Aspire Housing Limited (202008253)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008253

Aspire Housing Limited

30 March 2021

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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) in and around her building.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the communal doors, car park gate and the building’s ventilation system.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident occupies the property, a 2 bedroom flat, under an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord.
3. The resident requested a call–back from a manager via the landlord’s online chat service on 9 July 2020. She stated that the landlord had failed to adequately address her concerns about the smell of cannabis, the security of the block, repairs to the rear access gate and non-residents using the car park. The resident reported that the issues were affecting her mental health. The resident’s Locality Manager acknowledged the enquiry by email on 10 July 2020 and stated that she would be in touch the following week once she had investigated.
4. The landlord confirmed on 16 July 2020 that it would investigate the resident’s reports of ASB through its ASB service and write to all residents to remind them of their obligations and that the use of drugs was prohibited within the scheme. The landlord also provided advice on the resident’s options for moving property.
5. The resident made a formal, written complaint to the landlord on 17 July 2020 about its failure to investigate and deal with cannabis use, which she stated she had reported multiple times in the last 5 years. She detailed the impact this had had on her physical and mental health. The resident felt the landlord had been dismissive of her mental health issues and had failed to provide her with adequate support, including in relation to a move. The resident also complained about the security of the building, including that the rear access door was frequently left open and the car park gates were broken, allowing access to non-residents. She stated that this had been reported to the landlord and the Council but no action had been taken in response. The resident suggested that the landlord install an automatically locking door system and CCTV.
6. On 21 July 2020 the landlord wrote to all residents about reported ASB and the action it was taking in response. It confirmed that it was liaising with police in relation to reports of cannabis use, and that non-residents were accessing the scheme and using quad bikes and motorbikes in the car park. It reminded residents that the possession and use of illegal substances was prohibited and asked residents to ensure that the building was secure and that incidents of vehicle nuisance were reported to police.
7. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 23 July 2020. It confirmed that it had written to all properties within the block and written separately to the resident on 16 July 2020 to confirm the agreed actions. 
8. The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 July 2020, noting that in response to its letter other residents had reported smelling cannabis within the block and provided suggestions as to its origin. The landlord asked the resident to confirm which flat she believed was responsible so that it could discuss this with the tenant directly. The resident responded the same day noting that the location of the smell changed and that the landlord had previously attempted to gain access to a property to investigate following reports from several residents, however, there had been no response. The resident noted that she had then been threatened by the resident of that property. The resident believed that the smell of cannabis present in the communal areas was different. She suspected that the smell was entering her property via the ventilation system but stated that the landlord had failed to investigate this. The resident asked the landlord to take action to resolve the issue, as it was able to enforce the provisions of tenancy agreements preventing drug use and other forms of ASB.
9. The landlord sent a response at stage 1 of its complaints process on 3 August 2020 It made the following comments in relation to each aspect of the complaint:
   1. The landlord had previously investigated reports of cannabis use in March 2019. It had spoken with the suspected perpetrator who had denied the allegation. The landlord had written to residents encouraging them to report further incidents, as it could not be present on site permanently to monitor the issue. The landlord asked the resident to keep records of the date, time and location of the smell and to report her concerns to the police. The landlord committed to working with the resident to identify the source of the smell and to gather evidence so that further action could be considered.
   2. The landlord had witnessed the rear communal door being left open and agreed that this presented a security risk. It had previously written to residents indicating that it was their responsibility to ensure that doors were kept secure but it acknowledged that this had not been effective. The landlord was considering options to improve security.
   3. The landlord confirmed that the rear access gate was owned and maintained by the Council, however, it had reported that this was in need of repair and would provide an update when the Council responded.
   4. The landlord noted the impact the issues were having on the resident’s mental health but advised that they may take some time to resolve due to the need to work with other parties and the nature of the issues. The landlord offered to refer the resident to its Wellbeing and Support Service.
10. The resident requested that her complaint be escalated on 13 August 2020, making the following comments on the landlord’s stage 1 response:
    1. The landlord had not explained how frequently it intended to conduct spot checks to detect cannabis use and continued to describe her reports of cannabis use as ‘alleged’. The resident expressed her frustration that the landlord refused to act upon information provided by tenants, whilst continuing to encourage them to report issues. The resident corrected the landlord’s statement that she had spoken with her neighbour, clarifying that her neighbour had approached her and threatened her. The resident also stated that the landlord had failed to provide an action plan to address the ASB.
    2. The resident stated that the ventilation system continued to direct the smell of cannabis into her property and that the landlord’s communication with contractors to resolve the issue had been poor. She stated that the landlord had sent unqualified operatives to complete repairs.
    3. The resident felt it was unprofessional that the landlord’s response failed to give details of what assistance the Wellbeing and Support Service could provide. The resident confirmed that she was looking to move from the property due to the landlord’s failure to deal with the issues reported.
11. On 17 August 2020 the resident provided diary sheets and reported that the smell of cannabis continued to enter her property and had been reported to the police. The diary sheets recorded 18 dates where the resident had been able to smell cannabis in various locations between 30 June 2020 and 13 August 2020. The resident believed that the behaviour continued to occur due to a lack of management by the landlord and that the presence of the smell in her property was exacerbated by the ventilation system. She noted that closing the vents had lessened the smell but stated that this was not a permanent solution as it reduced ventilation and may cause mould. The resident requested information on mental health support services and asked the landlord to confirm the date it had contacted the Council about the rear access gate.
