London Borough of Harrow (202120473)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120473

London Borough of Harrow

1 November 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 response to the resident’s concerns about odours entering his property.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a flat within a block of similar properties. Two properties (flat A and flat B) are located directly underneath the resident. On 19 August 2021, the resident sent the landlord a video recording which purported to show that flat A’s extractor fan was venting into the void space between flat B and his property. The resident said that he had reported the matter to the landlord on several previous occasions without resolution.
3. On 12 October 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it would be carrying out an inspection of both his property and flat A to identify the reported problem. No evidence is available of this being done.
4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint via the Ombudsman on 6 December 2021. The landlord issued its complaint response on 5 January 2022 in which it said that it had experienced difficulty in gaining access to flat A. It said it would rearrange the appointment to visit flat A and the resident, and would update him within 7 days. The landlord inspected both properties on 25 January 2022.
5. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 1 July 2022, in which it acknowledged that the resident had reported that the smell of rubbish and cigarettes was entering his property since 22 March 2021. It confirmed that its inspection in January 2022 found no evidence of odours but would raise another inspection of the resident’s property and flats A and B below him, and the extractor fans and pipework, to identify the source of the reported smell.
6. During December 2022, the resident informed the Ombudsman that he remained dissatisfied as he was yet to receive an update on the proposed reinspection of the extraction systems in the properties below or how the landlord proposed to remedy the issue.

Assessment and findings

7. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property. Its repairs charter confirms that it has 4 repair priorities:
   1. Emergency repairs, which are to be attended within 4 hours.
   2. Urgent repairs which should be completed within 1-5 working days.
   3. Non-urgent repairs have a completion timeframe of 1-20 working days.
   4. Batch repairs are to be completed within 90 days, subject to funding. 
8. Given that the issue reported by the resident was odours entering his property from a defect in the extraction system or wall cavities, it was the landlord’s responsibility to investigate the issue and carry out any necessary repairs. While undoubtedly unpleasant, there is no evidence that the reported odours were a hazard to health, therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out the repairs in accordance with its 20-working-day timeframe for a non-urgent repair.
9. However, the landlord took an unreasonably long time to arrange an inspection of the reported odour issue. It took approximately 2 months to confirm to the resident that it would be carrying an inspection after the resident reported the matter in August 2021. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response of 5 January 2021 that it had been unsuccessful in arranging the inspection with flat A. This was approximately 5 months after the resident’s report and was an excessively long interval. Furthermore, the landlord has not provided any evidence to confirm that it made attempts to arrange the inspection with the occupant of flat A.
10. The Ombudsman appreciates that some repairs may be complex, and coordinating access to multiple properties may cause delays. In such cases, the landlord would be expected to keep a resident updated of progress in order to manage their expectations. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident on the status of his reported repair, which was unreasonable as this was likely to result in uncertainty and frustration for him. This was also likely to have led to him raising his stage 1 complaint.
11. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response that it would again attempt to inspect the properties, which it did on 25 January 2022. It did not find any evidence of the odours reported by the resident, however it was unable to access flat B. It is evident that the landlord attempted to inspect the three properties again on 21 March 2022 but was unable to gain access to flats A and B. This was after an interval of approximately 2 months and there is no evidence of the landlord communicating with the resident during this time.
12. The landlord’s final stage response, on 1 July 2022, again said that it would carry out an inspection of the three properties. However, after 5 months, the resident informed the Ombudsman that this had not yet occurred. Again, there is no evidence of any communication between the landlord and the resident during this time to update him on progress. This was another unreasonably long period with no resolution of the odour issue and no management of the resident’s expectations.
13. Overall, while the landlord did appropriately attempt on 2 occasions to inspect the three properties in question, there was inadequate communication from the landlord throughout which likely prompted the resident to raise his complaint. It was unreasonable that no resolution was provided to the resident despite 16 months passing since his original report of the matter. It was also unreasonable that, despite the significant period during which the issue remained unresolved, there is very limited evidence of the landlord making reasonable efforts to gain access to flats A and B to investigate the issue.
14. To recognise the significant delay, distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident while the odour issue went unresolved, compensation of £300 should be paid to him. This award is calculated in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view online. The landlord has also been ordered to apologise to the resident and to inspect all three properties with a view to identifying and resolving the resident’s reports.

Determination

15. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about odours entering his property.

Orders

16. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for, and provide an explanation for, the excessive delay in addressing his concerns.
    2. Pay the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his concerns.
    3. Carry out the proposed inspection of the resident’s property and the two properties below, and confirm to the resident in writing the findings of this and any remedial action required. If remedial action is required then this should be completed within 4 weeks of the date of the inspection.