Camden Council (202106293)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106293

Camden Council

21 September 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 regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. The condition of the resident’s property and common areas, resulting from a neighbour hoarding, including a pest infestation and odours, and the resident’s request for a rent rebate.
2. The landlord’s requests for rent.
3. Noise from other neighbours’ properties, including from a fan and DIY works.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling

Background and summary of events

The resident occupies a two-bedroom flat on the fourth and top floor of a block of flats. It is a secure tenancy which began on 20 July 1998. She suffers from a number of disabilities.

Legal and policy framework

Each of the parties provided to this Service two different versions of the tenancy agreement.
The tenancy agreement provided by the landlord was in the resident’s name only. It showed the resident and her daughter, who was 17 at the time, as occupants. It was signed by the resident. It was signed on behalf of the local authority by a housing officer. Both signatures were dated 14 July 1998. It was also “checked/signed” (countersigned) by another officer of the landlord, which was dated 20 January 1999. The resident also signed for receipt of keys and an information pack on 22 December 1998.
The tenancy agreement provided by the resident was in her name and that of her daughter, and showed them as occupiers. The name of the resident’s daughter as tenant was slightly different. It was signed by the resident only, on behalf of the local authority and countersigned by a different officer to that of the landlord. The receipt for keys and information pack was signed by the resident and also dated 14 July 1998. All the dates for the signatures were 14 July 1998.
The landlord has informed this service that its version was the only one held by it and the property was always recorded as a single tenancy. It stated that for a joint tenancy, both tenants would be required to sign. It would not have given a joint tenancy where one of the tenants was under 18 but would have been listed as an authorised occupant only.
At time of this investigation, the landlord did not have an explanation why there were two versions of the tenancy agreement. It is noted that these events occurred 25 years ago. It was not clear why the matter had not been addressed previously.
As a matter of law, a minor (a person under 18) cannot hold a tenancy in their own name but it would have to be held on trust by an adult. The Ombudsman does not intend to make a finding about whether the tenancy was a joint or single tenancy, or why the issue had not been addressed previously. This would require a detailed investigation of the facts and the law, and, ultimately, may be an issue that would have to be determined by a court of law. In any event, while relevant to this complaint, it is not the subject of this complaint and the resident would have to raise the matter separately. However, this report will take this issue into account in this report.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord has an obligation to keep in repair and in good working order the structure and exterior of the premises. In addition, it advises that “you or anyone else living with you or visiting your home should not do anything which causes or is likely to cause nuisance or may cause harassment or annoyance to anyone else”.
This Service has not been provided with a copy of the neighbours’ tenancy agreements but it would be reasonable to conclude that the same or similar tenancy conditions apply as to the resident.
The landlord’s guide for tenants explains it will keep confidential reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) that it receives. It can undertake the following actions to resolve complaints of ASB it receives: verbal or written warnings, mediation, or take legal action.
The landlord’s ASB policy available on its website defines ASB as “behaviour by a person which causes, or is likely to cause, harassment alarm or distress to persons not of the same household as the person”. The policy states it will keep in regular contact with the resident about the action taken to resolve the problem.
The landlord did not provide any specific policies and procedures about hoarding. However, hoarding has been recognised as a mental disorder. On its website, it has a “multi-agency self-neglect toolkit” produced by its safeguarding partnership board to assist residents.
The landlord’s remedies policy and procedure sets out that there are two stages to its complaints process. At the first stage, it will respond within 10 working days and within 25 working days at its final stage. Its self-assessment states that it is longer than that set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in order that the timescale is the same across all its services.

Scope

The resident had made a complaint previously about how the landlord handled the neighbour’s hoarding, which complaint was investigated by this service. That investigation did not consider any events that occurred after the landlord’s final complaint response dated 20 May 2021. In the circumstances, this investigation will not consider events prior to May 2021 but will bear in mind the history, by way of context.
The resident reported how the events complained of affected her physical and mental health. The Ombudsman cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s service failure or maladministration has contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and/or mental health. We cannot assess medical evidence and do not make findings on matters such as negligence. However, the Ombudsman does carefully consider what a resident tells us about how they have been affected by the issues in their complaint, including the overall impact on them, and may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure.

