B3 Living Limited (202110317)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110317

B3 Living Limited

4 March 2022


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 report of flies and bad odour from her neighbour’s property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is the tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 4 February 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that she was experiencing a bad smell and flies were entering her property, which she attributed to her next-door neighbour.
  3. On 11 February 2021, the landlord’s records showed that it had been in contact with an external agency about the resident’s neighbour. The agency confirmed that the resident’s neighbour was likely to be away from the property due to medical issues and the landlord was chasing access to their property carry out a deep clean. It updated the resident on the situation, advising that it would consider forcing entry to the property if it was unable to gain access.
  4. On 17 February 2021, the landlord further chased the external agency to make arrangements for access to carry out the deep clean of the neighbour’s property. On 17 February 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that, before it gained forced entry to the neighbour’s property, it wanted to assess the extent of the fly infestation she reported at her property.
  5. The landlord informed the resident on 18 February 2021 that it would be resolving the reported issues with the neighbour’s property on 22 February 2021 when its locksmith and pest control contractor would be attending. It said that it would be cleaning and removing anything in the neighbour’s property which was causing the smell and fly infestation.
  6. On 24 February 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it had approval to carry out a deep clean at the neighbour’s property and the contractors would be working though the coming week to complete the clean.
  7. The landlord informed this Service that the work to complete the deep clean of the neighbour’s property was delayed due to the first two contractors declining to take the job. The third contractor accepted the contract, and the work was completed on 5 March 2021, however further work was required which necessitated employing additional contractors, which was not completed until 1 April 2021. The landlord relayed that the local authority’s environmental health team inspected the property on 16 March 2021 and found the condition to be acceptable.
  8. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord. (the date of this has not been provided to this Service). In her complaint, she voiced her dissatisfaction with experiencing a “disgusting” smell emanating from her neighbour’s property and flies entering her property from a vent shared with the neighbour. The resident said she was aware that her neighbour had since been hospitalised and that their property was kept in an unclean state. She said that she had made repeated calls for her neighbour’s situation to be investigated as she was concerned for their well-being.
  9. The resident acknowledged that the smell and insect infestation had been resolved but was unhappy that this had taken over a month. She said that the situation was unacceptable as she and her children had needed to live in a property which was “full of flies”. The resident said she had been raising the matter of the smell from the neighbour’s property for months.
  10. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 6 April 2021. It relayed that, when she reported the flies and smell emanating from her neighbour’s property, it assured her that the neighbour was well and was currently away from the property. The landlord discussed the matter at a multi-agency meeting the following day and it was informed by an outside agency that it would carry out a deep clean of the neighbour’s property. When this did not occur, the landlord forced entry into the property on 22 February 2021 and instructed its pest control contractor to provide a report, followed by a specialist deep clean which was completed by 4 March 2021.
  11. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with the length of time taken to resolve the issues and the inconvenience this may have caused. It explained that forcing entry into a property was only done as a last resort. The landlord considered that it had kept her updated on the proceedings and assured her that it was doing everything possible to address the situation. It therefore did not uphold the complaint.
  12. After the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord issued its final response to her on 21 April 2021. In this it further explained why it could not force entry into the property sooner as it was aware that the neighbour was safe and well. In order to access the property and carry out the necessary work, the landlord would usually need the neighbour’s permission. It added that the delay in resolving the matter was partly due to an assurance from an outside agency that it would carry out the work. The landlord therefore did not attempt to force access until it was aware that the outside agency would not complete the work within an acceptable timescale.
  13. The landlord noted that the resident had requested that it arrange for a pest control contractor to inspect her property. It confirmed that the contractor reported that insects found in her property were not linked to her neighbour’s property and were likely to be nesting outside her property. The landlord offered another visit from its pest control contractor if she continued to have concerns and assured her that its work to clear the neighbour’s property should have eradicated the flies. It also advised that it working with the neighbour and outside agencies to ensure that the situation did not deteriorate again.
  14. The landlord said that, while the bad smell from the neighbour’s property may have been unpleasant, it did not make the resident’s property uninhabitable. It also did not consider that the length of time taken to carry out the clean of the neighbour’s property was a failure on its behalf. Therefore, it did not uphold the complaint. However, it offered £30 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience caused to her.
  15. On 3 August 2021, the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said that she continued to be dissatisfied as the smell and presence of flies took too long to be resolved. She felt the landlord had not considered the hazard to her health presented by the smell and flies entering her property from next door.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy confirms that it considers ASB to include environmental behaviour which impacts on the physical environment and prevents residents from peacefully enjoying their homes and communal areas. This policy states that it will work with partner agencies to provide a holistic approach to ASB and develop remedies which recognise that perpetrators may be vulnerable themselves.
  2. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to treat the resident’s report of a bad smell and flies from her neighbour’s property as ASB, as the report corresponded with its definition of environmental ASB above. The landlord would be expected to then speak with the alleged perpetrator of the ASB. In this situation, it was clear that it was already in contact with an external agency which was dealing with the neighbour’s welfare when the resident made her report of a smell and flies coming from the neighbouring property.
  3. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, a landlord must seek permission from the tenant of the property in order to gain access to carry out repair or maintenance work. However, landlords are able to gain access without permission in an emergency when there is an immediate risk to safety and/or significant damage to property. Although the landlord needed to access the neighbour’s property, this would not be regarded as an emergency because there was not an immediate risk to safety or serious damage to the building. It is clear that there was difficulty in establishing contact with the neighbour to acquire this permission due to their medical circumstances.
  4. . While the smell and the presence of flies will have understandably been unpleasant for the resident and her family, there was no evidence that this was causing injury or damage to her property; nor was there evidence that the smell or the flies rendered her property uninhabitable. This therefore meant that it was appropriate for the landlord to make reasonably attempts to gain permission for access before forcing entry.
  5. When the landlord did eventually gain access, it acted immediately to clear and clean the property. While the resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the length of time taken to complete the cleaning and clearing of the neighbour’s property; it must be borne in mind that this would have been the first opportunity for the landlord to inspect it and arrange for suitable work. There was an unavoidable delay while the landlord found a contractor who was willing to complete the work. The landlord cannot generally force its contractors to do a particular job so the landlord was not at fault for the delay caused by two contractors refusing to take on the work.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of flies and bad odour from her neighbour’s property.

Reasons

  1. There was no evidence that the landlord did not act in accordance with its obligations under the law and its ASB policy in addressing the condition of the neighbour’s property.