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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202330453)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330453

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

3 June 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 unpleasant smells in the resident’s property.
  2. The Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in 3 bedroom house under an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, since 28 May 2018. The landlord has said it is aware that the resident’s children, who live at the property, have several health issues.
  2. The resident had been reporting that there was a constant unpleasant smell in her property to the landlord. It organised a drainage contractor to inspect her property in October 2022.
  3. The resident raised her complaint to the landlord in November 2022. When the landlord issued its stage 1 response, on 3 November 2022, it said it understood her complaint to be about her concerns following the recent drain inspection and delays fixing the issue. It said it was still awaiting the report from the drainage contractor. It said it had chased the contractor for this, and once it had received the report it would organise the necessary repairs. It also offered her a total of £170 compensation for repair delays, the inconvenience to her and the time and trouble she had taken to chase it.
  4. Drainage works took place in December 2022. In January 2023 the resident reported the smell had returned. The landlord organised for a plumber to attend her property in February 2023.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 March 2023. She said the smell was worse than ever and had been ongoing for the past 5 years. She highlighted she was due to give birth in the coming months and was concerned about her, and her family’s, health. She felt the compensation the landlord had offered did not reflect the length of time the issue had gone on for.
  6. Prior to issuing its complaint response the landlord increased its compensation to £345. The reasons for the revised amount offer are unknown.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 August 2023. It said it would have a supervisor visit the property to try and find the cause of the smell and works needed to rectify the issue. It said once this visit had happened, it would contact her to discuss any compensation. It did not explain she could escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy.
  8. In October 2023 the landlord undertook a further review of its handling of the complaint and the smell issue. It is not apparent why it did so as this further step is not part of its complaint process. Nonetheless, it issued its findings on 22 November 2023. It said the supervisor who recently visited her property had not noticed a smell and had, instead, offered advice on how to ventilate the property. It considered the issue was now resolved. It apologised for delays to resolving the matter and for its complaint handling, and increased its compensation to a total of £740.
  9. The resident remained unhappy following the November 2023 review and escalated her complaint to the Service. She said there was still a strong smell in the property, and had been since she moved in. She also disputed that a supervisor visited her in October 2023 and said the landlord’s review of its stage 2 response was incorrect. She wanted it to properly investigate the smell and complete repairs to fix the issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident complained to the Ombudsman that the ongoing smell in her property has affected her, and her family’s, health. Although the Service can consider the general distress and inconvenience of the situation on the resident, we cannot assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. That is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue the option.
  2. The resident complained to the Ombudsman that the ongoing smell had been present since she moved into her property in May 2018. This investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from November 2021 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

The landlord’s handling of the reports of unpleasant smells in the resident’s property