Chronology

The resident’s reports about her neighbour (referred to “B” in this report) were numerous This report sets out a selection of the reports. The reports included a “stench” in the walkways, a smell of faeces, and a pest infestation. The odours had pervaded her soft furnishings which impacted on the rest of the flat and she felt one room was unusable. The odours would not go away, the air felt unhygienic and unclean and she would have to clean her clothes frequently. She also reported she had to dispose of her belongings because of the smell. The landlord had undertaken six cleans of the property downstairs when she reported that she would get only temporary relief as the odours would return. She felt unable to have visitors in her own property which affected her social interactions, family visits, and her self-employment as a yoga teacher. The resident reported that the situation affected her health. There were occasions when she stayed away from the property altogether.
The resident made a number of reports regarding the odours in June 2021 and the landlord replied on 16 and 21 June 2021. It stated it would not pay for alternative accommodation but it would attend her property. There were further reports in July 2021. It informed the resident on two or three occasions in July 2021 that it was “following a plan” including inspecting the neighbour’s property and it would update the resident.
There was the occasional report in August and September 2021. The reports increased again in October 2021. On 14 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to say she had made a number of reports to the landlord but she had not received a reply.
The landlord replied on 14 and 15 December 2021, advising it was “continuing to work with” B and was considering legal enforcement. It had arranged a multi-disciplinary meeting in January 2022 in relation to B. The landlord phoned the resident and stated it was not given the opportunity to speak and referred to the resident leaving “warning” messages on its voicemail. According to an internal email, legal action in relation to the neighbour was being considered. While it noted the number of calls and emails it had been receiving from the resident, it also noted her distress.
On 13 December 2021, the resident reported noise from works in another neighbouring property. According to an internal email in December 2021, the landlord had made contact with a neighbour undertaking refurbishment works but they were not their tenant but a leaseholder carrying out works that they were entitled to do.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 December 2021 to advise its environmental health team had served a notice on B and would enforce it in the new year if the issue was not addressed. It stated this was the first move to a legal or agreed solution “which might see (B)lose her home” if they did not comply within a specified timescale. Internal emails referred to a careful approach. The landlord considered what information it could appropriately share in order to update the resident. In the meantime, the resident continued to report the issues on a frequent basis. This continued in January 2022. On 17 January 2022, the landlord offered to assist with the resident’s rehousing application and according to its internal emails,it was progressing this in February 2022.
On 21 February 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord asking it to remind another neighbour not to use her fan after 10pm, as had been previously agreed. The landlord replied a few days later that it had made that request. It suggested that the fan may come on automatically when that neighbour turned on her light.
The resident made further reports in February and March 2022 as to B and the condition of the resident’s flat.
According to internal emails, a “professionals meeting” (a meeting with agencies such as social services) took place in March 2022. There had been three cleans of the neighbour’s property. The landlord has shared correspondence indicating that it was considering a number of other steps. The landlord stated it did not share details with the resident due to data protection and likewise so while the Ombudsman confirms he has seen those emails, details will not be shared in this report. On or around 8 April 2022, the landlord informed the resident it had attended B’s property with a social worker, fire safety officer, and EHO and legal notices “had started to take place” but it could not go into details.
This service wrote to the landlord on 8 April 2022following contact from the resident. The landlord was asked to address the resident’s complaint, which was summarised as regarding her concerns that her property was uninhabitable, noise nuisance, outstanding repairs, a pest infestation, the landlord’s communication, and rent payments.
The resident wrote on 17 April 2022 querying why her complaint had been assigned to the housing officer who had been dealing with the matter. The reported noise nuisance had occurred at 12.30am which constituted “harassment”. She considered that the neighbour’s extractor fan should be removed and she asked that the complaint be escalated.
On 5 May 2022, a housing manager of the landlord wrote with the first stage complaint response as follows:
1. The housing officer had endeavoured to keep her informed of the progress on the issue with B. It had responded to emails, liaised with the relevant parties to have the work progressed and gave reassurance that a solution was being progressed.
2. Its caretaker attended in order to assess the smell, the communal area, and cleanliness report that she had sent in. The landlord had assisted B with a declutter. It was satisfied that there had been no significant fly infestation and smell for a number of months. This was checked by the housing officer and the contractor. Unfortunately, the issues resurfaced a number of months later and this had since required a joint approach from various council services and a further clear up of the accommodation. The landlord had offered to pass on the resident’s report of bedbugs to the appropriate team but the resident had declined the offer.