12. The landlord responded the same day, noting that the appeal request had been passed to a Director to respond. It noted that a spot check had been carried out on 14 August 2020 but no evidence of cannabis use was witnessed. It repeated advice previously given to keep a diary of the dates and times the smell occurred. The landlord stated that this would be used to target the times of future spot checks. The landlord was awaiting a response from the Council regarding the rear access gates and was considering options for improving security to the rear communal door.
13. The resident reported cannabis use by email on 18 and 19 August 2020. The landlord attended the flats to complete a spot check with the police on the evening of 19 August 2020. No smell of cannabis was detected. The landlord provided details of the dates it had chased the Council regarding the gate repairs and noted that it was awaiting a response on security improvements to the communal doors from the relevant team. The landlord described the mental health services that it provided and asked the resident to confirm whether she would like it to make a referral.
14. On 20 August 2020 the landlord asked the resident to provide availability for an inspection of the ventilation system in her property. The issue with the communal door had been reported to the relevant team on 3 August 2020 and was being progressed. The Council were looking into the issue with the rear access gates. The landlord advised that it would refer the resident to its Mental Health Counsellor and provided a link to its online mental health service. The same day, the landlord made enquiries with a tenant by telephone, who denied cannabis use but reported that she was also affected by the smell, which she believed was coming from the car park or houses opposite.
15. The resident chased a response to her complaint escalation request on 21 August 2020 and an update on the outstanding issues. She noted that the smell of cannabis had been present on 20 August 2020 at 6pm. The landlord stated in response that it was not always able to attend reports of cannabis use immediately but encouraged the resident to keep a diary and to report her concerns to the police. The resident provided a further update about recent cannabis use on 1 September 2020 and confirmed that she had informed the police about motorbikes accessing the car park. On 2 September 2020 the landlord advised that it would be changing the locks on the communal rear door, issuing new keys to residents and reminding them of the need to keep the building secure.
16. The landlord provided a further complaint response on 8 September 2020. The appeal upheld the outcome of the stage 1 response. The landlord noted that it continued to actively investigate the resident’s complaints about cannabis use, her security concerns and her concerns about the ventilation system. The landlord stated that an action plan was in place and committed to update the resident and to continue to review its progress in resolving the issues.
17. The landlord provided a separate update by email on 8 September 2020. It confirmed that the Council had arranged for the gates to be fixed and that a contractor would be attending to survey the ventilation system. The landlord had conducted 2 spot checks that day at 12:15pm and 2:15pm but no smell of cannabis was detected. The police had also advised that they had carried out spot checks but had not found any evidence of cannabis use. The landlord committed to continue to carry out spot checks and visited the property again on 9 and 15 September but did not witness the smell of cannabis. It spoke to 3 residents who indicated the property they believed was responsible. This was addressed with the tenant directly, who denied cannabis use and the landlord noted no smell coming from her property at that time.
18. Following a survey of the ventilation system the engineer reported on 15 September 2020 that the system was working as expected and that he did not believe the smell was entering via the vents.
19. The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 September 2020 stating that she had not yet received a response to her appeal. She reported that the rear gate remained broken and that the smell of cannabis continued to enter her property. The resident noted that an engineer had visited to inspect the system and had suggested that new filters may be required. She had not received an update following this inspection and requested a further inspection by a professional expert on the operation of that system. The resident also noted that she had seen no evidence that spot checks had been completed as promised. The resident requested an update on the wellness services described by the landlord.
20. The landlord emailed the resident on 21 September 2020, noting that its final response had been sent to the resident by email on 9 September 2020. It provided the following updates:
    1. The landlord had informed the resident on 8 September 2020 that the Council had raised an order to repair the gates. The landlord committed to chase this in October if the repair had not been completed.
    2. The landlord confirmed the ventilation system was inspected by a competent tradesperson and found to be in good working order. It advised that as the units were self-contained it was not possible for smells to travel between properties, however, external smells may be drawn in from outside the building. The landlord confirmed there would be no further works to the ventilation system.
    3. The landlord confirmed that the resident had been referred to its mental health service, as previously advised by email on 28 August 2020.
    4. Random spot checks had been completed by both the landlord and local PCSOs. No smells of cannabis had been detected at each visit and so the landlord would not continue to provide spot checks due to limited resources. It committed to try to attend when the resident reported cannabis smells but noted that it could sometimes take between 45-60 minutes to arrive.
    5. The landlord had improved security of the building by changing the locks and issuing residents with new keys. It also planned to replace the doors in the current financial year.
21. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 October 2020 to report an incident of cannabis use witnessed by a friend visiting her property. She noted that doors were still being left open and stated that the locks had not been changed, as she had not been issued with a new key and the old key was still working. The landlord responded noting the resident’s further report. The response did not address the resident’s concerns that the locks had not been changed.
22. The landlord subsequently confirmed on 16 October 2020 that it had requested an update from the Council about the repair to the rear access gate. The landlord repeated its previous advice in relation to the ventilation system, confirming that there would be no further works. A number of spot checks had been completed by the landlord and PCSOs and no cannabis smells were noted, however, the landlord would investigate the recent incident reported by the resident. The landlord intended to investigate the resident’s claim that the locks had not been changed, though at the time of writing previously it had believed this to be the case. It would report back on the outstanding items and continue to investigate reports of cannabis use in the communal areas.
23. The landlord wrote to all residents again on 28 October 2020 and 26 November 2020 reminding them that cannabis use and smoking in communal areas was not permitted and asking them not to slam doors and to keep noise to a minimum to avoid disturbing other residents. The Council confirmed on 6 November 2020 that the gates had been repaired and were now fully operational. The rear door locks were changed and new keys issued to residents on 18 November 2020.

