Origin Housing Limited (202116215)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116215

Origin Housing Limited

30 June 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the lettings service, including the availability of keys to the bin store and meter cupboards.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about foul smells and fly infestations and not being notified of the problem prior to moving in.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaints.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy which began on 31 July 2021. The property is a one bedroom flat on the sixth floor of a block.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is obligated to allow the tenant to quietly hold and enjoy the premises.
The landlord’s tenancy conditions confirm that the grounds for possession are set out in Schedule two of the 1988 Housing Act and includes the following mandatory grounds:
1. Ground 13 – the condition of the property or the common parts has deteriorated because of the behaviour of the tenant, or any other person living at the property.
2. Ground 14 – the tenant or someone living or visiting the Property has been guilty of conduct which is or is likely to cause, a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours.
It was established that smells and flies were originating from a neighbour’s property (referred to in this report as ‘the neighbour’s property’), which was on the same floor as the resident. The tenant of the neighbouring property is referred to in this report as ‘the neighbour’.
On 23 July 2021, the landlord wrote to the residents affected by the smells and flies to advise them it was attempting to gain access to the neighbour’s property and was working with its solicitors on legal remedies.

Summary of events

On 2 August 2021, the landlord wrote to the residents affected by the smells and flies to advise them of the following:
1. The landlord had started cleaning the affected floor of the block on a daily basis and the cleaning company was also carrying out ‘fogging’ on each floor every day in order to help with the smells (fogging involves spraying a fine mist of disinfectant on the walls and floors).
2. The paperwork relating to the landlord’s application for a no notice injunction had been processed by the court on 30 July 2021.
3. The fly bags were changed on 28 July 2021 and would continue to be monitored and/or changed on a weekly basis by the landlord’s pest control company.
4. Air purifiers had been delivered to the block on 30 July 2021 and one of the landlord’s engineers had checked them on 2 August 2021 and found them to be working. The engineer believed they were making a difference in relation to the smells.
5. The landlord said it would send a further update to residents on 9 August 2021.
On 4 August 2021, the landlord wrote to residents to advise them that it had been working with solicitors to obtain an emergency injunction in relation to the neighbour because of the smells and flies emanating from his flat. The landlord offered residents £250 to cover the discomfort they had experienced and offered to temporarily move any of the affected residents to a hotel next door while it was trying to resolve the situation.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord on 5 August 2021 explaining that she had moved into her property on 31 July 2021 and the landlord had failed to contact her despite leaving messages for the landlord to ring her back. The resident had advised the landlord that she needed keys for the bin store and the electricity/gas meter cupboards. The resident also mentioned that there was a strong smell coming from the neighbour’s property.
On 7 August 2021, the landlord served a Notice Seeking Possession (NSP) on the neighbour using section 21(1) of the Housing Act 1988. The NSP said the resident had breached section 14 of his tenancy agreement and gave him until 16 January 2022 to vacate the premises.
The landlord sent an update to the affected residents on 10 August 2021 and included confirmation that a court hearing was scheduled to take place on 11 August 2021 to consider its application for an injunction.
On 11 August 2021, the landlord obtained an injunction from the county court. The injunction order prohibited the neighbour from engaging in certain activities, including:
1. Engaging in behaviour causing and/or capable of causing harassment, alarm or distress to any other residents;
2. Using or threatening to use violence towards other residents;
3. Engaging in behaviour causing and/or capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to other residents;
4. Behaving in a manner that causes and/or attempts to cause a health, safety or fire risk to other residents;
5. The neighbour was given 48 hours from the effective date of service to remove faeces and any offensive and/or rotten food from the premises;
6. The neighbour had 14 days from the date of service to bring the property up to an acceptable standard;
7. Should the neighbour fail to comply with the provisions within the order, the neighbour had to give the landlord access within 28 days of service of the order in order to inspect the premises and then carry out a deep clean to abate the nuisance.
8. The injunction also prohibited the neighbour from contacting one of the other residents in the block, who had acted as a witness in court.
Also on 11 August 2021, the landlord obtained an Anti-Social Behaviour Injunction with the power of arrest against the neighbour forbidding him from harassing, threatening or using violence towards any resident within the locality of the block.