3. The landlord had made an offer of temporary accommodation to the resident but this was not progressed. It had followed up her request for a permanent move to another property and it had provided her with support in completing a housing application. The delay to that process was due to the resident not being available to complete the form. The housing application was under review by its allocation team for assessment of “medical points”, after which she would be able to place bids for any property and area of her choice.
4. The housing officer had contacted the resident’s leaseholder neighbour to discuss the building work. The officer had visited the site with the housing manager on two occasions. They discussed the level of noise with the workmen, and the times they were operating, which was within the permitted hours of work. The workmen were advised to be considerate to the neighbours and the neighbourhood while carrying out the flat conversion. The workmen would continue to adhere to the limit of the licence of alteration. Some of the noise could also have been from other external building projects outside the landlord’s control.
5. It was within the remit of the housing officer to discuss the tenant’s arrears and provide assistance in the form of repayment plan or DWP assistance. The arrears had exceeded £2,000. Following the landlord’s assistance, those arrears had been reduced.
6. It did not uphold the complaint.
7. It had not identified a lack of empathy or support from the landlord officers, “who have, in light of certain communication received have still persisted to seek the best outcome in this situation”.
8. It appreciated that the issue with the neighbour “at some point might have taken its toll” on the resident. The housing officer provided updates when new issues arose or new facts came about. Not all emails/communications could be responded to, more so if they are multiple repeats of the same issues it was already addressing or where it had provided updates.
9. It gave reassurance that the “team is here to help” and would continue to work to ensure a sustainable outcome.
10. It explained how to request a review of the complaint by the complaints team.
The resident replied the same day stating that the complaint response was unacceptable. The information was incorrect, did not address the complaint, was biased and did not follow procedure. The landlord referred her to the escalation procedure set out in the complaint response letter.
On 10 May 2022, the resident requested a new housing officer. She said she should not be chased for arrears while the issue was ongoing.
The following day, the resident wrote that she was not looking to make a second complaint but for a “professional” response to her complaint.
An internal email of 7 June 2022 stated it had reassured the resident that it, together with “professionals”, had been working to finally resolve the neighbour’s hoarding, but it was a long process. On 21 June 2022, the landlord wrote again that it was continuing to work with other professionals “to put a stop to this once and for all” but it was “not a quick or straightforward process”. However, it “felt confident that it could tackle the issue once and for all”. According to an internal email of 21 June 2022, the landlord had given “a number of verbal warnings” to the resident due to the language she was using. The resident had continued to repeat her reports and points several times a month and sometimes even on the same day, asserting that the landlord was “lying”.
On 28 June 2022, the resident made a complaint as follows:
1. Her home was uninhabitable due to the landlord moving in a hoarder with “extreme” mental health issues to a neighbouring property. There was a fly infestation on the walkway and deliveries had been refused. It was interfering with her working from home as a yoga teacher. She had had to vacate her home and could not receive visitors. It was affecting her sleep and wellbeing. She had covered her windows with Sellotape and had suffered insect bites. This had affected her health and caused her illness. The landlord had expended funds to clear B’s property but it had not replaced her damaged possessions or cleaned her property. Other neighbours had also complained. The landlord had ignored “housing regulations”.
2. The landlord had not replied to her 200 emails.
3. They had not attended on a visit.
4. She had previously made a complaint, but it had not been forwarded onto the complaints team.
5. Housing officers had shouted at her, not addressed her issues and had not replied to emails.
On 30 June 2022, the landlord wrote that the manager followed the complaints process correctly. If escalated, the complaint would be dealt with by the complaints team.
On 6 July 2022, the landlord asked the resident for her reasons for escalating her complaint. The resident replied that her health was declining, the landlord had not taken responsibility for the issues. She left messages on the same day asking for a call.
The landlord escalated the complaint on the same day. It said it would reply within 10 days and the assigned officer would call her back. On 20 July 2022, the landlord signposted and referred the resident to adult social services for support. The resident stated she did not answer “unauthorised” calls. On 28 July 2022, an officer of the landlord wrote to the resident stating that it was “shocked” to take a call and “to be met with more abuses” and it would seek to ban her from contacting housing officers.
On 1 August 2022, the landlord noted that the resident felt suicidal. It also noted that social services were involved in resolving the hoarding issue and it was intending to carry out a clean and that “a lot was going on in the background”. A complaints officer tried to call the resident but the resident ended the call. It noted that she was getting support from a counsellor.
There followed a further email exchange on 3 August 2022. The resident made a claim for £20,000 In relation to her ill-health, damaged possessions and loss of earnings. The landlord replied stating that it did not require further information, it would not consider her request for £20,000, and asked her not to send further emails as it was difficult to “manage excessive emails on a daily basis”.
There followed further emails, reports of the resident raising her voice, and talking about self-harm. In later emails, the resident used abusive language. There was an internal discussion about applying its unreasonable behaviour policy and applying contact restrictions, in response to voicemails and calls.
