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

Southern Housing (202310835)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310835

Southern Housing

31 March 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
  1. reports of an odour of sewage in the property.
  2. associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident reported a foul smell in the bathroom to the landlord on 7 occasions between 5 August 2021 and 15 July 2022. The landlord arranged for contractors to attend the property to survey and deal with the issue on several occasions during that period. However, the contractors reported experiencing no bad smells at the property, and all works and surveys found no possible cause for any smell.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 9 September 2022. She said contractors had attended and did not know what works were required. She also said workers had recorded her and she wanted a copy of the recording.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 16 September 2022. It said:
  1. There had been 2 surveyor visits and several contractor visits to the property with no issues found.
  2. The contractors and surveyors carried out thorough investigations, including jetting external drains, but found no smells at the property.
  3. Contractors had asked to double check what works were required and the resident turned them away.
  4. The contractors reported receiving consistent antisocial behaviour and abuse from the resident so had made a recording, but they had now deleted that recording.
  5. It was unable to find any failures in service.
  1. The resident said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response on 22 September 2022. She said 2 contractors had said they could smell the problem and the smell affected her life everyday. She said it made her sick, and she was angry and frustrated the landlord could not locate and resolve the problem. She also said the contractors had been disrespectful and used bad language in her home.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 November 2022. It said:
  1. It apologised if the contractors used bad language and reiterated the recording had been deleted.
  2. It reiterated contractors and surveyors had attended several times, carried out camera surveys and thorough inspections, and reported no smells.
  3. It arranged for a different contractor to attend in September 2022. They replaced a connector to the toilet and carried out a smoke test, which showed no smoke. This meant it was very unlikely there was a leak of sewerage.
  4. It arranged for a third different contractor to attend and they found no blockages, and the communal stack and main drains were flowing freely.
  5. It advised the resident to contact the local council’s Environmental Health team who might be able to carry out a full investigation.
  6. It partially upheld the complaint for the use of bad language by contractors. It said it would ensure all contractors used appropriate language when communicating with residents and ensure residents were kept updated with the outcome of visits.
  1. When the resident contacted this Service, she said she wanted the landlord to identify the source of the smell and resolve the problem. She also wanted compensation for distress and inconvenience. She has since confirmed to this Service the issue remains outstanding.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints about matters which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. In this case, the resident first reported a foul smell on 5 August 2021 but did not raise a complaint with the landlord until 9 September 2022. However, there is evidence the resident attempted to raise a complaint about the matter on 25 April 2022 but the landlord did not progress the matter. The Ombudsman will therefore use its discretion and consider events since 5 August 2021.