On 12 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to request an update on the court hearing regarding the injunction application.
The landlord sent an update to the affected residents on 16 August 2021, in which it confirmed that it had been awarded an injunction on 11 August 2021, but it was still waiting for the court to provide a copy of the injunction. The landlord summarised the provisions within the injunction order. The landlord also invited residents to provide any feedback regarding the air purifiers and the fly bags it had provided.
On 16 August 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord stating that she had moved into her property two weeks earlier and the landlord had not advised her about the situation regarding the smells and flies. The resident requested further information about the terms of the injunction and information about when the neighbour’s flat would be cleaned. She also asked for the communal carpet to be removed as it was dirty. The resident mentioned that the ‘fogging’ being carried out by the landlord only reduced the smell temporarily.
The landlord replied to the resident on 17 August 2021 and provided further information about the injunction. The landlord advised the resident that it was still waiting for the court to provide a copy of the injunction so that it could be served on the neighbour.
The landlord sent an update to residents on 23 August 2021 advising them that it was still awaiting the injunction paperwork from the court.
On 23 August 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that the fogging had not occurred for four days. She informed that the landlord that the lift was “filthy and smells” and therefore she was having to use the stairs. She reported that the carpet in the communal corridor on her floor of the block was also dirty.
The landlord replied to the resident on the same date (23 August 2021) and said that the carpet would be cleaned once the situation regarding the neighbour had been resolved. The landlord agreed to follow up her report that the fogging had not been carried out.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 August 2021 about her complaint of 5 August 2021, to which she had not received a reply and therefore requested the landlord to escalate it to stage two. She also wrote to the landlord on 25 August 2021 outlining various issues she was dissatisfied about, including:
1. The resident had viewed her property on 24 July 2021 and the landlord had not advised her about the fly infestation and the smells.
2. The resident had contacted various members of the landlord’s staff as she had not been given keys to the bin store or the electricity/gas meter cupboards.
3. On 10 August 2021, the resident received a key through the post, which she assumed was for the bin store, but found that it did not fit.
4. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 and 20 August 2021 to follow up on the outstanding issues regarding the keys, but was still waiting to hear from the landlord. Also, she had requested a copy of the inventory, which had not yet been provided.
5. The resident had reported that the fogging had not been carried out and that the corridor carpet was dirty.
6. The resident reiterated the problems with the strong smells and the flies.
The resident sent a further email on the same date (25 August 2021) to report that the corridor carpet needed to be vacuumed and the lift cleaned urgently. She mentioned that the situation was causing her stress.
On 26 August 2021, the landlord wrote to the residents affected by the smells and flies and apologised for the initial delays in identifying and tackling the problem. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £1,250 and offered to professionally clean the affected properties once the source of the smells and flies had been cleared. The landlord stated that it had also offered and provided alternative hotel accommodation for residents who felt unable to continue living in their home.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 and 27 August 2021 to confirm that the lift had been cleaned and the carpet vacuumed. She stated that the lift and corridor were much cleaner. She also stated that the fogging had resumed in the morning, but she thought it was meant to happen twice a day.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 27 August 2021 to explain that she had received a bill for the previous occupant but had not been able to access the electricity/gas meters to register with the utility companies.
The landlord provided further updates to the residents affected by the smells and flies on 31 August 2021, 1 September 2021 and 6 September 2021. The landlord confirmed that the injunction had been served on the neighbour on 27 August 2021 and it provided a copy of the injunction to residents. The landlord also confirmed that it had not been given access to the neighbour’s property at a visit that took place on 1 September 2021 and therefore the visit had been rescheduled to the following week. Finally, the landlord advised residents that the next court hearing was scheduled to take place on 29 September 2021.
On 6 September 2021, the landlord visited the neighbour’s property and found evidence of “severe hoarding”.
Between 6 and 9 September 2021, the resident and landlord exchanged emails, in which the resident requested clarification on the terms of the injunction and the landlord set out the terms. The landlord explained that the neighbour had a legitimate reason why he could not provide access to the landlord on 1 September 2021, but this could not be shared with other residents due to confidentiality.