According to a letter dated 10 August 2022 from a charity, it made a payment of £750 for a bedframe and soft furnishings towards the resident’s expenses of £1,000. The letter noted that the grants officer had observed flies on the stairwell and landing and “fruit flies” in the resident’s property, even though there was no obvious sign of food in the kitchen or living/dining room.
On 18 August 2022, this service wrote to the landlord suggesting it escalate the resident’s complaint and requesting it provide a reply by 16 September 2022.
An undated note of the landlord stated that the housing officer visited the property on “Wednesday”. It noted the resident was obliged to come down one floor to use the lift. Though B’s property had been cleared, there was still a lot of clutter, the toilet had “not (sic) been blocked for a while so he (sic) had been using buckets and storing them in the house which could be a contributing factor”. The housing officer could only detect the smell when he went inside B’s property. The windows were street facing and difficult to close. There was a “good supply of fresh air” to reduce the smell.
On 26 August 2022, the landlord requested internally a history of enforcement actions and supporting actions in order to investigate the complaint.
The resident provided a letter dated 29 August 2022to the landlord on an unknown date. It was from an NHS nurse, written in their personal capacity. It described how when the nurse had visited the resident over the previous two years, she had been met with flies and foul smell in the communal area. The smell permeated into the resident’s flat. She also identified a deterioration in the resident’s well-being. The resident had been staying with friends most weeks at that period and when at home was unable to relax and spent her time washing the bedlinen “for fear it smelt of sewage”. The 5th floor required a lift. The smell was “up and down the floors” and on many days people could not use the lift as a result.
On 31 August 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident with its review response as follows, and referred to her complaints, including those of 12 April 2022 and 6 July 2022:
1. It apologised for the delayed response, which it said was caused by a delay in it being allocated.
2. It was restricted in what it could disclose to the resident about the steps it had taken to resolve the hoarding situation. It acknowledged that the situation had been serious and distressing for her and for other residents. It had also continued for a significant period of time. Many tenants could be defined as being vulnerable persons and it could be difficult to support them while also protecting the needs and rights of other residents.
3. It was satisfied that the housing officer had been “very active in trying to address this problem”. Recently, the situation had been improving. It had “every hope and expectation” that its efforts would soon fully resolve the situation. It would then ensure that B had the support she needed to maintain her home properly and hygienically. This should resolve the pest infestation.
4. It accepted the situation had taken time to resolve and during that period the resident had suffered significant disruption to her home life. It apologised.
5. In relation to the noise, building works, light pollution, and extractor fan issues from other properties, many of which were considered to be normal usage of the various properties, it advised it had asked her neighbours “to behave sensitively” to the needs of others when using their homes and equipment. In addition, DIY or building works should be limited to permitted hours. These were “primarily” weekdays during normal working times and Saturday morning between 8am to 12pm. It invited her to report any further incidents.
6. It had considered reports that she had had to leave her home at times because she was unable to cope with the smells from B’s property. If it were agreed that she could not have reasonably been expected to reside at the property during those times, “it would ask for consideration” to be given for rent credits. It would write separately on that issue.
7. There had been “departures” from landlord’s complaints process and other communications had not “as good as (she) had a right to expect”. Given this and in recognition of the difficulties due to the conditions at the neighbouring flat, it offered £100 compensation.
8. It had recorded the complaint as partially upheld.
According to the landlord, on the same day, the resident rejected the outcome of the complaint.
While events after the conclusion of the complaints process are normally outside the remit of this investigation, this investigation will consider any further developments that are closely connected to complaint, as they will be relevant to the complaint and any remedies. Accordingly, on carrying out this investigation, this service made enquiries as to the current circumstances.
On 1 September 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord that she had removed her bed and incurred £6,000 costs in being away from the property. She also required compensation for damaged goods and loss of earnings. She wanted £20,000.
On 6 September 2022, the landlord chased its housing register team for an update on the resident’s housing application.
During the course of the complaint, the resident provided letters to the landlord as follows:
1. A letter dated 8 September 2022 from her GP stated that the resident suffered a number of physical symptoms and mental health issues that the resident attributed to her living conditions. The resident had noticed an improvement when she was away from her accommodation. It was not sustainable as she worked as a freelancer artist and needed to work from home. The GP was aware the matter had been referred to this service and asked that the information provided be taken into account to “mediate” a solution.
