Onward Homes Limited (202344019)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344019

Onward Homes Limited

21 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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s:
1. Response to reports of strong odours within the property due to an issue with the wastewater treatment plant.
2. Handling of the related complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The tenancy started in December 2021.
The property is 1 of 6 houses managed by the landlord (housing block) and serviced by a wastewater treatment plant. There is a second plant nearby which services a further 6 properties, also managed by the landlord (site 2).
On 29 January 2024, the resident reported a foul smell within the property via the landlord’s online portal. The landlord raised a routine repair with its drainage contractor and told the resident it would attend as soon as possible. On 7 February 2024, the resident reported that the smell was getting worse. The resident’s neighbour also reported strong smells in their property. The resident emailed the landlord again the next day explaining that she and her family had been unwell since 1 February 2024 explaining their symptoms. She told the landlord that she believed these were due to sewer gases from the sewage tank. A drainage contractor attended on 9 February 2024 and carried out jetting work but was unable to diagnose or resolve the issue. The specialist contractor for the sewage tank attended the next day and confirmed the plant was not working correctly as the aeration pump was not functioning and sewer gases had been “breathing back up line”. The tank was emptied on the same day. The resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours (OOH) team on 10 and 11 February 2024 asking it to check gas levels within the property. The landlord carried out an air quality test on 13 February 2024 and fitted replacement parts to the wastewater plant on 15 February 2024.
On the same day the resident raised a formal complaint. Within this, she provided a timeline of events since her first report of foul odours on 29 January 2024 and asked the landlord to:
1. Explain why sewer gases had entered the property, and why the aeration pump had failed.
2. Provide information regarding how the plant was maintained.
3. Explain the consequences of the wastewater not being treated correctly.
4. Confirm if the red “tank full” warning light was in working order.
5. Arrange for an independent assessment of the water treatment plant.
6. Provide a written assurance that she and her family would not be exposed to sewer gases again.
7. Provide contractor attendance and job completion reports.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and on 29 February 2024, provided the resident with a stage 1 response. Within this it stated it was partially upholding her complaint. It said its initial recording of the problem reported and attendance to identify the required action was not to the high level it aimed to provide. The landlord also provided the following response to her questions raised:
1. Sewer gases were prevented from entering the property by seals on each sanitary fitting.
2. The tank was vented itself as it was built and approved by building regulation.
3. The pump and beacon detector failed at the same time and the cause of these electrical faults was unclear.
4. The tank was not full and not considered to be the cause of the electrical faults.
5. It had received no reports of the red “tank full” warning light not working, the tank was not full.
6. The system was serviced every 6 months, or as and when defects occur by its specialist contractor.
7. It had requested copies of (service) reports, which it would send to the resident.
8. If the wastewater treatment plant was not working correctly, there was a risk of overspill above required contaminant levels entering the brook.
9. It would arrange for an independent assessment of the water treatment plant to assess, amongst other things, if it was the correct sizing to service all 6 houses.
10. It could not guarantee that there would not be a fault with the system, but it was introducing weekly checks to assess if the blower unit was working correctly.
11. Regarding her reports of her family being unwell because of the sewer plant, it could not respond as this was a personal injury matter.
12. The landlord apologised for the service provided and offered the resident £175 in compensation.
On 1 March 2024 the resident requested to escalate her complaint to the next stage of its complaint process. She said there were “too many inconsistencies and guess work by the landlord” and that there was a lack of trust and transparency as they had been “left in dark”.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 12 March 2024 reiterating her concerns and said that she had spoken to a resident from site 2 who was experiencing the same strong smells.
On 18 and 25 March 2024 the resident emailed the landlord requesting a timescale for the independent assessment of the plant. The landlord replied on 26 March 2024 advising it had contacted companies to quote for this work. The landlord subsequently appointed an independent contractor who on 16 April 2024, inspected the plants for the housing block and site 2.
On 3 May 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. Within this it:
1. Acknowledged that it incorrectly raised a 20-day routine repair and recorded her report of foul smells as being due to a blocked drain.
2. Said that once it became clear the issue was more than a blocked drain, it escalated the matter to its compliance team who immediately arranged for urgent attendance by the specialist contractor.
3. Said that repairs were expedited and completed in a timely manner, and the wastewater treatment plant was left fully functioning.
4. Stated that it put customer safety at the forefront, and it apologised if the resident had felt ignored, dismissed or misled.
