Camden Council (202006556)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006556

Camden Council

23 December 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 an odour coming from her neighbour’s property.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord. Her reports of an odour concern a neighbour who lived in the flat below hers.
3. The landlord emailed the resident on 21 April 2020. It said she had raised a complaint about her neighbour earlier that day. Details of this complaint has not been provided for this investigation. It said the resident had said there was an ongoing smell of urine and excrement coming from her neighbour’s flat. The landlord said it had not received similar reports before. It said as the resident had confirmed she saw the neighbour the day before, it did not urgently need to visit as they were not in danger. It advised her to use air fresheners to alleviate the smell. It said it had asked the neighbour to contact it to discuss the matter.
4. The landlord emailed the resident on 22 June 2020. It said it had spoken to the neighbour regarding the resident’s concerns with a smell. It said the neighbour denied the allegation, and said their flat was clean. It said it could not take formal action against the neighbour as they had confirmed there was no problem with their hygiene. It said it advised the neighbour to continue ensuring their flat was clean. It said if the smell persisted, the resident could contact its pest control team to investigate the cause of the odour.
5. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 30 June 2020.
6. The resident emailed this Service on 1 October 2020. She explained that the landlord had not responded to her complaint. She said she reported the smell to the police who said there was “a smell and that it [was] antisocial, however because it [did not] smell of a dead body, there [was] nothing they [could] do”. This Service contacted the landlord the same day and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint from June.
7. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 15 October 2020. It issued its stage one complaint response on 20 October. It summarised its understanding of her complaint to be her dissatisfaction with its handling of her reports of an odour coming from her neighbour’s flat. It reiterated that the resident’s report on 21 April, was the first it had received on the matter. It said it spoke to the neighbour, and support services to ensure the neighbour did not need extra support. It said due to the COVID-19 pandemic it was unable to visit residents. It said the police visited the neighbour on 26 June, and reported that they did not observe any smells. It said it did not uphold her complaint. It said its actions had been sufficient, and the police visit was deemed as independent evidence.
8. The resident emailed the landlord on 5 November 2020. She was dissatisfied with its delayed complaint response. She said another resident had raised concerns with the smell. She said the previous tenant of her flat had also complained about the smell. She was dissatisfied it had said the neighbour did not smell, without visiting the flat. She said the night before she was woke to the smell of the neighbour “cooking and burning something”. She said as well as the smell of burnt cooking, there was a “rancid smell of urine wafting through the floorboards”. She said that if the landlord could not visit neighbour, she wanted it to visit her. She said the smell had been ongoing for years and she had not complained before as she thought she would soon move out.
9. The resident emailed the landlord on 23 March 2021. She said she had not received a response from her email on 5 November 2020. She said the smell was ongoing. She reiterated that other tenants had reported similar concerns. She said the landlord’s phone call and letter to the neighbour had not resolved the issue. She said the smell was a nuisance. She said she thought the landlord should visit the neighbour and investigate the smell. She said she did not think the neighbour had running water and had seen them emptying buckets into the drains outside. She asked it to escalate her complaint.
10. Following contact from the resident, this Service asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 27 April 2021.
11. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 13 May 2021. It reiterated that it had been unable to visit the neighbour due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the police had attended in June 2020 and did not observe any smells. It acknowledged her emails from 5 November 2020, and 22 March 2021, and apologised for not responding. It said one other tenant had complained about the smell in October 2020. It said it spoke to the tenant on 22 October 2020 and they reported that the smell was intermittent. It said that as the smell was intermittent there was no guarantee a visiting officer would witness it. It advised the resident to continue reporting the issue if necessary, and once COVID-19 restrictions eased, it could consider visiting.
12. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service on 13 May 2021 she explained that she was dissatisfied pigeons were nesting in the communal stairway as the windows were being left open to alleviate the smell.
13. On 26 July 2021 the resident handed in her four weeks notice to end her tenancy.

Assessment and findings

14. This Service will not consider the resident’s concerns that pigeons were nesting in her stairway as the landlord did not address this issue in either complaint response. This is in accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states we will not consider complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. The resident should raise the matter with the landlord first, and then, once the landlord has fully investigated them, she can bring them to this Service if necessary.