2. An undated letter from a friend who reported she had stayed in the flat over lockdown. She described the resident as “bereaved” and “fragile”. She reported a smell from property and that the resident fitted plastic sheeting. The smell was hard to expel, curtains needed cleaning, and absorbed odour. Furniture, bedding and possessions including a large double bed, paperwork and artwork had been removed due to the penetrating nature of the smells. She had stayed at her home on over ten occasions. It had affected and exacerbated her health conditions and affected her capacity to work. It suggested that the neighbour be relocated.
On 12 September 2022, the resident reported that the “sewage” was removed from B’s flat and the stench had lessened slightly. The walkways were still infested with flies.
On 14 September 2022, the landlord offered the resident a different housing officer in response to her request. There would be a final clearance of B’s flat starting on 22 September 2022.
There followed further emails including the resident referring to the landlord as a “biased group of idiots”.
On 21 September 2022, the landlord set out a list of dates when a “clear up” team had attended B’s property, including June and July 2020, September and October 2021, August and September 2022. According to a further internal email, a clear up team was working in the property at that time. It was expected to take 7 or 8 days. It would de-clutter and explore the options best for the neighbour and the other residents of the building.
On 26 September 2022, the landlord considered the length of time the resident’s property might have been unavailable for occupation. It assumed that the clean may have disturbed the flies and B’s door was open at the time, causing an enhanced odour nuisance. It considered the resident’s may not have been suitable for habitation for 12 days in the previous 3 years during the works, whether or not she made her own arrangements for those specific days.
On 6 October 2022, the resident wrote several emails chasing the landlord for an update. She said the situation was still ongoing. She had received a grant from the landlord to replace bedding that was “stinking”. The landlord replied that further works were being carried out and it would update her.
On 21 October 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident that a “huge deep clean” had been carried out recently. It had visited the block and there was no “smell/ stench” coming from B’s property or any smell from the sewage. It was unable to control or monitor the usage of extractor fans but would work with the tenants involved to see if their fans need replacing to avoid any further noise nuisance. It invited her to explore downsizing to “help her case with allocations” as she would be allocated “downsizing points”.
The resident replied on the same day that there was an agreement that that neighbour should not use the fan after 10pm. She also wrote asking where her family members visiting and any carer would sleep in a one-bedroom property if she became more unwell. She had lived in the property for 22 years.
The landlord replied on 16 November 2022 that it would contact the tenant to discuss their use of the extractor fan and ascertain if it required any repairs so that it does not cause any noise nuisance. It was working behind the scenes with other departments to address the hoarding issue.
On 3 May 2023, the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) wrote to the landlord asking for information about the case and the landlord’s approach generally. It was considering the matter under the Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard and the Neighbourhood and Community Standard. The landlord replied on 12 May 2023 that it was monitoring the case and working with Adult Social Care. It intended to carry out a home visit to the resident. It was reviewing its policy and considering training. The RSH did not take any further action.
In May 2023, the landlord made a further offer to the resident of temporary accommodation pending a further de-clutter and clean. The offer was for a one-bedroom property. It would pay for the resident’s moving costs. The resident wanted to be within 10-20 minutes of a particular hospital by public transport. The landlord stated the offer was made in accordance with its allocations policy and would be limited to a one-bedroom property.
On 31 May 2023, the landlord offered the resident a rent rebate of 25% of a year’s rent from 23 May 2022.
The resident refused the offer on the basis that:
1. The landlord should rebate the rent for 4 years.
2. She had a two-bedroom property therefore she would only accept a two-bedroom property of equal size, and “immediately”.
3. She would only agree to be within the close vicinity of a hospital.
The landlord informed this service on 1 September 2023 that:
1. It had recognised the issues in May 2023 had deteriorated since the previous clean and for that reason made the offer of temporary accommodation and a rent rebate. This was separate to the offer made in its complaint response of August 2022. It had set the rent rebate at 25% of the rent in order to recognise the impact of the smell on a room in the resident’s property that was off the walkway. The offer was made as a further clean was planned but the landlord did not know at that stage when it would take place. There had been technical hitches with payment of the rebate which at the time of this report were expected to be resolved imminently.
2. It had explored with a senior member of the landlord’s housing register’s team whether it was able to offer a two-bedroom property and had been advised any offer had to be in line with its allocations policy.
3. It did not take this offer further, given the resident’s refusal. It did not intend to renew the offer at that time, given it considered the matter was to be resolved.
4. A clean took place in June 2023.
5. Since then, it had set up twice-weekly checks of the common parts, including the lifts and a security patrol checks as to whether B‘s door was kept closed.
6. It explained its proposed plan to this service and the reasons for delay in implementing the plan and timescales.
The resident has provided the service with a further medical letter dated 29 August 2023, setting out the resident’s reports of the impact of the situation on her, setting out her health conditions and treatment, and stating that the resident wanted accommodation for her family to stay while she underwent further medical treatment.