5. Said it did not hold all the information relating to the system as it only managed the properties.
6. Hoped that the independent survey completed on 16 April 2024 demonstrated its commitment to ensuring the relevant information was accessible and its services to residents to be of the highest level.
7. Would review the survey with the freeholder and residents when received.
8. Believed it had provided all job completion reports but it would review, collate and issue a complete copy to the resident.
9. Increased its offer of compensation from £175 to £375 (including £50 for the delay in responding to her complaint).

Post the landlord’s final response.

The landlord received the independent third-party report (corrected version) on 2 June 2024 and sent this to all residents on 11 June 2024. In the cover letter the landlord confirmed it was arranging for the repairs recommended in the report.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout her communication to the landlord, the resident said she and her family had experienced illness and various symptoms because of the sewer gas from the sewage tank flowing back into the property.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate if there was a causal link between reports of health issues experienced by the resident and her family and the actions of the landlord. A personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. It is noted during the complaints process, the landlord correctly provided the resident with details of its insurers in case she wished to pursue a claim regarding this. As this claim is more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, this element will not be investigated. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
Since the date of the landlord’s final response, the resident (or her partner) has remained in communication with the landlord regarding the wastewater treatment plant. This included regarding repairs recommended in the 2 June 2024 third party report and in relation to further reports of strong odours affecting the site on 31 July 2024.
The Ombudsman is unable to consider, in this investigation, complaints about events or the landlord’s response to further reports since its final response until such time they have exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. It is noted the resident raised another complaint with the landlord in October 2024 which the landlord did not log as a complaint. We have told the resident that if she believes the landlord’s decision was not in accordance with its complaints policy, we can consider this matter under a new case reference as per our process.

The landlord’s response to reports of strong odours within the property due to an issue with the wastewater treatment plant.

The tenancy agreement says the landlord is obliged to keep in repair and working order the installations for sanitation and for the supply of water including flushing systems and water pipes.
The landlord’s websites states in an emergency a resident can call a number 24 hours, 7 days per week and if the repair is assessed as needing immediate action, it will deal with the repair within 4 hours. It also states:
1. Emergency repairs have a 24-hour response time.
2. Urgent repairs have a 5 working day response time.
3. Routine repairs have a 20-working day response time.
The resident first reported foul smells at the property via the landlord’s portal on 29 January 2024. It took 12 days for the appropriate contractor to attend the site to investigate the issue. The landlord was aware that wastewater from the property was treated by a wastewater treatment plant and that it used a specialist contractor to service this. However, the landlord incorrectly recorded the resident’s initial report as related to drainage and raised a 20-working day routine repair with its standard repair contactor.
It was only after further reports from the resident on 7 and 8 February 2024 that the matter was passed to its compliance team who raised a job for the specialist contractor to attend. The landlord’s drainage contractor attended on 9 February 2024 and while they carried out some jetting to the line, they were unable to diagnose the issue but noted a vacuum tank was needed to empty the sewage tank.
When the specialist contractor attended on 10 February 2024, they identified that the system was not working correctly in part due to a fault with the aeration pump. They were unable to resolve the issue during this visit as they did not have the failed components in stock. However, a tanker arrived on the same day to remove untreated effluent from the sewage tank.
It is clear that the defects with the system had caused sewage odours to surge the system and flow back into the resident’s property. This Service recognises the potential severity of this situation as exposure to sewer gases can be unsafe. Landlords have a duty to ensure their properties are free from category 1 hazards. Defects with sanitations and drainage are considered a hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The plants had experienced sporadic faults with reports of foul smells throughout their history. The landlord has confirmed this to the Ombudsman. The resident’s report of foul odours therefore ought to have put the landlord on notice regarding a potential risk to the residents’ health and safety.
The timeframe taken by the landlord of 12 days to attend the site to investigate the reported odours, was inappropriate. In line with the response times set out in its repairs policy the landlord should have treated the resident’s initial report more urgently so that the cause of the odours could be promptly identified and appropriate action taken to reduce risk of harm. The landlord’s failure to raise the job as an emergency with the appropriate contractor at the earliest opportunity, was a failing and is indicative of it not taking its obligations sufficiently seriously.
