An operative attended on 29 November 2023 and inspected the front and rear guttering for defects but did not find any. As the visit was to the external work, they did not need to enter the property. It apologised that the operative did not make the resident aware of his presence.
    2. It was satisfied that it took the necessary actions to investigate her concerns related to the smell. It noted that the source of the smell was unknown, but it had assisted her where possible. As the smell was dependent on wind and only occurred in the early hours of the morning, it did not believe the smell was associated with a repair for which it was responsible. It believed that if the smell was due to a repair issue, it would be persistent.
    3. It apologised that the resident was still experiencing the smell but concluded that it had thoroughly investigated the matter, and it could take no further action at the time.
  11. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She maintained that the ongoing smell was impacting her health and sleep. She felt the landlord had ignored her and was unhappy that it had done nothing to resolve the smell.
  12. In communication with the Ombudsman in January 2025, the resident confirmed that the issue of the smell was ongoing and was dissatisfied that the landlord had not completed repairs to block the vent in her bedroom or spoken to her about the smell. She specified that the smell was like nail polish and that it was man-made as the time of its occurrence changed with daylight savings time. She said that the landlord had not offered to move her previously, but she would consider moving to somewhere suitable for her medical needs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. In her communication with the Ombudsman and the landlord, the resident has referenced how the situation impacted her health. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The resident’s complaint involved her concerns that the smell may be coming from the local area. The Housing Ombudsman is only able to consider the local authority’s role as a social housing provider and any responsibilities it may have as the resident’s landlord. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can look at complaints about local authority activities (aside from their responsibilities as social landlords), including complaints about the local environment and Environmental Health services. As such, this report will not consider matters that would fall under the local authority’s Environmental Health duties.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a smell entering her property

  1. In line with the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s tenant handbook, it is responsible for carrying out repairs to the structure and exterior of the property as well as pipework, guttering and drains. The landlord would have been expected to determine whether the cause of the reported smell was the result of any repair issues or health and safety matters that fell under its obligations to resolve. Where there was evidence of a smell, the landlord would be expected to take all reasonable steps to determine where it originated from and liaise with other services, such as EH, where required.
  2. It is evident that neither the resident or landlord have located the source of the smell, and the landlord has confirmed that it has not received any reports of the smell from other residents. The resident has reported that the smell only occurs in the early hours of the morning, and does not occur every day, making it more difficult to source.
  3. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate whether the smell was caused by a repair issue that fell under its responsibility and took reasonable steps to investigate the drains in case they were the cause. In the absence of any evidence to corroborate the smell or suggest that the smell was caused by a repair matter, there were limited further steps the landlord could take.
  4. However, the Ombudsman has found failing in the landlord’s communication with the resident and its record keeping. Landlords should keep a robust record of contacts and actions, 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 no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord acted appropriately.
  5. In this case, there were occasions where the landlord has not demonstrated it communicated clearly with the resident or followed up on actions. Despite the landlord providing evidence of internal communication following the resident’s contact in August 2021, there is no evidence to demonstrate that it spoke with her to explain its position that there was no further action it could take at the time.
  6. While its own records indicate that it had offered to assist the resident in moving from the property which was somewhat reasonable as it could not locate the smell, the record suggests she did not want to do so at the time. While the resident has disputed this record of event and that the landlord offered to assist her with moving, she has confirmed that she would consider moving if this was to a property suitable for her needs. As such a recommendation has been made below. 
  7. In her communication to the landlord in September 2022 and May 2023, the resident said that following an inspection in November 2021, she was told the vents in her bedroom would be closed to help prevent the smell entering the room. While we have not seen evidence to confirm that the surveyor recommended work to the vent specifically, a work order raised on 29 November 2021 partially related to the bottom of the bedroom window, which needed renewing or cloaking to prevent draughts. The landlord’s records indicate that this work order was cancelled but there is no clear evidence to show why, and no evidence to show the work was completed. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have responded to the resident’s concerns and arranged the work or explained why it would not do so.
  8. The lack of follow-up communication regarding her concern about the vent was likely to be particularly distressing for the resident given her worry about the impact of the smell on her health at the time, and her reports that she was sleeping on the living room floor as a result of the smell entering her bedroom. It would have been appropriate for it to have communicated effectively regarding any works which could minimise the smell.
  9. In addition, the resident raised specific concern that the smell was from the nearby farm or fields and asked the landlord to investigate. While matters related to the local environment would be for EH, we would have expected to see evidence that any relevant communication was passed on to EH to action. She specifically asked that this was investigated in September 2022 and the landlord’s own records indicate that reports of a smell drifting across the property would require EH to visit. Despite the landlord’s internal records saying that it had liaised with EH, it has not provided any relevant documentary evidence to confirm it progressed her concerns.
