A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (201911231)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201911231

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

12 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. This complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by their neighbour, including the conduct of its staff.

Background and summary of events

2. The residents are a couple, and tenants of the landlord.
3. The neighbour accused of ASB lives in the property below the residents.
4. According to the landlord’s records, on 9 July 2019 the residents made a formal complaint about a “bad odour smell” coming from their neighbour’s property.
5. On 11 July 2019 the landlord made enquiries, and found out that the residents had reported the bad odour to Environmental Health (EH). However, EH had taken no further action. 
6. On 22 July 2019 the residents again reported a bad odour coming from their neighbour’s property. They described it as a “garbage smell”. The landlord informed the residents that it would visit their neighbour’s property to look at the condition of their garden (it is unclear whether this is the first time the residents raised concerns about the neighbour’s garden).
7. On 30 August 2019 a neighbourhood officer of the landlord (the officer) contacted the residents after they had reported doors slamming in their neighbour’s property. The officer informed the residents that she believed the neighbour’s garden was a communal one, meaning the maintenance of it would not be the neighbour’s responsibility. She also advised that she had tried to contact the neighbour but had been unsuccessful. The residents said that they could smell gas and thought it was coming from this neighbour’s property. The officer advised the residents to “politely” inform their neighbour of the issue, if they felt comfortable doing so.
8. According to the landlord’s internal correspondence, on 2 September 2019 the landlord organised for the neighbour to be issued with a letter concerning the noise complaints it had received, and the condition of their garden.
9. The landlord contacted the residents on 15 October 2019 regarding a complaint they had made about its staff members. The original complaint has not been provided for this investigation. During the conversation, the residents raised several concerns which the landlord then summarised:

1. Two of the landlord’s members of staff had been rude and had spoken over them when the residents had called to report the odours coming from their neighbour’s property.
2. Their neighbour was leaving the gas on, and they had spoken to the fire brigade about it. However, the landlord had not done anything about this risk.
3. The residents had been lied to by the officer. The individual had wrongly informed them that the neighbour’s garden was communal.

10. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 29 October 2019. It apologised for the delay in responding. It said that its staff members had denied they had been rude. The landlord said that it did not have any other information or evidence of the conversations, but apologised that the residents felt they had been treated poorly.
11. The landlord confirmed that its staff had “carried out a number of activities to try and investigate the allegations” made by the residents. It assured them that its staff were attempting to resolve the situation for them. However, due to data protection laws they would be unable to give any “specific details relating to [the] neighbour” or the actions that were being taken.
12. The final issue addressed by the landlord was about the neighbour’s garden. It confirmed that the residents were correct, and that its member of staff had made a “genuine mistake”, as they had thought it was a communal area. The landlord advised the residents that they could escalate the complaint to stage two of the complaints process if they were not satisfied with this outcome.
13. On 7 November 2019 the landlord confirmed that it had visited the neighbour’s property and could not smell gas. It noted that the garden was overgrown so it had given the neighbour information on who they could contact to get the grass cut.
14. The residents has told this Service that the landlord contacted them on 18 November 2019 to address their concerns about their neighbour. However, no evidence of this has been provided for this investigation. 
15. On 20 January 2020 the landlord contacted the residents. It said that it had visited the neighbour’s property with the fire brigade, and had not detected any gas smells. It gave the residents a phone number to call if they ever suspected a gas leak. It also reiterated that its staff did not believe they had been rude to the residents. It had reminded its staff to “communicate in an empathetic and approachable way”. It concluded that it was unable to uphold the residents’ staff complaint, but would attend the residents’ property on 29 January 2020 as this would be the “best way” to understand their situation concerning the smells.  
16. The residents responded to the landlord’s email on the same day. They said that they had smelt gas coming from their neighbour’s property on four occasions. They said that the fire brigade had no records of an officer attending the neighbour’s property. They explained some historic issues they had had with the neighbour, and said that the officer had been “trying to control” the residents. They said that the officer had told them their neighbour was “very fragile” and this was why it could not do anything to resolve the issues the residents were experiencing.
17. The officer visited the residents’ property on 14 February 2020. Following this visit, the residents emailed it and said that the officer had told lies (they did not give any specific details). They also accused the landlord of helping the neighbour commit benefit fraud, and disputed whether the fire brigade had attended the neighbour’s home.
18. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 14 February 2020. It gave the residents instructions to follow if they smelt gas. However, it confirmed that it had not witnessed any smell of gas or a bad odour whilst it was at the residents’ property. It said that as the residents had previously mentioned that they had called the fire brigade who had then attended their property, “if they had witnessed a health and safety situation, they would have taken relevant action”.
19. It advised the residents to “try avoid contact” with their neighbour as they “don’t appear to get along”.
20. The landlord did not advise the residents who they could refer their complaint to if they remained dissatisfied with the outcome. However, the residents had already approached the Ombudsman for assistance previously, and, following receipt of the landlord’s final complaint response, they asked the Ombudsman to investigate their complaint.

Assessment and findings

21. The residents reported that they could smell gas and believed it was coming from their neighbour’s property on 30 August 2019. Following this, the landlord suggested that if the residents felt comfortable, they could “politely” inform their neighbour that the gas had been left on. This is in line with its “self-help” policy which states that it will encourage residents “to make a friendly approach to the neighbour” in order to address the ASB. The tenant’s handbook advises residents that they should contact the National Gas Emergency Service if they smell gas. The landlord urged the residents to contact the gas service and follow their advice, as that was the most appropriate action to take in an emergency situation involving gas.
22. The landlord found out that EH had taken no further action regarding the residents’ concerns of a bad smell coming from their neighbour’s property. Nevertheless, it addressed the residents’ concerns and attended the neighbour’s property on 7 November 2019 and 14 February 2020. It also confirmed that it had not detected any bad smells. According to the landlord’s email on 20 January, the fire brigade had visited the neighbour’s property beforehand, although no specific dates of the visits were given. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to indicate that the fire brigade detected any health and safety concerns.
23. In order for the landlord to have taken any formal action against the neighbour it would have needed corroborative evidence to support the residents’ reports of a bad odour and a smell of gas. EH and the fire brigade both found no issues to report. The landlord had identified no problems from its visits. Accordingly, there was no reliable evidence to support any further action by the landlord.  
24. The residents’ complaints about the landlord’s staff members were general in nature, with limited specific examples. The landlord acknowledged the residents’ concerns, apologised that they felt this way and apologised for the “genuine mistake” made about the responsibility for the neighbour’s garden. It could not provide specific responses to the residents’ other allegations because no clear details had been given. Instead, it advised the residents on 20 January that it had reminded all its staff members of that they should “communicate in an empathetic and approachable way”. Considering that the landlord had been provided with limited evidence to act in, these were reasonable responses. 
25. Ultimately, no evidence has been provided for this investigation to indicate that the landlord did not appropriately handle the residents’ reports of ASB. It investigated the residents’ concerns of bad odours, sought involvement from the fire brigade and gave the residents appropriate advice. It apologised for how its staff may have acted and demonstrated that it had took this complaint on board by informing its staff on how they could communicate better with residents.

Determination (decision)

26. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint.