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

Sovereign Network Group (202300796)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300796

Sovereign Network Homes

19 February 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 reports of a smell in the property.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as an assured tenant since February 2022. The property is a new build 2-bedroom bungalow. The bungalow was in the defects period when the resident first reported a smell.
  2. On 22 July 2022, the resident told the landlord about a smell, which she said had been there since she moved in. She said it got worse after rain and affected her asthma. The landlord asked the resident to get back in touch if the smell continued.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord again on 28 November 2022. She said the smell had been mild in the summer but had got worse in the wet weather. She said it was a damp smell and wanted the landlord to investigate.
  4. The resident complained on 5 December 2022 about the landlord’s response. She said she had called the landlord several times and plumbers had not turned up for an appointment. She wanted the landlord to send someone as soon as possible.
  5. In its complaint response on 7 February 2023, the landlord said the property developer had visited on 16 January 2023 and looked at the drains. It said it did not find a smell or problem with the drains. It found the walls and floor were dry, and there was no mould. The landlord said the developer was getting further advice and it would contact her if it needed to do further work.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 February 2023. She said the landlord’s response was not correct as the developer’s plumber had smelt the unpleasant smell. She said the landlord always sent someone weeks after she called and when the weather was good. She said the landlord needed to send someone quickly when she made a report.
  7. On 24 February 2023, the landlord told the resident it had arranged for pest control to visit. Pest control did not find a cause. An inspection of the property took place on 4 April 2023. It did not find a cause and suggested further drain inspections.
  8. After the resident said her asthma had got worse, the landlord moved her out of the property on 11 April 2023 while it did further work. On 16 May 2023, the landlord told the resident that it had done most of the work and there was no reported smell. It said she could move back after it had laid new flooring. The resident told the landlord that she was going on holiday for 3 weeks and would then return to her bungalow.
  9. On 17 June 2023, the resident said she had returned and there was still a smell.
  10. In its final response on 26 June 2023, the landlord set out the work it had done. It said it had not found any hazards that could cause a risk to health. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She wanted the landlord to find the cause of the smell.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident raised concerns about the effect the smell had on her health. After considering the evidence, in line with paragraph 42.o of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider this part of the complaint. This is because we cannot decide liability for damages, including claims for the effect on health. The Scheme says that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that concern matters where the resident is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a smell in the property