  10. In her complaint on 14 August 2023, the resident raised specific concern that no one had visited since an operative had called her to confirm they had established the cause of the smell in May 2023. While the stage 1 notes indicate that an operative attended on 1 June 2023 to clear a drain blockage, there is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord acknowledged it had not informed her of the drain cleaning at that time.
  11. The landlord’s records indicate that as part of the stage 1 resolution, it agreed to visit on 28 September 2023 to discuss her concerns in person. There is no evidence to show whether this visit happened or what the outcome was. There is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord followed through with this action or that the resident had the opportunity to communicate in person.
  12. In her stage 2 escalation, the resident expressed specific concern that no one attended a visit booked for 29 November 2023. The landlord later explained that an operative had attended on 29 November 2023 as agreed, but as the visit was to complete an external inspection, they were not required to enter the property. The job notes for the visit state that this was to complete a gutter inspection. It acted fairly by apologising that the operative did not introduce themselves given that the inspection was arranged as a result of her complaint. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge its poor communication in that it had not communicated the outcome of the visit to her, and she needed to pursue her complaint at stage 2 to gain a response.
  13. In summary, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a smell entering her property. While there were no established repair responsibilities or actions for the landlord to take to resolve the smell reported by the resident, its records do not provide a clear audit trail of the actions it said it had taken, and it did not communicate effectively with her, leading to her spending time and trouble pursuing updates.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1, it aims to acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days and respond within 15 working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days for housing related complaints. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (2020) set out requirements for member landlords that allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. At the time of the resident’s reports, the Code specified that a resident did not have to use the word complaint for it to be treated as such. Landlords should recognise the difference between a service request (pre-complaint), and a formal complaint and take appropriate steps to resolve the issue for residents as early as possible.
  2. The landlord confirmed that it received a complaint from the resident on 14 August 2023. It did not formally acknowledge the complaint until 30 August 2023 and then responded on 13 September 2023. This was a period of 22 working days. The landlord apologised for the delay in acknowledging the complaint and confirmed this was due to a clerical error. Following her request to escalate the complaint on 11 December 2023, it responded at stage 2 the next day – this was an appropriate timescale.
  3. However, the landlord missed several opportunities to handle the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction under its formal complaints process. This unreasonably extended the overall timeframe of her concerns. She initially expressed dissatisfaction with a lack of support from the landlord (and EH) in August 2021 and it therefore had the opportunity to respond formally. There is also evidence that the resident provided a supporting letter from her GP in November 2021, indicating the impact of the smell on her, and raised further concern about the smell and a lack of promised action in September 2022. The landlord missed these opportunities to log and investigate the matter as a complaint.
  4. In addition, the resident raised a complaint via a representative third party on 28 November 2022. The representative attached a letter from the resident that she said she had not received a response to. The Ombudsman has not seen that letter. The landlord formally acknowledged this as a complaint in a letter to the resident on 30 November 2022 and said it would respond at stage 1 by 19 December 2022. However, its internal records show it closed the complaint on 8 December 2022 as the person raising the complaint did not have the authority to act on the resident’s behalf.
  5. It is unreasonable that the landlord did not contact the resident to discuss the matter or gain authorisation for the representative to act on her behalf before deciding to close the complaint. While its records indicate that it intended to discuss the situation with the resident, it has not provided further evidence to show that it did so and did not provide a resolution at the time. In addition, the landlord failed to inform the resident that it intended to close the complaint which was likely to cause confusion and uncertainty given that it said it would provide a stage 1 complaint response.
  6. It is evident that the resident believed that the landlord was managing her reports as a complaint. On 31 May 2023, she raised specific concern that no one had responded to her complaint from 2022, and no one had contacted her to discuss the matter. She advised on 23 June 2023 that nothing had happened since a visit in May 2023 despite an operative informing her that they had found the cause of the smell. Despite these communications, the landlord did not recognise the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction and progress the complaint. This was likely to cause distress and inconvenience to her. In addition, despite her report that no one had responded to her previous complaint, the landlord has not demonstrated that it provided an explanation to the resident or apologised in its subsequent responses.
  7. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord missed opportunities to address the resident’s concerns formally in line with its complaints policy at various stages. It failed to adequately communicate with her and did not seek to acknowledge or put right its complaint handling failures within its formal responses.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a chemical smell entering her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £250 compensation comprised of:
      1. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of her reports of a smell.
      2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the failures in its complaint handling.
    3. Contact the resident to determine whether she is still experiencing the smell. It should inspect the bedroom vent and window(s) and confirm whether the vent can be blocked, or whether any remedial steps can be taken to prevent the smell entering her bedroom.  
  2. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders within the specified timescales.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss her moving options and how it can support her to move from the property.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord considers the resident’s description of the smell (acetone/nail polish) and whether this has any impact on whether it can investigate the matter further. If it remains of the view that this smell is not linked to any of its repair obligations, it should pass the resident’s descriptions of the smell and impact she says this has had on her health to Environmental Health.
  3. The landlord is to confirm its intentions within 4 weeks.