Assessment and findings

ASB

24. The definition of ASB in the landlord’s ASB Policy includes ‘conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises’. Drug use is illegal and is also prohibited under Clause F of the landlord’s Conditions of Tenancy. Although the landlord’s ASB Policy does not expressly refer to drug use as a form of ASB, it was reasonable for the resident to expect that such behaviour would be investigated in accordance with the ASB Policy, given that it caused ‘nuisance’ and ‘annoyance’ to her on a regular basis.
25. The ASB Procedure states that on receipt of reports of ASB, a case will be opened and the resident contacted within 3 working days if the ASB is categorised as ‘non-serious’. The landlord will contact the alleged perpetrator (if known) and meet with the resident within 21 days to discuss its findings so far. An action plan will be completed and reviewed monthly. The landlord should consider the need to involve other agencies and whether action should be taken for breach of tenancy. It should also consider referring the complainant to support services.
26. The landlord has acknowledged that it investigated reports of cannabis use in March 2019, attending the Scheme to conduct spot checks. However, no evidence was found at that time and the landlord took no further action. The evidence suggests that ASB was next reported by the resident via the landlord’s online chat service on 9 July 2020, when she requested a call-back from a manager. The landlord contacted the resident to acknowledge her concerns the following day and on 16 July 2020 it provided further details of the actions it intended to take. The first steps taken by the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns were therefore in line with its policies and procedures.
27. In the absence of a named, alleged perpetrator, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord enacted an appropriate action plan to investigate the allegations, including writing to all residents to raise awareness of the issues, completing spot checks at the scheme and liaising with the police. It also provided diary sheets for the resident to record the date, time and location of the smells, to assist its investigations and to help obtain further evidence. When further information was provided by other residents, this was acted on promptly, and the landlord discussed the allegations with an alleged perpetrator, who denied cannabis use.
28. The resident has also reported to the landlord that non-residents were gathering in the car park on noisy bikes. The landlord’s letters to residents encouraged them to report such behaviour to the police, which was a reasonable suggestion as the landlord does not own and is not responsible for the management of the car park area. The landlord referred the resident’s complaint to the Council and since the gate has been repaired, the resident has reported a reduction in this behaviour.
29. The landlord is limited in the action it can take to address ASB unless it can find actionable evidence that a tenant is in breach of their tenancy agreement. Whilst the Ombudsman recognises the resident’s frustration that the issue is ongoing, the landlord has taken reasonable and proportionate action to investigate and to attempt to gather evidence to allow it to consider further action. The landlord has also liaised with other agencies where appropriate, as required by its policies, and has demonstrated a genuine desire to assist the resident and to discourage the behaviour with the use of spot checks and written warnings.
30. The landlord has acknowledged the difficulty in resolving the ASB issues reported by the resident, due to the challenge in locating the perpetrator. It has used reasonable endeavours to determine whether drug use is occurring within the boundaries of the scheme and has highlighted that some reports suggest that the smell may be emanating from other properties in the area that it is not responsible for. The landlord does not dispute the resident’s claims and has acknowledged that its staff have witnessed the smell on occasion but are often unable to attend immediately and trace its origin. The landlord has been in regular contact with the resident since 9 July 2020 and provided updates and advice to the resident about reporting ASB to the police. It has also recognised the impact on her mental health, offering the use of its support services. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that there was no maladministration by the landlord is its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Security Issues and Repairs