It is clear from her formal complaint that the resident and her family attended hospital on 10 February 2024 due to symptoms she believed were from the sewage gas. She said she called the landlord OOH to request that it carry out an air quality test within the property as they had been advised by the hospital not to stay there until the issue was resolved. She said despite promises of a call back from a manager, this was not provided.
Having been made aware by the resident that she and her family had been to hospital, the landlord should have assessed the situation. This should have included considering if interim measures such as a decant were appropriate until such time it was able to provide the repairs identified on 10 February 2024. There is no evidence that it did so and neither did it provide call backs from a manager when promised to the resident on 10 February 2024. Its failure to provide call backs was inappropriate. This and the lack of any assessment of the situation once it was made aware of the impact on the resident indicates a failing in the service provided by the landlord.
In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged it failed to provide call backs from a manager when promised to the resident at this time. It explained that while the OOH team left a message with a manager, insufficient information had been left and the manager’s attempts to obtain further information from the OOH team, were unsuccessful. This indicates poor knowledge and information management internally between different teams within the landlord and a lack of any joined up approach.
When the resident called the OOH team again the next day on 11 February 2024 requesting assurances regarding safety at the property, this resulted in the landlord sending a plumber to the property. This was inappropriate in the circumstances and is further evidence of the lack of oversight by the landlord when handling the resident’s reports up to this stage.
However, 2 days later on 13 February 2024, the landlord’s neighbourhood specialist met with the resident at the property to discuss the problem. An external contractor also attended at this time to check the air quality at the property and check the parts needed for the repairs. The landlord’s actions show it understood the potential seriousness of situation at this stage and acted appropriately.
The air quality reading was found to be normal. In her formal complaint the resident pointed out the lack of any gases detected at this time may be due to the sewage tank having been emptied on 10 February 2024 and the windows left open. An air quality check by the landlord at an earlier stage may have been helpful in identifying any levels of gas in the property. However by completing it at this stage, the landlord was able to establish that air quality was safe as such its actions were appropriate.
On 14 February 2024 the landlord confirmed to the resident that the replacement parts had been ordered and the repair would be completed the next day. Its contractor attended as promised and the blower unit and beacon detector were replaced and a bacteria solution to breakdown matter, added to the tank. Around the same time the landlord installed a non-return valve (NRV) to the line in the resident’s and a neighbour’s properties to prevent smells from the sewage tank flowing back into the properties. It is evident the landlord had taken steps to expedite this repair by sourcing the parts from an alternative external contractor as the specialist contractor did not have the required parts. This action was reasonable in the circumstances.
While the repairs undertaken enabled the plant to function, in her complaint the resident raised concerns regarding the longer-term safety and functionality of the wastewater plant as she believed the issue would reoccur. She requested an independent assessment of the plant and asked the landlord specific questions regarding the size of the plant and blower and if there was sufficient ventilation. She also queried if the wastewater plant was built to regulations and requested that it provide her with the records of the contractor visits and jobs completed on the plant.
Following her complaint the landlord raised a job for gas readings to be taken from all properties with the resident’s housing block. This was carried out on 21 February 2024 and the landlord subsequently told the resident the air quality tested as ‘normal’. As this indicates the landlord was working to provide additional reassurance to the resident regarding air quality, it acted reasonably in this regard. Over the next few weeks, the landlord provided the resident with contractor attendance and job completion reports as per her request. This was appropriate and indicates it was taking her complaint seriously.
It is noted that in its final response, the landlord explained that as it only managed the properties, it did not hold the same level of information regarding the system as would normally be retained as a property owner. The landlord provided the resident with documents it had including the 6-monthly inspection reports. This was reasonable. Overall, this Service is satisfied that the landlord provided an adequate level of information regarding the plant in response to the resident’s requests. This shows it took appropriate steps to liaise with the freeholder where needed.
The landlord also told the resident on 23 February 2024 that it accepted her request for an independent consultant to carry out an assessment on the wastewater system and drainage. The landlord reiterated this in its stage 1 response. This action was appropriate. The landlord had been unable to explain to the resident why the faults had occurred despite confirming in its responses that the plant was built to regulations and that it had been appropriately serviced every 6 months. The landlord also suggested in its stage 1 response that gases had not entered the property. This was inconsistent with evidence elsewhere within the landlord which acknowledged gases may have entered the property due to the faults with the plant. However, by agreeing to undertake an independent assessment of the plants, this demonstrates the landlord was willing to prioritise health and safety and act with greater transparency.
