From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Greatwell Homes Limited (202417889)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417889

Greatwell Homes Limited

22 May 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 how the landlord handled the resident’s:
    1. Reports of sewage upsurge in the property.
    2. Temporary decant.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He shares the property with his wife who is asthmatic. On 30 May 2024 the resident reported an unpleasant sewage smell and blockage in the toilet. He continued to report it over the next few days. At some point the landlord reported the issue to the developer of the estate where the property is located. The developer attended on 1 June 2024 to attempt to check the manhole outside the property, however, a car was parked over it which prohibited access.
  2. On 2 June 2024 the resident complained the landlord had failed to resolve the upsurge and that the leak and smell were both getting worse. On 3 June 2024 the developer attended, accessed the manhole, and removed the blockages it found. The developer also contacted the resident and agreed to replace any flooring damaged by the leak.
  3. On 5 June 2024 the landlord decanted the resident and his wife into temporary accommodation until 10 June 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 25 June 2024. It apologised for a “breakdown in communication” related to meal voucher provision during the decant, and for failing to report the issue to the developer on 31 May 2024. It offered the resident £50 compensation to put this right.
  4. On 12 July 2024 the resident complained the developer had fitted new carpets in the property which did not match the previous flooring. He also complained at some point over the next couple of weeks that the level of compensation the landlord offered at stage 1 was insufficient.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 July 2024. It advised him to raise his complaint about the new carpet with the developer. However, it acknowledged the “disruption” caused by the leak the previous month and offered the resident a further £300 in compensation. The resident was not satisfied with this sum and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 5 September 2024.
  6. In a phone call with the resident on 7 April 2025 the resident advised the Ombudsman that there had not been a repeat of the upsurge issue since it occurred in May 2024. He also advised that the sewage smell disappeared at some point in mid-late 2024 and has not returned. However, he explained that he remains dissatisfied with the redress offered at stage 2. To resolve his complaint he wants a higher sum of compensation and any outstanding works completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident complains that he has experienced issues with his drains for a number of years which the landlord failed to resolve. Typically, we do not investigate complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention within 12 months of the matters arising, unless we see evidence of a relevant complaint handling failure.
  2. The resident first complained about this issue on 2 June 2024. Therefore, our investigation will only consider the landlord’s actions from 2 June 2023 onwards. It will not consider events before this since these occurred over 12 months before the resident brought the issue to the landlord’s attention.
  3. The resident has also complained about the time it took the landlord to raise works to fit a new valve in the drain outside his property. We can see the landlord raised these works in March 2025. Typically, we do not investigate complaints which have not already exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The resident advised the Ombudsman that he has raised a new complaint with the landlord about this specific issue which it is currently considering at stage 1. As this issue is separate to the subject of the 2024 complaint, we will not consider this matter in this investigation.
  4. The developer of the estate took responsibility for the works needed to resolve the upsurge in June 2024. It also took responsibility for replacing the resident’s flooring which was damaged by this. The resident has complained about the developer’s handling of both issues. However, the developer is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and therefore we cannot consider complaints about it. This investigation will therefore be restricted to the landlord’s actions and responsibilities.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of sewage upsurge in the property