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of drains and external pipes connected to its properties. It says it aims to complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days of receiving a repair report.
  2. The landlord’s compensation calculator lists the compensation amounts it may offer for a range of failures. It says it can offer between £20 to £100 for individual issues like distress caused, inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident. The level of compensation it offers relates to the level of failure found and the impact this caused to the resident.
  3. In the resident’s complaints to the landlord she said there was a constant smell throughout her property which seemed to originate from the upstairs bathroom. She said that some contractors had been out to her property to investigate but she often then did not hear anything after this. She was unhappy with the landlord’s service and handling of her reports. She wanted it to investigate, find the cause of the smell and complete the necessary repairs to resolve the issue.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said it was waiting on a report from its contractor who had recently inspected the drains at the resident’s property. It said it had chased the contractor for this report, and would raise the necessary repairs once it had received it. Evidence shows it did chase the contractor the following day and, when the contractor said their findings were inconclusive, it organised a reinspection and told the contractor to treat this as an urgent job. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 December 2022 to confirm repairs had recently taken place and the smell seemed to be gone. In response the landlord offered her a total of £170 compensation, broken down into:
    1. £60 for repair delays
    2. £60 for inconvenience
    3. £50 for time and effort on the resident’s part.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 response was appropriate. It clearly explained why there had been delays in getting the necessary repairs completed and did what it said it would do by regularly chasing its contractor. Once it had confirmation from the resident that repairs had been done and seemed to have resolved the issue it then offered compensation that reflected the time taken. The compensation offered was reasonable as it was in line with its own compensation ranges for the level of failures it had identified.
  6. When the resident escalated her complaint she maintained the smell issue had not been resolved. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said it had carried out multiple investigations and repairs at her property but acknowledged her comments that the smell was still an issue. It said it would arrange for a supervisor to complete an investigation at her property, and would then raise any repairs identified, as well as offer compensation, after this took place.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 response was appropriate because the evidence broadly supports the landlord’s explanation, and the resident did not dispute it, saying only that the smell was persisting. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and arranged for an appropriate person to complete further investigations. This showed it was taking her concerns seriously and was doing what it could to find the cause of the smell.
  8. The landlord undertook a further review of the resident’s complaint. It issued its findings in November 2023. It said the inspection it had promised in its stage 2 response had gone ahead but the supervisor had not identified a smell in the property. The supervisor had noticed the property may have not been getting sufficient ventilation and offered advice on dealing with this. As no smell had been identified, it considered the matter resolved. It apologised for the delays and offered the resident revised compensation of:
    1. £240 for distress caused.
    2. £240 for inconvenience caused.
    3. £100 for time and effort.
  9. Whether it was appropriate for the landlord to do the November review is considered further below. Nonetheless, with multiple operatives reporting the same findings, combined with the several inspections of the property and repairs, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider it had taken appropriate steps, based on the evidence it had.
  10. The compensation offered was also appropriate. It exceeded the limits in the landlord’s compensation policy and calculator, and showed that while the problem had not been witnessed and was not due to any specific action or inaction by the landlord, it realised the issue was causing the resident distress and frustration. 
  11. The resident had told the landlord at one point that one of the operatives told her he had no sense of smell. There is nothing in the evidence confirming this, but even so, multiple operatives had attended over time, and none had witnessed the problem.
  12. In summary, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and rectify the reported smell issue. It arranged and completed multiple inspections, using relevant operatives and completed any repairs these inspections highlighted. Despite its operatives reporting that they could not notice a smell, the landlord continued to search for a possible cause and explored several options available in doing so. Despite this, it offered the resident compensation that was significantly higher than its own policies said it could. Nothing in the evidence seen for this investigation indicates any specific failings in relation to its handling of, and response, to the resident’s reports.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says its complaint process has two stages. It says it will acknowledge a resident’s stage 2 escalation request within 2 working days of receipt. It says it will then provide its stage 2 response within 20 workings of receipt. It can extend this deadline by no more than a further 10 working days, providing it makes the resident aware.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the expectations on how landlords should handle complaints. The Code in place at the time of the resident’s complaint states a 2 stage complaints process is ideal. This is to ensure complaints are not left open unnecessarily. The Code also states that a third stage in the process should only be considered if a resident has ‘actively’ requested it. 
  3. The landlord’s compensation calculator says it can offer a maximum of £100 for complaint handling failures. It also says it can offer a fixed amount of £20 for each missed appointment.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 in an email to the landlord on 21 March 2023. The evidence shows it failed to recognise this escalation request at the time. It was not until 7 July 2023, when it called the resident and she repeated that she wanted to escalate her complaint that it then acknowledged this and started stage 2 proceedings. By the time it had issued its stage 2 response, on 16 August 2023, 100 working days had passed from when she had requested escalation in March. This clearly exceeded the 20 working day guideline set out in its complaints policy and was a failing.
  5. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the time taken to respond and apologised. This was appropriate to do given the significant delay.
  6. In its November 2023 review the landlord acknowledged there had been complaint handling delays. It apologised again and offered compensation which it said totalled £160. That total was incorrect however, as it had broken down the amount into:
    1. 3 payments of £20 for each delay to review the resident’s complaint, totalling £60.
    2. £100 for complaint handling delays at stage 1
    3. £120 for its delay to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
  7. £160 compensation was higher than the maximum award the landlord’s compensation calculator said it could offer and would have been appropriate as it reflected the severity of its failings. Nonetheless, its breakdown of the amount totalled £280, which it should have paid. It is not apparent if it has.
  8. The reasons for the landlord’s November 2023 review are unclear. This step is not mentioned in the landlord’s complaint policy, and the Code at the time urged landlords not to use a 3-stage complaint process. Furthermore, the landlord had not explained in its stage 2 complaint response that the resident could bring her complaint to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied. Instead, it said it would keep the complaint open until it had completed further appointments.
  9. The lack of explanation about the Ombudsman and keeping the complaint open was also counter to the Code. The landlord’s approach added an additional 70 working days to it completing its internal complaints process. This was not reasonable as there had already been significant delays in it providing its initial stage 2 response.
  10. Overall, the landlord acknowledged some of its complaint handling delays, and provided reasonable compensation for them. However, its stage 2 complaint response failed to refer the resident to the Ombudsman, it used an third stage which was not part of its policy, inappropriately kept the complaint open, caused further complaint delays, and provided contradictory information about its compensation. The landlord has not acknowledged or remedied these errors. Taken together these were significant failings in its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of unpleasant smells in the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident the £280 compensation for poor complaint handling that it offered in its stage 2 review (if it has not already done so).
    2. Pay the resident £200 for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
    3. Review its complaint handling of this case in light of these findings and confirm to the Service that its complaint process is now in line with its policy and with the Code.
    4. Provide evidence of the above to the Service.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should now pay the resident the £580 compensation it offered in its stage 2 review response.