The landlord did not provide a timescale in its stage 1 response for completing the independent assessment. This would have been appropriate to manage the resident’s expectations. It was only following further contact from the resident that the landlord confirmed to her on 26 March 2024 that it had invited independent companies to provide a quote for the inspection. The landlord also said that it intended to place an order that week with an inspection to take place on week commencing 15 April 2024. On 16 April 2024 an independent third party attended the sites to assess the plants. This indicates the landlord did as it promised. At the time of the landlord’s final complaint response on 3 May 2024, the landlord had not received the report although it told the resident it would share this with her and the freeholder once received. This was reasonable.
As mentioned above, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate events after the landlord’s final complaint response however we expect landlords to demonstrate it has acted on promises made during its complaints process. It is evident the landlord chased the third-party company for the report and then sent this to all residents on 2 June 2024 when it also confirmed it would arrange the recommended repairs. This Service notes that the report recommended the following actions:
1. Full refurbishment of treatment plant diffusers including air hose back to aeration blowers.
2. Replacement of aeration blowers.
3. Cleaning of aeration housing due to ants and snail nests.
4. Installation of local to plant venting stacks.
5. Water ingress within manhole before treatment plant serving site 2, to be stopped.
The report also recommended the landlord gain information on the venting systems within each of the properties as there was no traditional open air venting stacks on any of the properties and all foul stacks are internal to all properties.
In response to our further information request, on 3 January 2025 the landlord told us it had appointed a contractor to undertake the recommended works to the 2 wastewater plants which would take place between 13 January 2025 to 5 February 2025.
In summary, there were significant failings by the landlord when responding to the resident’s reports of foul odours at the property which are indicative of it failing to take its obligations seriously. It did not act with appropriate urgency when put on notice by the resident’s initial report that there was an issue with the plant that potentially risked the health and safety of the resident. The landlord failed to consider interim measures or consider if it was appropriate to temporarily decant the resident and her family while repairs were outstanding. There were also communication failings by the landlord.
However, this Service recognises the landlord has taken steps to put right the failings identified during this investigation. It completed repairs to the plant within 2 to 3 weeks of it failing and agreed to undertake an independent assessment of both plants to establish if further works were required. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged there had been failings in the standard of its response to the resident’s reports and increased its offer of compensation from £175 to £325 in its stage 2 final response. However, we are mindful of the resident’s reports of going to hospital due to worsening health while they awaited attendance of the landlord to inspect the plant. The resident also stayed away from the property which she said was on advice from the hospital until the repairs were completed. Therefore, due to the significant failings and the impact on the resident and her household, the redress was insufficient to resolve the complaint. There has also been an unreasonable delay by the landlord in completing the works recommended in the report which the landlord had told the resident it would complete. This is indicative of maladministration by the landlord while handling the resident’s reports of strong odours within the property.
In the circumstances, an order has been included below for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £700 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused while handling her reports (£1,025) including the amount offered during the complaints process). This amount is consistent with this Service’s guidance on remedies where there has been a significant impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2- stage complaints process. At stage 1, the landlord will contact residents within 2 working days of receiving the complaint and provide a response within 10 working days. Complaints escalated to stage 2 should be acknowledged within 2 working days, with a response provided within 20 working days.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 1 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged her stage 2 escalation request on 29 March 2024 which was 20 working days later. This was inappropriate because it was outside the 2–working day timescale set out in the landlord’s policy. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 May 2024 which was 24 working later. This was inappropriate as it exceeded the 20-working day timescale given in its policy.
In its stage 2 final response the landlord offered the resident £50 in compensation for the delay in responding to her stage 2 complaint. In the circumstances, this Service is satisfied that the remedy offered by the landlord was proportionate to the delay and inconvenience caused to the resident. Therefore, we consider the redress offered by the landlord put right its failing while handling the resident’s complaint, as such it provided reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of strong odours within the property due to an issue with the wastewater treatment plant.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Within 4 weeks, provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
2. Within 4 weeks, pay the resident additional compensation of £700 for distress, inconvenience time and trouble for failings while her handling reports (£1,075 including the amounts offered during the complaints process if not already done so).
3. Complete the works recommended in the ‘Wastewater Treatment Plant Inspection’ within the timescales indicated to the Ombudsman on 3 January 2025. This should include investigating the venting systems within the properties, as per the report.
4. Within 4 weeks, provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.