The landlord’s handling of reports of an odour of sewage in the property

  1. According to the occupancy agreement, the landlord will keep in working order any installations it has provided for supplying water, gas or electricity, and for heating, hot water and sanitation. This includes basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes.
  2. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, its repair responsibilities also include drains. It aims to complete most routine repairs within 20 working days of the resident reporting them.
  3. When the resident first reported the sewage smell on 5 August 2021, the landlord’s contractors did not attend the property until 8 September 2021. That was outside of 20 working days and was therefore inappropriate.
  4. The contractor completed a CCTV survey to the drainage system on 8 September 2021. They investigated all drainage pipes under and around the property. They reported they cleared the system of all debris and there was no obvious cause for any reported smell. However, they reported to the landlord some follow-on work was required which included clearing a build-up of concrete at the connection to the ground floor toilet.  They also said the stack was located in the downstairs toilet and was boxed in, but it might require an inspection to eliminate it as a possible source for the reported smell. There is no evidence the landlord arranged those follow-on works until the resident chased it several times, which was unreasonable.
  5. There is evidence the resident contacted the landlord on 25 November 2021, 21 December 2021 and 25 April 2022 to chase up repairs for the bad smell. A contractor attended the property on 29 April 2022 and replaced the gulley and drainage to the inspection chamber. That was over 7 months after the landlord received a report advising follow-on works were required. That is significantly outside of its stated aim to complete routine repairs within 20 working days and was inappropriate. We understand that delay would have caused significant stress and inconvenience for the resident.
  6. On 4 May 2022 the contractors told the landlord they needed to remove boxing from around the stack in the downstairs toilet to inspect it and complete a smoke test. They also said they needed to remove the boxing under the wash hand basin in the upstairs bathroom to allow an inspection. They also suggested replacing the pan connector in the downstairs toilet to eliminate that as a possible cause of the smell. The evidence shows the contractors had already told the landlord on 8 September 2021 that the stack in the downstairs toilet was boxed in and might require an inspection. It is therefore unreasonable the landlord had not arranged that work at an earlier date.
  7. The landlord’s contractors then attended on 3 occasions on 11 and 12 May 2022. They replaced the pan connector behind both the downstairs and upstairs toilet. They also put new seals around both the downstairs and upstairs toilet. They removed the boxing around the toilet pipework but reported to the landlord the camera was too big to complete a CCTV survey. There is no evidence the landlord acted on that information to arrange any further access to conduct another CCTV survey, which was unreasonable.
  8. The resident complained to the landlord on 19 May 2022 that the smell remained. She also complained about the quality of work. The landlord arranged for a contractor to attend again on 23 May 2022, which was appropriate. However, the contractor reported to the landlord the resident advised the sewage smell often only occurred late in the evening and early in the morning. They reported when they inspected the property, they could not smell anything. They therefore told the resident as they could not smell anything there were no repair works required, and the resident should contact again if the smell reoccurred. That was not reasonable.
  9. The resident further complained to the landlord about the outstanding works on 14 June and 15 July 2022. A contractor attended the property on 19 July 2022, which was outside of 20 working days from 14 June 2022 and was therefore inappropriate. The contractor reported everything was working fine and there were no blockages, but there were ongoing smells. They told the landlord a further visit was needed and provided a quote to replace pipework to the toilet, sink and shower.
  10. The landlord arranged for a different contractor to attend the property to complete the work. However, this did not take place until 20 September 2022. That was again outside of 20 working days and was inappropriate. The contractor completed several works over 3 visits between 20 and 30 September 2022. They completed multiple repairs to the toilet pan, cistern and soil stack. They also completed CCTV surveys and smoke tests to the drains manhole and soil stack pipe. That completed all previous recommended surveys and work and were reasonable actions to take.
  11. The landlord then arranged for a third contractor to attend on 14 October 2022 for another opinion, which was reasonable as it demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to try to resolve matters for the resident. They inspected the stack pipe and main drains and found no blockages, with everything free flowing. They recommended a CCTV survey to the stack pipework. However, that had already been completed by the previous contractor.
  12. Since the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 November 2022 its contractors have attended the property a further 4 times on 10 February, 11 May, 26 May and 27 October 2023. The contractors reported to the landlord on 11 May and 27 October 2023 that a further visit was required to access the flat above to inspect if the smell could be originating from above. There is no evidence the landlord has arranged access to the flat above. The resident has told this Service the issue remains outstanding.
  13. In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of an odour of sewage in the property. The landlord delayed arranging and completing the appropriate repair works with its contractor on several occasions. That included a significant delay of over 7 months between 8 September 2021 and 29 April 2022. We understand the effect and detriment this had on the resident by impacting her enjoyment of the property.
  14. Therefore, we are ordering the landlord to apologise to and pay the resident £350compensation. This is to acknowledge the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident as a result of its failings in its handling of reports of an odour of sewage in the property. This is also within the bracket the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance would award for failures of this nature resulting in maladministration that adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. Under the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) landlords must ensure they acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. They must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgment at stage 1. They must also acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the above requirements of the Code.
  3. The Code also sets out a complaint is ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.’ Therefore, a resident does not have to use the word complaint for the landlord to treat it as such. 
  4. The evidence indicates that the landlord missed several opportunities to investigate the resident’s concerns at an earlier opportunity. On 25 April 2022 the landlord logged a potential complaint about an internal smell in the property. There is no evidence of any further details or that the complaint was raised and dealt with. This suggests the resident had expressed dissatisfaction, and the landlord should have acknowledged this as a complaint in line with the Code.
  5. On 19 May 2022 the resident telephoned the landlord and it again logged the interaction as a potential complaint. The resident told it she was not happy with the quality of work, with the behaviour of the contractors and she was so frustrated she had stopped paying rent. The landlord recorded the resident raised her voice as she was not happy with the works in her property. This shows a clear expression of dissatisfaction, and the landlord should have acknowledged this as a complaint in line with the Code.
  6. There is further evidence of the resident emailing the landlord on 14 June and 15 July 2022 expressing dissatisfaction. However, the landlord again did not raise a complaint, which was inappropriate.
  7. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord delayed the resident in obtaining a final complaint response and her ability to seek redress through this Service. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Ombudsman’s expectations.
  8. When the resident further complained on 9 September 2022, the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 12 September 2022. It then issued its stage 1 response on 16 September 2022. This was appropriate, as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy and the code.
  9. The resident said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response on 22 September 2022. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the escalation request, which was inappropriate. It then issued its final stage 2 response on 21 November 2022, which was 42 workings days later. The landlord therefore failed to comply with its own complaint policy and the Code.
  10. In summary, landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to its residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case there were delays in the landlord recognising expressions of dissatisfaction. There were also delays escalating the complaint to stage 2, and delays in issuing the stage 2 response. The Ombudsman therefore finds maladministration for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
  11. Therefore, we are ordering the landlord to pay the resident £150 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommendations of compensation in this bracket for such failings resulting in maladministration that delayed getting matters resolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an odour of sewage in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £500, which is made up of:
      1. £350 in recognition of the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its failures to appropriately handle reports of an odour of sewage in the property.
      2. £150 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
    3. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
    4. If it has not already done so, the landlord is ordered to arrange access to the property above the resident’s to complete an inspection and assess if any outstanding repairs to the soil stack pipe or drainage system are required. If works are required the landlord should send the resident and this Service details of the works, together with a timetable for the works to be carried out. This should be sent within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.