Flagship Housing Group Limited (202001300)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001300

Flagship Housing Group Limited

31 January 2023

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 the resident’s reports of:
   1. The smell of petrol fumes from his neighbour’s property.
   2. Noise nuisance.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. From April 2020, the resident made several reports to the landlord that he thought his neighbour was working from home, and as a result there was noise nuisance and petrol fumes entering his flat. The landlord then visited outside the property and stated it could not identify a petrol smell.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 1 June 2020, as he said the issues with noise from his neighbour’s property and the smell of petrol was ongoing and the issue was impacting his health. He said the landlord would have been unable to smell the fumes from outside his flat, and environmental health had also refused to enter the flat due to COVID-19. He requested the landlord to inspect his neighbour’s flat unannounced.
5. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it said it had investigated the issue and had not found evidence of ASB or any chemicals in the neighbour’s property. It added that it had completed extensive visits and that his reports had been taken seriously. It advised although it had been unable to enter the resident’s property due to COVID-19, the fire department had entered the neighbour’s property and it would arrange an unannounced home visit to the neighbour, once restrictions were lifted. It also stated that it had provided the resident with support regarding moving properties. 
6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his reports and he wanted it to attend his property to assess the smell of petrol. He also stated that the landlord had not dealt with his noise nuisance complaints.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s handling of his reports of his neighbour’s behaviour has impacted his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about his health. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the petrol fume smells and problems with the resident’s health. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. This clause is relevant as a personal injury claim would be more appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the smell of petrol fumes from his neighbour’s property.

8. The landlord’s Anti-social Behaviour (ASB) policy defines ASB as “conduct which may cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person or conduct which may cause nuisance and annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises”. Although the landlord’s policy did not specifically consider petrol fumes as ASB, given the evident distress caused to the resident, it was appropriate that it was investigated as such. The landlord would also be expected to ensure that the neighbour was adhering to legal requirements.
9. The resident initially reported smells of petrol fumes entering his flat in April 2020. The landlord promptly responded to his concerns and advised that it had visited the property on 26 April 2020, but could not identify a petrol smell. The landlord had also corresponded with environmental health, who advised they had closed their case on 18 May 2020. The resident raised a complaint on 1 June 2020, in which he requested that the landlord complete an unannounced visit to his neighbour’s property and disputed that COVID-19 would impact its ability to complete such visits. While the resident’s frustration that the landlord could not enter the property is understood, during the national lockdown, the landlord was expected to adapt its service in order to adhere to government guidelines. As a result, it was reasonable that it did not enter the resident’s property and monitored the issue from outside to reduce the risk of transmission of COVID-19.
10. In its stage one response on 6 June 2020, the landlord informed the resident that the fire department had visited the neighbour’s property unannounced and found no evidence of any storage of flammable chemicals. As there was no presence of flammable chemicals or smell of fumes, the fire department was satisfied that the issue had been appropriately investigated and there were no further concerns regarding the issue. The landlord would be entitled to rely on the findings of the fire department, as they used specialist equipment to detect whether the neighbour was storing any flammable chemicals, meaning they were more appropriately equipped to investigate the issue. In a further complaint response on 9 September 2020, the landlord referenced nine visits between 12 May 2020 and 9 September 2020 that it had made to the communal area of the neighbour’s property, in which it found no evidence of petrol smells, thus confirming its original conclusion.
11. In his complaint, the resident said that he thought the landlord would have been unable to detect the smell from the communal areas of the building as the smell disappeared quickly when the chemicals were removed. The landlord addressed these concerns in its stage one response and stated that the fire department had advised that “if the tenant had been using flammable liquids and they were as strong as claimed then the smell would have been present for weeks after”. However, in its stage two response the landlord stated that it would arrange an unannounced visit to the resident’s property once lockdown restrictions had been lifted. This was a reasonable response, but it is unclear whether this visit has since taken place, the landlord should confirm the outcome of the visit or schedule a visit if it has not been completed and is still necessary. 
12. In an email on 20 May 2020, the landlord discussed health and safety regulations, which stated that up to 30 litres of petrol was permitted to be stored inside a property, but identified that it was a potential fire safety issue. The landlord also advised the resident that during the fire department’s visit to the neighbour’s property, it only identified one tin of lighter fluid, which was securely stored. As such, there was no evidence of the neighbour breaching health and safety regulations.
13. As the landlord did not find any evidence of flammable chemicals being stored at the neighbour’s property, it was reasonable that it advised the resident it was limited in the actions it could take. Although it was unable to take any action against the resident’s neighbour, the landlord still took steps to support the resident. It discussed property move options and advised in its complaint response that it would support him with applications. The landlord also took steps to support the resident’s mental health, as it liaised with his mental health services, who agreed that the best option would be to facilitate the resident moving properties. It is unclear if the resident wishes to pursue this option, but it is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident and reconfirms the options available and the support it can provide.
14. Overall, the landlord demonstrated that it took significant steps to investigate the resident’s reports of petrol fumes. It also liaised with the appropriate agencies, signposted the resident for support with his mental health and supported him with applying for other properties. There was therefore no evidence of service failure in its handling of the issue.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance

15. The resident raised concerns with noise nuisance from his neighbour’s flat in his complaints on 1 June 2020 and 24 August 2020. In line with this Service’s complaint handling code, the landlord should ensure that it addresses all aspects of the complaint. However, in the landlord’s responses it only focused on the reports of petrol smells, rather than the noise nuisance. The resident raised his concerns again with noise nuisance during the panel meeting on 14 December 2020 and was advised it was not necessarily considered noise nuisance if it was occurring within reasonable hours.
16. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it considers “unreasonable noise” as ASB. As a result, the landlord should have addressed the resident’s concerns, and gained evidence to establish whether the noise would be considered noise nuisance or everyday household noise. However, there is no evidence of such action. As the landlord failed to take steps in line with its ASB policy, this caused the resident additional time and effort in pursuing the issue without the landlord acknowledging this part of his reports. The landlord should therefore contact the resident to discuss his outstanding concerns regarding any noise, and it should subsequently take any actions deemed necessary, in line with its ASB policy. If the noise is not deemed to be noise nuisance, the landlord should ensure that it clearly communicates any reasons for its decision with the resident.
17. In line with this Service’s remedy guidance, awards of £50-£250 are appropriate in cases where there has been a “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses”. As the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had investigated the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, this caused additional distress and time and effort to the resident in pursuing the issue. As a result, the landlord should award £250 to the resident, in light of the failings identified and carry out an investigation into the resident’s reports.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of the smell of petrol fumes from his neighbour’s property.
19. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

20. Within 28 days of this letter, the landlord is to pay the resident £250 in compensation.
21. Within 28 days of this letter, the landlord is to provide a written response to the resident’s complaints about noise nuisance.

Recommendations

22. As part of the noise response, the landlord should consider what steps, if any, it can take to assist in reducing noise transference at the resident’s property.
23. The landlord is to confirm whether, since November 2020, it has completed an unannounced visit to the resident’s neighbour and entered the property. If it has not, it should consider arranging an unannounced visit in line with its previous offer.
24. The landlord is to arrange a meeting with the resident to discuss their options for moving to another Newtide property. The landlord should also consider whether the resident qualifies for a prioritised application.