The landlord sent a further update to the affected residents on 14 September 2021 and carried out a visit to the neighbour’s property on 15 September 2021. The landlord’s record of the visit states that the smell had improved and some items removed. The neighbour informed the landlord that someone was due to collect some of the items.
The landlord sent an update to the affected residents on 20 September 2021 and explained that it was waiting for a date for its contractor to clean the neighbour’s property.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 September 2021 to advise the landlord that although some of the issues in her complaint had been resolved, such as the keys to the electricity/gas meter cupboards, she had not received a reply to her complaint of 25 August 2021. The resident said she had also requested the landlord to outline its compensation proposals.
On 23 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the affected residents to confirm that the cleaning and carpet removal had taken place in the neighbour’s property on 22 September 2021. The resident replied to the landlord on the same day to say that the clean up had not had an impact on the smell.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24, 25 and 27 September 2021 asking for her complaint to be acknowledged. The landlord replied on 27 September 2021 and explained that although the complaint had been logged on 26 August 2021, the acknowledgement had not been sent because of a system error. The landlord apologised and confirmed that the resident’s complaint would be escalated to stage two as it had failed to reply at stage one. The landlord also confirmed that the issues raised by the resident on 25 August 2021 would be added to the complaint.
The landlord visited the neighbour again on 27 September 2021 and recorded that the property appeared to be in a worse state than during the previous visit two weeks earlier.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 September 2021 and confirmed that most of the carpet in the neighbour’s living room had been removed (only a small amount under the sofa remained) and the hallway carpet had also been removed. The resident replied on the same day to report that the neighbour had removed a large number of items from his property earlier that day.
On 30 September 2021, the landlord sent an update to residents affected by the smells and flies, in which it confirmed the following:
1. The landlord visited the property on 27 September 2021 and verified that the carpet had been removed from the neighbour’s property and the flat had been cleaned. The landlord would visit during the following week to check the condition of the property.
2. The landlord had attended court on 29 September 2021 and the injunction was still in place.
The landlord sent an update to residents on 5 October 2021, in which it confirmed that it would be visiting the neighbour’s property on 6 October 2021 and would provide a further update to residents following this visit.
The landlord sent a further update to residents on 6 October 2021 to confirm that it had visited the neighbour’s property that day and found that the neighbour had made some effort to clear the flat but still had a great deal to do. The landlord confirmed that the new court injunction had been hand-delivered to the neighbour on 6 October 2021 and that it would check the neighbour’s property again during the following week.
On 8 October 2021, the landlord sent its stage two reply, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had not received the standard of service expected during the lettings process due to staff changes within the relevant team. It had therefore reviewed the team and made changes. The landlord apologised and offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £50.
2. The landlord apologised that the resident had not receive keys to the bin store and the meter cupboards and offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £25. The landlord had spoken to the resident on 8 October 2021 and she confirmed that she had now received the keys.
3. The landlord apologised that the resident was not informed about the ongoing situation regarding the smells and flies before moving in and recognised that this had “adversely affected her experience as a tenant”. The landlord offered her a goodwill gesture of £100.
4. There were initially some delays with responses from the landlord, which had been due to staff changes in the relevant team. The team had listened to the feedback from the resident (and other residents in the block) and was now sending weekly updates to residents about the problems in the block and regularly visiting the block to assess the situation.
5. Although the block was scheduled to be cleaned once a week, the landlord had arranged for the floor on which the resident’s property was located to be cleaned daily. Also, air purifiers had been installed.
6. The landlord apologised that the resident’s complaint was not dealt with under stage one of its process and the resident did not receive a reply. The complaint had therefore been escalated to stage two. The landlord offered a £25 goodwill gesture for its complaint handling failure.
7. The landlord offered an additional £250 to recognise the discomfort experienced by the resident and offered to professionally clean her property once the source of the smells and flies had been cleared.
8. The landlord’s total financial redress offered was therefore £450.