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy obliges it to attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and all other repairs within 28 days. It defines emergency repairs as those which present a threat to life or immediate danger to residents or the landlord’s properties.
  2. In emails to the Ombudsman on 11 April 2025 the landlord explained that the upsurge was caused by blockages within the drain network for the wider estate. It explained that, since the estate was newly built, the developer was responsible for maintaining and repairing the drain network. Email exchanges we have seen corroborate this, and we can see the developer agreed that it was responsible for resolving the issue. Therefore we accept that the landlord was not directly responsible for the repairs to the external drain network. However, the landlord still had a responsibility to liaise suitably with the developer and support the resident while the situation was ongoing.
  3. The resident reported a bad sewage smell and a blockage on 30 May 2024 and the landlord immediately raised non-emergency works to inspect the drains. Based on this description of the issue we consider the landlord acted appropriately by classing this as a non-emergency.
  4. The following day the resident advised that the toilet was now leaking sewage and that it was affecting his wife’s asthma. The landlord advised the earliest it could attend was 11 June 2024 as it was not an emergency issue. We do not agree with this assessment since the resident made it clear that the issue had worsened by 31 May 2024. Leaking sewage also posed potential harm to the resident and the property.
  5. Therefore, we consider the landlord should have classed this an emergency repair and attended within 24 hours. There is also no indication it contacted the developer at this stage to ask it to investigate. However, it does not appear this had a substantial impact on the pace of the repairs given the developer was made aware by a third party and attended the following day on 1 June 2024.
  6. From 2 June to 4 June 2024 we can see the landlord regularly chased the developer for updates on the drain repair. We consider it acted appropriately by acting as a liaison between the developer and the resident. The developer confirmed it had resolved the blockage on 3 June 2024. Following this the landlord agreed to remove the damaged flooring to allow the developer to replace this. We consider it acted positively and collaboratively by agreeing to do so.
  7. On 5 June 2024 we can see the landlord called the resident and agreed to decant him and his wife to a hotel until 12 June 2024 to facilitate the outstanding works. We consider this was appropriate given the resident’s description of the extent of the leak and foul smell throughout the property. However, we note that the landlord was already made aware of the extent of the issue and the resident’s wife’s health conditions on 31 May 2024.
  8. Considering the potential harm posed by the sewage leak and the unpleasant smell throughout the downstairs of the property, the landlord should have considered a temporary decant sooner than this. We consider its failure to do so was a missed opportunity to mitigate the impact on the resident.
  9. We can see the landlord removed the damaged flooring as agreed on 6 June 2024 and appropriately updated the developer about this. The resident returned to the property on 11 June 2024. On 13 June 2024 the landlord attended and installed dehumidifiers which was a positive step to take to dry everything out in anticipation of the new flooring.
  10. We can see the resident asked for an update on the new flooring on 17 June 2024, and the landlord promptly chased the developer on the same day and relayed this to the resident. It passed on the developer’s update in its stage 1 response and explained it was waiting for the developer to book dates for this work.
  11. The developer installed the new flooring on 12 July 2024. The resident then complained to the landlord that it did not cosmetically match the previous carpets. The landlord advised the resident to raise this with the developer, given it had assumed responsibility for this. This advice was correct.
  12. Ultimately, we consider the landlord acted proactively from 2 June 2024 onwards in liaising with the developer to facilitate repairs. However, we consider it missed opportunities to consider a temporary decant sooner than 5 June 2024, and that this likely caused the resident some distress. In its stage 2 response the landlord offered the resident £300 compensation as redress for “extensive disruption.” Therefore, we need to consider whether this is enough to put this omission right.
  13. The landlord’s compensation policy does not set out how it will calculate payments for distress. Therefore, we have used our own guidance to do so. Our guidance explains that payments from £100 to £600 are typically sufficient to put right a failure which has adversely, but not permanently, impacted a resident when the landlord has also failed to acknowledge this and put it right.
  14. In calculating the correct compensation order we have considered how the resident repeatedly made the landlord aware of the issue from 30 May 2024 to 5 June 2024, and repeatedly stressed the impact he considered it was having on his wife’s asthma. We have considered how, given the vulnerability described, this distress was likely greater than it would have been in different circumstances.
  15. We have also considered that the landlord correctly intervened on 5 June 2024 and decanted the resident, and therefore the period of time they were living in the property alongside the sewage issue was relatively short at 5 days. With all this in mind, we consider the £300 already offered sits appropriately within the mid-range of our scale. Therefore, we consider the landlord has done enough to put this right.
  16. We also consider the landlord should have contacted the developer on 31 May 2024 about the upsurge. However, we note the landlord has acknowledged and apologised for this at stage 1, and offered the resident £25 in compensation. We also note the developer was made aware of the issue by a third party and attended on 1 June 2024 in any case. Therefore, we do not consider this omission had any substantial impact. With this and our compensation guidance in mind, we consider the apology and £25 is sufficient redress.

How the landlord handled the resident’s temporary decant

  1. The resident complains the landlord failed to provide meal vouchers to him and his wife when they were temporarily decanted into a hotel.
  2. The landlord’s decant policy sets out that it will reimburse resident’s for reasonable meal costs incurred during their stay. There is no evidence that the landlord explained this to the resident when it booked the hotel. It should have clearly set out how the process worked to minimise the disruption on the resident. It failed to do so, and as a result the resident checked out of the hotel on 7 June 2024 because he was concerned that he would have to pay for his evening meals. We consider this was likely confusing and distressing.
  3. However, once he advised the landlord of this on the same day, we can see it immediately clarified that it would pay for the meals and checked him back into the hotel. Therefore, the resident likely only experienced a short period of confusion and distress.
  4. We note that the landlord acknowledged this on 11 June 2024 and apologised for failing to organise meal vouchers with the hotel. It reimbursed the resident £120 for 7 days of evening meals, and £45.63 to cover breakfast costs during their decant. Therefore, following the initial confusion, we consider it promptly fulfilled its obligation to reimburse the resident. As part of its stage 1 response it also offered £25 in compensation.
  5. We consider £25 is sufficient redress for the short period of confusion regarding the meal vouchers, especially considering the speed with which the landlord addressed the confusion and checked the resident back into the hotel.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in how the landlord handled the resident’s:
    1. Reports of sewage upsurge in the property.
    2. Temporary decant.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £350 compensation already offered at stages 1 and 2 of its complaints process if it has not done so already.