Assessment and findings

The condition of the resident’s property and the resident’s request for a rent rebate.

As stated in the previous investigation, “the Ombudsman recognised that this has been a challenging case for the landlord to manage due to the needs of the occupant of Flat A (the hoarding neighbour). The landlord is required to balance its obligations towards the resident under her tenancy agreement and its ASB policy with its obligations to support the neighbour under her tenancy”.
As also stated in the previous investigation, “the landlord is also obliged to respect the confidentiality of the neighbour’s personal data and as such, this can impact on the extent of information it can disclose to the resident about the case. This, in turn, can cause problems when considering enforcement actions and explaining why a particular course of action may not be appropriate”.
While the Ombudsman does not investigate events after the completion of the landlord’s complaints process, as the landlord has not had the opportunity to investigate and respond to any complaint regarding those events, the Ombudsman has considered whether the matter was resolved, given that those attempts are closely linked to the complaint. Moreover, it would be fair and proportionate to both parties if they were taken into account.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord was not able to share details of its actions with the resident, and, because of the unpredictable nature of the case, it was unable to be precise about timescales. However, the updates that the landlord did provide were vague in nature. Its approach was also inconsistent. The landlord shared that it had served notice that “might see the neighbour lose her home”, that there was to be a professionals meeting but did not state whether it took place, or that it was either postponed or a fresh professionals meeting in March 2022. It shared that it was going to enforce a notice of an unspecified nature but it did not update the resident further in that regard. The landlord did not provide any timescales at all or proactively update the resident. It just stated that it was confident that the matter would be resolved. That partial information and assurance without anything further was not satisfactory.
It is recognised that this case involved housing, community care and Environmental Health, as well as the Housing Register team. The resident’s complaint was directed at housing management. The jurisdiction of this Ombudsman is limited to housing management. The correct Ombudsman for a complaint about the actions of the landlord’s social services, the housing register and environmental health departments would be the Local Government and Social Services Ombudsman. This investigation has not investigated the roles of those directorates. The Ombudsman, however, would expect the landlord to have worked closely with those bodies.
The landlord informed the resident it was working with Adult Social Care and the EHO (Environmental Health Officer). This was corroborated by the evidence seen by the Ombudsman. The landlord also informed the resident it was considering “legal action”. The landlord considered a number of actions which it did not consider appropriate to share with the resident and details of which have therefore not been shared in this report. It was reasonable of the landlord to have contemplated such action but the evidence showed that the steps the landlord focussed on was managing and on the clearance of the property.
It was reasonable of the landlord to seek to resolve the matter by effecting a clean of the property. It considered a number of actions and worked with the statutory agencies. The landlord carried out a fifth or sixth clean. Reasonably, its intention was to resolve the matter “once and for all”. The clean carried out in September and October 2022 was intended to be pending a more permanent solution. It was reasonable that the landlord made a further offer of temporary accommodation in May 2023 and another clean was carried out in June 2023. However, one year after its promises and the issue is not resolved.
The evidence and the resident’s comments to this service indicated that after a clearance, there would be temporary relief before the situation would build up again, leading to a repetition of a fly infestation and smells. While the GP relied on the resident’s reports and was not in a position to categorially link the condition of the property with the resident’s conditions, the correspondence demonstrated the issues were ongoing. The landlord recognised the need for a number of de-clutters and cleans.
There comes a point when a solution does not work and when a landlord should be considering and enacting alternative solutions. However, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s promises to resolve matters “once and for all” should have been honoured. This is likely to involve either a move for the neighbour or a move for the resident. If the neighbour did not wish to move, this would involve possession proceedings.
Understandably from B’s perspective, and the landlord’s obligations towards her, the landlord sought to find a community solution. From the resident’s perspective, if the landlord never issued proceedings, it may be no nearer a solution. However, even if it had issued possession proceedings, they were likely to have been protracted because of the complexities of the issues and the uncertainty of the outcome. All possession proceedings were stayed over the period of the pandemic from March 2020 until September 2020. The courts then introduced a staggered process, and there were delays in the court system. There was no foregone conclusion that a court would have made an outright possession order. It is likely proceedings would have been protracted, for months, even years, if defended. It is also likely that the landlord would have then had a duty to rehouse the neighbour in any event. This would not have assisted the resident.
The parties discussed a move for the resident. The difficulty was that there was a dispute as to the type of tenancy the resident felt she was entitled to. As noted, there was a dispute about whether the tenancy was in the resident’s sole name or was joint that requires resolving. The officers acted on the basis of the information it had in its records, namely that this was a single tenancy. However, the issue of their being two tenancy agreements would have to be explored by the parties separately.
The resident felt it would be unfair that she would have to give up a two-bedroom property because of the condition of B’s property. However, it was not clear whether she would be entitled to a two-bedroom property at this stage. The resident stated her adult daughter had left the property because of the odours and she had an expectation that her daughter, though she has children and is in her thirties, would live with the resident. The evidence indicated that the resident lived alone. The resident also referred to her daughter and grandchildren visiting, as opposed to living in the property. If the resident lived alone, she would be entitled to move to a one-bedroom property as her housing needs would be assessed on the basis of her current needs. There was no indication that the resident provided evidence of this to the landlord or the Housing Register. The decision is a difficult decision to challenge and a matter for the Housing Register and the allocations policy. The resident might benefit from legal or specialist housing advice about challenging the decision in relation to her bedroom entitlement. Again, the issue is outside the remit of this investigation.