  1. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether there was a smell. It is the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the landlord followed its policies and responded reasonably to the resident’s reports. For example, when the resident reported a smell that was affecting her health, we will consider if the landlord responded appropriately and offer support.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it will make sure it keeps homes in a condition that meet legal requirements on health and safety. It says it will prioritise repairs by recognising the risk to the health and safety of residents.
  3. The landlord’s decants policy says a temporary decant is when a resident moves out of their home on a short-term basis. It says this may be due to an emergency or if it needs to do major repairs. It says the intention is for the resident to return to their home once it completes work and it is safe to return.
  4. The Ombudsman has noted that when the resident first reported a smell in July 2022, the property had recently been handed over to the landlord by a developer. The landlord’s repairs policy on new homes says that during the first 12 months from handover, it will look at repairs to decide whether they are the responsibility of the developer or the landlord.
  5. Records provided by the landlord show that in July 2022, the resident told it there had been a smell in the property since she moved in. In response the landlord asked the resident to get back in touch if the smell continued. There were no further reports until November 2023. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord could have visited the property after the report in July 2022, or asked the developer to visit as the property was in the defects period. However, as there was no mention of health concerns at this time, it was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to contact it again if the smell continued.
  6. When the resident reported the smell again on 28 November 2022 and mentioned her asthma, the landlord contacted the developer and asked it to attend. This was reasonable as the property was still in the defects period.
  7. The developer arranged an appointment for 30 November 2022 to inspect the drains. However, on 1 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said no-one attended. On 5 December 2022, the resident complained about the landlord’s response to her reports of a smell.
  8. The landlord’s records show the developer’s contractor attended on 19 December 2022 but did not find a fault with the drains. On 22 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and asked it to call her. She said she was struggling with her asthma. She wanted to know what the next step would be.
  9. Following this, there is a gap in the evidence provided by the landlord. However, in its complaint response on 7 February 2023, the landlord said the developer’s contractor attended again on 17 January 2023 and found no smell or cause. They also found no evidence of damp and mould. The landlord said the developer was going to check drawings of the drains and it would contact the resident when it heard back from the developer.
  10. The Ombudsman has noted there was a delay in sending the complaint response. However, the response was reasonable as it explained what work the developer had done since the report in November 2022. From the time the resident reported the smell on 28 November 2022 up to 17 January 2023, the developer had arranged 2 inspections. As the property was in the defects period, it was reasonable for the landlord to ask the developer to take the lead on this.
  11. When the resident escalated her complaint on 13 February 2023, she said the visits had not taken place at times when the smell was bad. She said the landlord should send someone straightaway when she reported the smell. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident was concerned about the effect of the smell on her health and frustrated that the developer had not found the cause. However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that at this time, the reports could not be classed as an emergency, and because of this it was not reasonable for the landlord to attend immediately after the resident reported the smell.
  12. On 22 February 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her complaint. It explained that work had been done to change shower traps and check gutters and drains. It said it had found no faults and there was “no apparent reason for the smell. On 24 February 2023, the landlord told the resident it had arranged a pest control survey in case this was the cause. It also said it had asked public health to do radom testing. Records show pest control attended on 10 March 2023 and found no evidence of pests.
  13. The Ombudsman has found that the actions the landlord took were reasonable at this time. This is because there was no obvious cause, and it was exploring possible causes and keeping the resident informed.
  14. Following the pest control survey, the resident asked the landlord to treat the smell as an emergency. In response on 16 March 2023, the landlord told the resident it had decided to employ an external surveyor to inspect the property.
  15. An inspection took place on 4 April 2023. This found no leaks. It said a test of internal drains found waste pipes ran under the hallway floor. Tests showed there was a delay on the toilet draining. It said there was an inspection cover under the hallway but to check this it had to remove the floor. It also noted a blocked airbrick. It recommended a further drain survey and reducing the ground level to unblock the airbrick.
  16. On 10 April 2023, the resident told the landlord she was struggling to breathe, and her asthma had got worse. On 11 April 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss a move to temporary accommodation while it did more tests and work. The resident agreed and the landlord arranged a move from 14 April 2023. Records show the landlord contacted the resident with updates while she was living in temporary accommodation.
  17. The Ombudsman has found that this was a reasonable step for the landlord to take at this time. This is because work to find a cause of the smell needed disruptive work and concerns about the effect on the resident’s health had increased.
  18. In its final response on 26 June 2023, the landlord said that since the resident escalated her complaint it had worked to try to find the cause. It said an inspection on 13 April 2023 found drains working but there was a blockage in a storm drain, which it cleared. It said a further drain inspection took place on 20 April 2023 and found no problems. It also checked cavity walls and insulation and found no faults. It said the developer had agreed to clear gutters, upgrade an extractor fan, replace vinyl flooring, and raise the height of an airbrick. It said the developer completed all agreed works by 31 May 2023.
  19. The landlord ended its complaint response by saying it attended the property again on 7 June 2023 and found no smell. It said there was no evidence of any fault that could cause a hazard to health and the property was safe to return to.
  20. Following the final response, the resident continued to report a smell. The landlord discussed options for a move with the resident and arranged a visit with environmental health. Environmental health visited and could not find a smell. The Ombudsman has noted there have been no reports of a smell since the visit by environmental health in August 2023.
  21. Overall, the Ombudsman has found the landlord acted reasonably. Records show it worked with the developer to find a cause and arranged inspections and work to improve ventilation. When the resident said the smell was affecting her health, it arranged to move her to temporary accommodation while it did more investigations and repairs. There were delays in sending complaint responses but during this time the landlord gave regular updates to the resident. Because of this, the Ombudsman has found there was no maladministration in the way the landlord responded to reports of a smell in the property.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of a smell in the property.