Events after the landlord’s final response letter

On 15 October 2021, the landlord wrote to the affected residents with a further update. The landlord reported that it had visited the neighbour’s property that morning and felt that the neighbour should have made more progress in clearing the flat. Therefore, the landlord advised residents that it would refer the matter back to its solicitors.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 October 2021 to request information about the landlord’s plans for visiting and supporting the neighbour.
During November 2021, the landlord sent further updates to the residents affected by the smells and flies and on 5 November 2021 it advised residents in an update that it had referred the matter back to its solicitors to apply to the county court for a breach of the injunction by the neighbour.
On 26 November 2021, the landlord attended the neighbour’s property and noted there was a large number of flies within the property. During the visit, the landlord had asked the neighbour whether he would engage with social services to support him in relation to “the hoarding”. The neighbour declined this offer as he thought it would result in some of his belongings being removed.
Between 2 and 8 December 2021, there were exchanges of emails between the landlord and the resident regarding the fly bags that had been installed. Having been advised by residents that the fly bags were unsuitable for indoor use, the landlord had contacted its pest control team to source alternative fly bags. The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 December 2021 to confirm that the fly bags had been installed on the floors that were affected by the flies. The landlord also confirmed that it would arrange for its pest controller to visit the neighbour’s property.
The landlord sent an update to residents on 20 January 2022 regarding the smells and flies. It confirmed that as the NSP had expired, it had now requested its solicitors to progress the case to court for a possession hearing. The landlord also confirmed that it would be ordering the same fly bags that residents had supplied.
The landlord sent an update to the residents affected by the smells and flies on 4 February 2022 confirming that the legal paperwork relating to the application for possession had been sent to the county court and the landlord was now waiting for a court hearing.
On 4 May 2022, the landlord sent an update to the residents affected by the smells and flies to confirm it had been granted a further injunction on 7 April 2022. The landlord visited the neighbour’s property on 8 April 2022 and noted that the neighbour had breached the injunction and the landlord therefore notified its solicitors. On 24 May 2022, the landlord was granted an outright possession order by the county court.
On 16 June 2022, the landlord’s solicitor advised the landlord that it had submitted an application to the county court for an eviction warrant.
The landlord has advised this Service that, following a protracted legal process, the neighbour was evicted in November 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident wrote to the landlord about the smells and flies on various occasions after its final response letter dated 8 October 2021. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all of the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. This assessment can, therefore, only consider the landlord’s response to issues and incidents relating to the smells and flies up to the date of the final response. This approach is consistent with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Some of the later events have, however, been added for information.

The landlord’s policies

The landlord’s pest control policy states that the landlord will: “assess all reported instances of need for pest control. If the issue affects the health of the resident or the fabric of the building then [the landlord] will arrange for necessary pest control”.
The landlord’s Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) policy defines ASB as:
1. Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person;
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises; or
3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord’s hoarding policy states that ‘hoarding disorder’ is the name of a psychiatric condition that produces symptoms such as the compulsive urge to acquire unusually large amounts of possessions and an inability to voluntarily get rid of those possessions, even when they have no practical usefulness or monetary value.
The hoarding policy also states that when hoarding negatively impacts on the hoarder’s life or on others, it becomes an issue which requires action to be taken. For example, when:
1. It is associated with self-neglect or safeguarding concerns;
2. It is contributing to a pest control issue;
3. It has health and safety implications e.g. fire risk;
4. The organisation is being hindered from carrying out a statutory duty (e.g. annual gas safety check).
The hoarding policy goes on to say: “Enforcement action should only be considered where it is necessary in the circumstances of the case…Enforcement action may include:
1. Applying for a common law injunction;
2. Applying for an Anti-Social Behaviour injunction;
3. Possession proceedings”.
The landlord’s estate services policy states: “Where there are communal areas a cleaning and caretaking service will be provided by [the landlord] to keep these areas clean and tidy”.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the lettings service, including the availability of keys to the bin store and meter cupboards