Reports of an odour

15. The landlord’s tenancy conditions booklet does not class odours as being examples of anti-social behaviour (ASB). However, it acknowledges that ASB is anything “which causes or is likely to cause nuisance, or may cause harassment or annoyance to anyone else”. The landlord would therefore be expected to initially investigate her reports as if they were of ASB. The landlord’s tenants’ guide booklet states that when it receives reports of ASB, it will offer advice. It may engage directly with the alleged perpetrator, and consider mediation or an agreement between all parties.
16. The resident first reported the odour in April 2020. The landlord advised it would speak to the neighbour, and suggested she use an air freshener to alleviate the nuisance. It then advised in June that the neighbour had denied the allegation, and it suggested she contact its pest control team if the smell persisted. The landlord’s initial responses and suggestions to the resident were reasonable, and pragmatic ways to address concerns with smells. It demonstrated that it had taken her concerns seriously by speaking to the neighbour, and it was reasonable to suggest she contact its pest control team as it said they could investigate the cause of the odour. Once the landlord knew the exact cause, it could take further action to address the issue.
17. The resident asked the landlord to attend and observe the smell. The landlord explained that due to the COVID-19 pandemic it was unable to visit properties. It is understandable that given the Covid-19 context the landlord would have been providing limited services to residents. As such, its explanation on why it could not attend was reasonable. Nonetheless, it said the police attended in June 2020 and did not report any smells. The resident advised this Service in October 2020 that the police had observed a smell. The landlord’s internal correspondence notes that the police’s report had not reported any smell. However the landlord did not share a copy of the report with the resident. Ultimately the landlord is not responsible for the police, therefore if the resident disputed the landlord’s records they could have contacted the police and secured their own report if the police were happy to say they had witnessed a smell.
18. The landlord advised the resident in its stage one complaint response that her report of a smell from 21 April 2020 was the first it had received on the matter. The resident disputed this, and explained which other residents had raised similar concerns. The landlord acknowledged in its stage two complaint response that another tenant had also reported the smell, and said it was intermittent. The resident stated they had not reported the smell despite witnessing it for ‘years’ as they had intended to move.
19. The landlord can only act on reports that it receives. Therefore the landlord could not be expected to have investigated any alleged smell before the resident’s first report in April 2020 (when Covid-19 restricitons were already in place).
20. It is relevant that there is another witness. However their description of the smell as intermittent will limit the actions available to the landlord. This is particularly so given the other independent witness (the police) had not reported a smell to the landlord.
21. It is understandable that the odour would have been distressing for the resident, however for the landlord to consider taking further action against the alleged perpetrator it would require consistent, independent evidence of the issue being reported. No such evidence has been provided to show the resident or other witnesses were regularly reporting her concerns. As such, the landlord’s actions and responses to the resident were reasonable, and proportionate to the issues being reported.

Complaint handling

22. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge all complaints within two working days. It will issue its stage one complaint response within ten working days, and its stage two complaint response within 25 working days.
23. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 30 June 2020. This Service asked the landlord to respond to her complaint on 1 October 2020. It acknowledged her complaint on 15 October 2020, and issued its stage one response on 20 October 2020. This was a clear failure of the landlord’s complaint process.
24. The resident emailed the landlord on 5 November 2020. Although she did not state that she wanted to escalate her complaint, she clearly set out why she remained dissatisfied. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that landlord should be able to identify when a resident is dissatisfied and making a complaint without them having to explicitly state as such. The resident then asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 23 March 2021. This Service had to also ask the landlord to escalate the complaint on 27 April 2021. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 13 May 2021. This was a repeat of the landlord’s complaint handling failures at stage one, despite there having already been an intervention by the Ombudsman.
25. The delayed handling of the complaint will have likely contributed to the resident’s belief that their reports were not being handled appropriately by the landlord. As such the landlord’s complaint handling likely undermined the efforts it had made and explanations it had given about the substantive issue.
26. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response it acknowledged, and apologised for not responding to the resident’s emails from November 2020, and March 2021. However the landlord should have offered actual redress to acknowledge the inconvenience these delays will have caused. This is particularly the case considering it took involvement from this Service on two occasions, four months provide a stage one response, and seven months to provide a stage two response. There were unreasonable, and significant delays from the landlord throughout its complaint process. It did not keep the resident updated, and did not act in accordance with the target timeframes set out in its complaints policy.

Determination (decision)

27. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an odour coming from her neighbour’s property.
28. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

29. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident within 4 weeks £200 to acknowledge the inconvenience and delay experienced in the complaint process.