It was reasonable that the landlord offered temporary housing. This would mean that the resident would not have to relinquish her two-bedroom property. Once the offer was resurrected a year later, the resident declined that on the basis she would only accept a two-bedroom property in an area close to a specific hospital. Given the shortage of social housing, the temporary nature of the move, there was no evidence of her daughter moving in (rather than staying) for that period, and the resident would not be giving up her original tenancy, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, this was a reasonable offer. The Ombudsman understands the landlord may not be able to make a definite promise of location and timing. It is also appreciated that the more flexible the resident is, the more options she would have to move more quickly. This applies to the landlord as well.
In the view of the Ombudsman, the landlord should reconsider whether the landlord is, as a matter of law, constrained to offer what is effectively a decant by the allocations rules and bedroom entitlement. It was reasonable to offer a one-bedroom property, on the basis of her current occupation, and the shortage of social housing. However, given the overall circumstances, the resident’s ongoing distress, and the unresolved dispute about the type of tenancy the resident holds, the Ombudsman would consider it would be fair that the landlord does not limit itself to a one rather than a two-bedroom property. This would widen options for a decant. The Ombudsman considers an offer anywhere in the borough reasonable and would not expect the offer to be limited to a short distance from a particular hospital. That is because the borough area is relatively small with good public transport and such a condition would considerably limit the available options.
As time wore on, the issue became more and more challenging as the resident expressed herself in intemperate ways and sent a significant number of emails. While a landlord can expect moderated language, the Ombudsman recognises this was a symptom of the resident’s frustration. However, this does not mean that the Ombudsman considers that intemperate language is acceptable or excusable. The Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to respond to each and very email. It is also reasonable to limit updates to when there was something to report. There would be a benefit in the landlord agreeing to send an update, say every 3-4 weeks, in any event. The landlord should have considered setting out specifically what the resident could expect in terms of communications, in order to manage her expectations. Not doing so may have increased her frustration.
Instead, it wrote to the resident to say it was “seeking to ban the resident from contacting housing officers”. This was inappropriate, as such a plan would be expected to have been outside the landlord’s policy and good practice. However impacted a member of staff feels, a landlord should moderate its language and use its internal tools such as its unreasonable behaviour policy to calibrate the tenant’s communication and to set out a procedure. Any contact restriction should be applied reasonably and according to a landlord’s policy.
In all of the circumstances, while the challenging nature of the situation and the resident’s communication is recognised, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s delays and overall poor communication.
The landlord stated in its complaint response of 31 August 2022 that it would consider offering a rent rebate. The evidence showed an initial reluctance to offer any significant amount and a very conservative view of the impact on the resident. The landlord has not provided an explanation of the outcome of this offer except that the offer made in May 2023 was entirely separate.
It was reasonable of the landlord to make a fresh offer of a rent rebate of 25% for one year. This demonstrated, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, that at that time, the landlord gave weight to the resident’s experience. The resident was of the opinion the rent rebate should be for 75%. However, the Ombudsman finds that the level of the rent rebate of 25% is reasonable in all of the circumstances, to take into account the steps the landlord did take, and to broadly reflect the extent that the property was affected.
The resident felt that the offer should have applied to the previous four years. A complaint was made and investigated in August 2022 to the period ending May 2021. That investigation found that the landlord addressed the condition of the property downstairs and found service failure in relation to the landlord’s level and quality of communication. This investigation has reached a different conclusion because, while the actions of the landlord were reasonable, and the Ombudsman recognises the difficulties the landlord faced, time has showed that they did not produce a permanent solution. In the circumstances, any order made in this investigation will only take into account the period from May 2021.
The Ombudsman takes into account that the offer of the rent rebate covers three months prior to the final complaint response and a nine-month period after. The landlord had effected a clean in that period which would have produced some improvement, albeit temporary. However, the offer does not reflect the delay in the landlord taking steps in seeking a more permanent solution. Given the delays, and its promise to resolve the matter “once and for all”, and the impact on the resident, the Ombudsman finds that the period of one year from May 2022, while reasonable in itself, does not constitute reasonable redress of the complaint. It does not reflect the period of complaint, that the landlord could have taken more steps to monitor the situation sooner. The Ombudsman will make an order for further compensation, taking into account the resident’s distress, the amount already offered, but also the degree of fault by the landlord, given the limitations on the steps it could reasonably have taken.
The resident referred to a “right to a rebate” and to her right to quiet enjoyment. There are occasions when a court may award damages for disrepair, including whether a property is fit for human habitation, and breach of quiet enjoyment. The Ombudsman does not determine whether a property is fit for human habitation but considers the landlord’s response to a resident’s reports. The Ombudsman does not assess damages the way a court does, but it does look at making an order for compensation for service failure, taking into account any resulting impact on a resident.
The resident also wanted a refund for her expenses, including her costs of staying away and her possessions. It is noted that the resident received a grant for a proportion of her furnishings although she reported the property was damaged again. The resident did not explain in detail how she incurred £6,000 on alternative accommodation or what the £20,000 consisted of. The Ombudsman only assesses financial losses whether the evidence is clear that there is a clear link between a service failure and a loss. Such a claim is better suited in the context of legal principles of negligence and causation, however the Ombudsman will consider the degree of fault by the landlord and the impact on the resident.
Compensation alone does not resolve the complaint. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord has increased its efforts in resolving and monitoring the situation in recent months. While the information is not being shared in this report or with the resident, the Ombudsman considers its current plan to be reasonable and there appears to be a real prospect of resolution. However, there remains uncertainty as to the outcome and timing.
While there may be the prospect of a resolution, the matter is not resolved. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman will review this case after three months. The Ombudsman also considers it fair to make a fresh offer of temporary accommodation at this stage, given there is no absolute guarantee of a solution, and a decant may take time to identify. Unless the landlord can provide an objection in law, the landlord should consider a decant to either a one or two-bedroom property.