The resident described in her stage one complaint dated 5 August 2021 how she had moved into her property on 31 July 2021 and, despite leaving messages for the landlord to contact her regarding keys to the bin store and meter cupboards, the landlord had failed to do so. The resident therefore wrote to the landlord again on 25 August 2021 to express her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s lack of response. The landlord’s failure to return the resident’s calls was inappropriate because one of the landlord’s service standards, as set out on its website, is that it will: “provide a clear and prompt reply to your query”.
It is unclear from the evidence the exact date that the landlord supplied the resident with the keys. The resident’s email dated 21 September 2021 confirmed she had received the keys at that point, however, her emails dated 25 and 27 August 2021 indicate that she had not yet received the keys on these dates. In the latter of these emails, the resident explained that she had received a utility bill relating to the previous tenant because she had not been able to read the electricity and gas meters to supply readings. Therefore, the evidence indicates it was at least four weeks after the start of tenancy before the landlord supplied the relevant keys to the resident. This was unreasonable as it meant that the resident was unable to access the bin store to dispose of rubbish or to access the meters to supply the utility companies with meter readings.
In its stage two reply, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had not received the standard of service expected during the lettings process, which this Service understands to include the period immediately after the resident moved in. The landlord explained that this had been due to staff changes in the team and that it had now made improvements to the team. The landlord offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £50. The landlord also apologised for not supplying keys to the bin store and meter cupboards and offered a further goodwill gesture of £25. Therefore, the landlord offered a total of £75 for its lack of response regarding the resident’s enquiries about the keys and its failure to supply the keys. This level of financial redress is within the range identified by the Ombudsman in its remedies guidance where there has been a service failure that might have involved distress, inconvenience, time and trouble and delays in getting matters resolved. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord offered reasonable redress because:
1. The landlord apologised for its failings and explained that these had been due to staff changes in the relevant team.
2. The landlord indicated it had learned from the complaint by making improvements in the team. This demonstrated learning from complaints, which is one of the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
3. The landlord offered a reasonable amount of financial redress.

The resident’s concerns about foul smells and fly infestations and not being notified of the problem prior to moving in