31. As a result of the resident’s complaint about the communal rear door being left open, which was raised in her complaint escalation request on 3 August 2020, the landlord attended to inspect and witnessed the door open and the building unsecure. The landlord also reviewed the repairs record for the communal door to ensure that the door was not open as a result of a fault that had been reported and not acted upon. The landlord has written to all residents to remind them of their responsibility to secure the building when leaving and entering, although this has had little impact.
32. The landlord’s internal emails from 11 August 2020 evidence that it gave thorough consideration to the options for installing a more secure locking system and concluded that this was impractical due to the design of the existing door. It has therefore confirmed that it intends to replace the doors as part of planned improvement works by 31 March 2021. As the doors are not defective and the current locking system is operational, the landlord’s decision to include door replacement as a measure to improve security in its planned maintenance programme is reasonable. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord is taking appropriate action to address this aspect of the complaint.
33. It is noted that the landlord informed the resident on 21 September 2020 that it had changed the locks and issued new keys to residents as an interim measure. The resident disputed this and it appears from the landlord’s internal emails that this was a miscommunication and the locks had not been changed. The landlord’s records show that its operatives attended to replace the locks on 3 September 2020 but were unable to locate suitable replacement locks. The job was placed on hold and was eventually completed on 18 November 2020 by an alternative contractor. There was a miscommunication about the progress with these works, which the landlord should take care to avoid in the future, as this increased the resident’s frustration. As the job was not a repair but an improvement intended to increase security, the landlord’s responsive repairs timescales would not apply. Whilst the job did take in excess of 2 months to complete, this was due to factors outside the landlord’s control and it proactively instructed an alternative contractor to mitigate further delays.
34. Following the complaint the landlord has inspected the design and effectiveness of then ventilation system to see whether this was contributing to the smell of cannabis the resident is experiencing within her property. The landlord sourced a drawing of the system and evidence shows that it completed a survey to ensure it was working effectively. It has also implemented annual servicing of the system and has provided evidence that works were completed to the system in March and April 2020, including replacing the filters. The survey confirmed that the system was working effectively and that smells could not be drawn from other flats as each flat has a self-contained unit. It has acknowledged that if smells are present outside the building this could filter into the property as the system draws in external air. The landlord has therefore taken adequate steps to address this aspect of the complaint and to ensure that there are no repairs that it is responsible for that are contributing to the presence of the smell in the resident’s property. The landlord would not be required to complete further works to alter or replace the system in the absence of disrepair.
35. The landlord confirmed through its investigations that the communal gates are owned and maintained by the Council. It has provided evidence that it previously reported to the Council that the gates were broken on 7 November 2019, after receiving reports from residents of ASB and nuisance due to unauthorised access by non-residents. The landlord also offered the assistance of its own contractors at that time. The landlord did not hear back and followed up on 29 July 2020, following the resident’s complaint. The Council carried out an inspection and subsequently repaired the gates, during which time the landlord chased progress and kept the resident updated. There is evidence that the landlord chased progress on 10 August 2020, 19 August 2020, 8 September 2020, 29 September 2020, 28 October 2020 and 5 November 2020. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to communicate with the organisation responsible for the car park, to ensure this was secure and ensure the security of its residents and their properties.

Determination (decision)

36. Having considered all of the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that there was:
    1. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB;
    2. no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the communal doors, car park gates and ventilation system; and

Reasons

37. The landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s complaints of ASB, in line with its policies and procedures. It has kept the resident updated and offered her support in recognition of the impact on her wellbeing. The landlord has taken action to discourage the behaviour complained of and has committed to continue to work with the resident to investigate her concerns.
38. The landlord promptly investigated the resident’s concerns about the functioning of the communal doors, car park gates and ventilation system. It explained the extent of its responsibilities in relation to the communal gates and sought to assist the resident by progressing this repair with the Council. It conducted a thorough inspection of the ventilation system and reasonably concluded that no further works were required. The landlord acknowledged that the rear door was sometimes left unsecure due to tenants’ failure to manually lock it and has planned works to replace the doors to improve security. It has also written to residents reminding them of their obligations, which was a proportionate response to this aspect of the complaint.