The landlord’s requests for rent.

The landlord’s explanation for it addressing the resident’s rent arrears was reasonable and demonstrated it sought to assist in reducing the arrears. No rebate had been agreed at that time. It was neither in the resident’s interests or the landlord’s to amass arrears, and the resident has a contractual obligation to pay rent, even if dissatisfied with the conditions of the property. The approach is to seek compensation or a rebate. The Ombudsman does not consider it unreasonable for the landlord to manage the rent account and seek payment of the rent due.

Noise from another neighbour’s property, including from a fan and DIY works.

The landlord’s actions in seeking to address the noise of the works was reasonable. The steps the landlord could take were limited by the fact that the building works were being carried out by a leaseholder and not a tenant so it would have had fewer grounds to control the noise, although it would be expected that any alterations agreement and/or lease would contain a covenant not to cause a nuisance. It checked that the leaseholder had a right to carry out the works within the terms of the leaseholder’s licence and made requests that the workers were considerate.
The landlord’s explanation that the noise of the bathroom extractor fan was household noise and not ASB was appropriate. The Ombudsman would still expect a landlord to consider if household noise can be mitigated and refers to the Ombudsman’s report on noise: Spotlight on: Noise Complaints -October 2022 (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). It had already requested that the fan only be operated after 10pm at night. A new housing officer was not aware of this, that may be attributed to human error in not checking its records and, while frustrating for the resident, this was rectified promptly. The landlord identified that the fan would come on automatically when the light was switched on which would be typical of how a fan works. The landlord acted reasonably in offering to speak to the neighbour and to offer to inspect the bathroom fan to see if it was defective. However, there was no evidence it did so. The Ombudsman does not find service failure however will make a recommendation in relation to an inspection.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord could have identified that the resident’s emails of February and March 2022 constituted an expression of dissatisfaction. There was a further brief delay in replying to the complaint from 8 April 2022 to 5 May 2022. The resident objected to the housing manager replying to the complaint. This was, however, part of the landlord’s procedure that a complaint at Stage 1 would be addressed by a head of service.
The resident made it clear she was not happy with the response at which time the landlord should have escalated it, or at the very least asked the resident the reasons why she was not happy with the response, aside from the identity of the member of staff who had addressed the complaint. The landlord only escalated the complaint when the resident made what appeared to be a further complaint on 28 June 2022.
The review response referred to a complaint of 12 April 2022. There was no complaint of 12 April 2022. It was not clear why it cited that date. There was yet a further delay from 6 July 2022, the date the escalation was accepted, to 31 August 2022. There was no monitoring of its promise to consider a rent rebate. While the landlord considered this separately to address the situation in May 2023, the management of the complaint was unsatisfactory.
The complaint response did not offer a solution to the substantive issues and the landlord did not explain why it would not consider the resident’s claim for £20,000 costs. The Ombudsman will make recommendations accordingly.
While the recognised its delays when referring to the “departures” from its complaints processes, the Ombudsman does not consider its offer of £100, given it was supposed to address the substantive complaint as well, reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the resident’s reports of the condition of the resident’s property and common areas, resulting from a neighbour hoarding, including a pest infestation and odours, and the resident’s request for a rent rebate.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s requests for rent.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the resident’s reports of noise from another neighbour’s property, including from a fan and DIY works.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord took steps to address the hoarding issues of the resident’s neighbour. It offered a partial rent rebate and temporary accommodation pending a further clean. However, there was a delay in resolving the situation overall.
It was reasonable of the landlord to take steps to ensure rent was paid as accruing arrears would be problematic for both parties, any compensation should be dealt with separately.
The landlord took reasonable steps in relation to address the noise from neighbours.
There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling and it did not resolve the issues.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £1,000 (to include the £100 already offered) within 4 weeks as follows:
  1. £800 in relation to the resident’s reports of the condition of the resident’s property and common areas, resulting from a neighbour hoarding, including a pest infestation and odours, and the resident’s request for a rent rebate.
  2. An additional £100 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. The £100 offered to the resident, if not already paid.
2. Within 2 weeks, the landlord should offer to the resident temporary accommodation in the borough of a one or two-bedroom property, as available, pending a permanent solution, such property to be identified as soon as is practicable. If the landlord will only consider offering a one-bedroom property, then it should provide its reasons in law to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within two weeks.
3. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman when the matter is resolved or after 3 months whichever is the sooner and provide a full update, after which the Ombudsman will review this matter.
The landlord should confirm compliance to the Ombudsman of the above orders within 2 and 4 weeks respectively.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should consider providing the resident timeframes when it will update her and within which time it will respond to emails and how it will manage communication with the resident.
2. The landlord should consider how much and what information it provides to the resident and ensures it follows up any information with updates.
3. The landlord should comply with its assurances provided to the Regulator of Social Housing on 12 May 2022.
4. The landlord should inspect the neighbour’s bathroom fan to check whether it is defective, if it has not already done so.
5. The landlord should consider introducing a policy on hoarding, if it does not have one already.
6. The landlord should explain its decisions regarding refusing a request for compensation or refund of expenses.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.