The Ombudsman cannot speculate about whether the resident would have refused the property had she been made aware of the problems and therefore whether it would have affected the outcome. In its stage two reply, the landlord apologised for not advising the resident about the ongoing situation before moving in and recognised that this had “adversely affected her experience as a tenant”. The landlord also offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £100. It was right that the landlord acknowledged the impact the situation was having on the resident and offered financial redress.
In terms of the landlord’s actions to deal with the smells and flies after the resident had moved in, the initial action taken by the landlord was outlined in its letter dated 2 August, which was sent to the affected residents and stated that the landlord had:
1. Started cleaning the affected floor on a daily basis and carrying out ‘fogging’;
2. Applied for a common law injunction and an ASB injunction;
3. Fitted fly bags to reduce the number of flies present;
4. Installed air purifiers in an attempt to reduce the smells;
5. Given a commitment to provide regular updates to residents.
The evidence indicates that the landlord had not been able to gain access at the time it provided the update to residents on 2 August 2021. Therefore, it was appropriate that the landlord had started enforcement action by applying for the injunctions to address the nuisance being caused to other residents of the block. It was also reasonable for the landlord to take steps to mitigate the impact of the smells and flies on residents by increasing the cleaning frequency, using fly bags and installing air purifiers.
As well as applying for an injunction, the landlord also served a Notice Seeking Possession on the neighbour on 7 August 2021. As per the Covid rules in force at the time, the landlord was required to give four months’ notice before it could apply to the court for a possession order. The Ombudsman’s view is that it was reasonable for the landlord to serve the NSP as a safeguard should the injunction not bring about the required change in behaviour on the part of the neighbour.
The landlord was awarded an injunction on 11 August 2021 and, under the terms of the injunction, the neighbour had 48 hours from the date the injunction was served to remove the rotting food and faeces from his property and effectively then had a further 12 days to bring the property up to an acceptable standard. Should the neighbour fail to adhere to these terms, he had to give the landlord access to inspect the property and carry out a deep clean within 28 days of serving the injunction. The landlord therefore effectively had a 14 day period in which to inspect the property and arrange a deep clean if the neighbour failed to adequately clean the property. The injunction was served on the neighbour on 27 August 2021 and the landlord removed carpets and cleaned the neighbour’s property on 22 September 2021. The timing of the landlord’s cleaning of the property was appropriate as it had taken place within the 28-day period specified in the injunction. The landlord checked the property on 27 September 2021 to verify that the carpet had been removed and the property cleaned. This was also appropriate as the landlord needed to check whether the cleaning had achieved the desired results.
The landlord attended court again on 29 September 2021 and, although the court’s decision was that the injunction should remain in place, it limited the landlord’s powers to enforce the cleaning of the neighbour’s property. The landlord had acted reasonably by submitting its application in good time to the court and seeking a further injunction. The court’s decision, however, was outside of the landlord’s control. This Service is aware that during 2021 there were delays in obtaining documents from the courts due to backlogs caused by the pandemic and this is likely to have been the reason for the delay in the landlord receiving the injunction paperwork from the court in August 2021. The delay was again outside of the landlord’s control.
The evidence shows that the landlord had visited the property to monitor its condition at various times following the award of the initial injunction. For example, in September and October 2021 it had visited on 1 September 2021, 6 September 2021, 15 September 2021, 27 September 2021, 6 October 2021 and 15 October 2021. It was appropriate for the landlord to visit the property regularly so that it could inspect whether the condition had improved or deteriorated.
As well as taking enforcement action, the landlord also sought to arrange support for the resident. On 26 November 2021, the landlord had visited the neighbour and asked him whether he would be prepared to receive support from social services. Although the neighbour declined the landlord’s offer, it was appropriate for the landlord to explore whether the situation might improve with help from a support agency. This approach is in line with the landlord’s hoarding policy, which encourages its staff to engage with support agencies where possible.
While recognising that the situation was complex due to factors such as a lack of cooperation from the neighbour, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to maintain good communications with the affected residents. In this case, the landlord sent regular email updates to the affected residents. The frequency of the updates varied, but were generally sent on a weekly or fortnightly basis. The updates covered progress in relation to the landlord’s legal action and other relevant issues, such as progress in obtaining the fly bags. The landlord therefore maintained reasonable communications with the affected residents after the resident had moved in.
The information provided by the landlord in the updates indicates that it was attempting to be as open as possible with residents. For example, it provided residents with a copy of the injunction and kept residents updated about other legal action it was taking to resolve the problem. The content of the communication was therefore reasonable as the updates indicate that the landlord was transparent about the action it was taking.
In its letter dated 4 August 2021, the landlord confirmed it had offered to move any of the affected residents to a hotel next door. The landlord also confirmed in its letter to the affected residents on 26 August 2021 that it had made this offer. The evidence indicates that the resident did not take up the landlord’s offer to be temporarily decanted, however, in the Ombudsman’s view, it was reasonable for the landlord to make the offer because it showed that the landlord was aware of the impact the smells and flies were having on residents and was seeking to offer support. It also showed that the landlord considered the problem to be serious enough to warrant an offer of temporary accommodation.
In relation to the landlord’s offer of financial redress regarding the smells and flies, the landlord wrote to the affected residents (including the resident) on 26 August 2021 and offered £1,250 to recognise the discomfort that residents had experienced. The landlord also offered to professionally clean the affected flats once the source of the smells and flies had been cleared. In addition, the landlord sent its stage two reply to the resident on 8 October 2021 and offered £100 for not advising her about the problems before she moved in, £250 for the discomfort experienced in relation to the smells and flies and an offer to professionally clean her flat once the source of the problem had been addressed. Therefore, the landlord offered the resident a total of £1,600 for not advising her about the smells and flies prior to moving in and for the subsequent discomfort she experienced as a result of the problem. As mentioned earlier, the landlord should have made the resident aware of the problems before she moved in. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation for its failings.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that a landlord would be expected to offer financial redress of up to £1,000 in cases where there was a failure which had a significant physical and/or emotional impact on the resident. In this case, the emails sent by the resident, for example on 25 August 2021, describe the “significant stress” caused by the smells and the impact of not being able to invite visitors due to the smells and flies. The resident also describes in the same email how the smells had made her feel physically sick. The view of this Service is therefore that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress because:
1. The landlord apologised for not advising the resident about the problems regarding the smells and flies before she moved in.
2. The landlord offered financial redress of £1,600, which was reasonable given the impact of the problems on the resident and the landlord’s failure to notify her of the problem beforehand.
3. The landlord offered to arrange for the resident’s property to be professionally cleaned after the source of the smells and flies had been cleared.
4. The landlord offered residents temporary accommodation while the problems with the smells and flies were ongoing.
5. From the point at which the resident moved into the property, the landlord maintained good communications with residents, visited the neighbour a number of times to check progress, took steps to reduce the impact of the smells and flies by providing fly bags, air purifiers and additional cleaning, offered the neighbour support and took appropriate enforcement action to address the problem.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaints

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. The complaints policy states that a response will be sent to stage one complaints within ten working days and in the case of stage two complaints a response will be sent within 20 working days.
The resident sent a stage one complaint on 5 August 2021 stating that the landlord had failed to contact her regarding keys for the bin store and meter cupboards. The resident then wrote to the landlord on 25 August 2021 stating she had not yet received a reply to her stage one complaint. The resident included various other points including that the landlord had not given her prior warning about the smells and flies before moving in and she was still waiting for keys to the bin store and the meter cupboards. The resident sent further emails to the landlord on 21, 24, 25 and 27 September 2021 requesting an acknowledgement and response to her complaint. It was not until 27 September 2021 that the landlord wrote to the resident to explain that her complaint had not been acknowledged due to a system error. The landlord apologised and confirmed that the complaint would be escalated to stage two (as had been requested by the resident). It was inappropriate that the landlord had not acknowledged or replied to the resident’s emails chasing the complaint and also inappropriate that it took over seven weeks for the landlord to contact the resident about her complaint. The delay meant that the resident had to write to the landlord on various occasions to request a reply to her complaint.
The landlord agreed to escalate the complaint to stage two of its process as the resident had not received a reply to her stage one complaint. It was reasonable that the landlord agreed to escalate the complaint to stage two in order to avoid unduly prolonging the complaints process for the resident. The landlord also agreed to consider the points raised in the resident’s email of 25 August 2021 as part of the complaint. This was appropriate as the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code makes it clear that where residents raise additional complaints prior to the landlord issuing its complaint response, these should be incorporated into the landlord’s complaint reply if they are relevant.
The landlord sent its stage two reply on 8 October 2021, which was nine working days after agreeing to escalate the resident’s complaint. The landlord therefore sent its stage two reply within an appropriate timescale. The stage two reply offered redress to the resident for its complaints handling as follows:
1. The landlord apologised for its failure to reply to the resident’s stage one complaint.
2. The landlord offered a goodwill gesture of £25 (the landlord’s compensation procedure suggests a £10 gift voucher for failure to provide a timely response to a complaint and therefore the offer of £25 was a proportionate sum for failing to reply).
3. The landlord agreed to escalate the complaint to stage two in order to prevent further undue delay in the resident progressing through the complaints procedure. The landlord also dealt with the stage two complaint relatively quickly after agreeing to escalate the complaint, ie nine working days.
The view of this Service is that the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to its complaint handling failings as it apologised, gave proportionate financial redress and escalated the complaint to stage two, which it replied to relatively quickly.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s concerns about the lettings service, including the availability of keys to the bin store and meter cupboards.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s concerns about foul smells and fly infestations and not being notified of the problem prior to moving in.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s associated complaints.

Reasons

The landlord apologised for its failings in relation to the lack of customer care after the lettings process when the resident had moved in, it offered reasonable financial redress and demonstrated learning from the complaints process by making improvements to the relevant team.
The landlord apologised for not advising the resident about the problems before she moved in, it offered suitable financial redress, offered to professionally clean her flat after the problems had been resolved and it managed the problem with the smells and flies reasonably after the resident had moved in.
The landlord apologised for its complaint handling, offered suitable financial redress and agreed to escalate the resident’s complaint straight to stage two of its process.