Moat Homes Limited (202127508)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127508

Moat Homes Limited

14 July 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the smell of cannabis from a neighbouring property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlords complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a threebedroom, second floor flat. The landlord has recorded that the resident has mental health issues and limited mobility.
The neighbour (who lives in the flat below the resident) is also a tenant of the landlord, and for this report will be referred to as neighbour A.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident was obliged not to cause nuisance or annoyance to neighbours. While the Ombudsman has not seen neighbour A’s tenancy agreement, it is reasonable to assume that the terms of neighbour A’s agreement will be similar, if not identical, to that of the residents.
The landlord has a complaints policy that sets out a formal two-stage complaints process with responses required within 28 days (at stage one) and 21 days (at stage two) respectively. This Service notes that this was reviewed and updated in March 2023 and incorporates guidance contained in the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord has a compensation policy that says that it will consider compensation for residents who have experienced time and trouble due to its service failure. It adds that any amount owned to it “by the customer by way of rent arrears, outstanding service charges or sundry debts will be deducted from any compensation payments made.”
The landlord has an anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy that was reviewed and updated in January 2022, which sets out that it categorises reports of ASB through an initial risk assessment, it will also assess the level of vulnerability of the person making the report, and the potential risk of harm based on the assessment. It will contact those reporting considerable risk incidents such as threats of violence, actual violence and hate crime/incidents within one working day of the report being made. All other reports, which are not considered considerable risk will be contacted within two working days. The previous ASB Policy (in place when the resident reported cannabis use) gives examples of ASB that includes Illegal drug use such as selling or cultivating drugs or using housing accommodation for some other unlawful purposes. It also sets out that it will:
1. Assess the threat, risk, and harm levels to customers because of ASB matters that are reported to it.
2. Arrange an initial interview by phone or in person with the complainant in response to all high-risk cases within 24 hours or next working day.
3. Provide residents with a tailored response to their ASB case by agreeing an action plan with them.
4. Signpost residents to the most appropriate stakeholder where it is not the lead agency e.g. (police, domestic abuse services, local authority).
5. Work with other stakeholders to achieve the best possible outcome.
6. Be clear about its legal and contractual obligations and be realistic about actions and steps that it can take, particularly where it believes there is insufficient evidence.
The landlord has a repairs policy that sets out that it will keep the main structure and exterior of homes and any outbuildings or boundary walls/fences wind and watertight. It will ensure that any shared areas around homes such as stairs, lifts, landings, light fittings, entrance halls, paving, pathways, steps or means of access, shared gardens, parking areas and rubbish chutes, clean, safe and in working order. It will carry out repairs within a reasonable time and book an appointment at a time mutually convenient to both customer and contractor.

Summary of events

The resident first reported that she could smell cannabis in her home in May 2018. She told the landlord that it was coming from neighbour A’s flat and said that she wanted it to send a letter to her neighbour as she felt that should be enough to stop the problem, and that she was happy for the landlord to close its case. The landlord agreed to send a letter and asked the resident to let it know if there were any further incidents.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 May 2021, to report that she could smell cannabis, she said that it was coming from neighbour A’s flat and was getting into her property via her hallway and bathroom. She had also reported the issue to the police and gave the landlord a crime reference number. She told the landlord that she had reported the same issue two years ago and at that time the landlord had attended to fill in gaps in the cavity, which had helped.
On 18 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to say that neighbour A had a “weed party” the night before, that had started at 10:50pm and she could not go to bed until 1:30am, she said that this was affecting her health and mental state. The landlord responded on 19 May 2021, and said that it would visit neighbour A, on 20 May 2021, and update the resident after the visit. It would also contact the police to get an update on any actions that they had taken and instruct its surveyor to check the properties to see if there were any gaps in adjoining walls, which could aid smoke transference between the properties.
As a result of the landlord’s investigations, an ASB case was opened, and a warning letter was sent to neighbour A. Contractors were also instructed to attend and “stop up” gaps to the ceiling of the flat below which were allowing the transfer of fumes to the residents flat. On 15 June 2021, the resident reported that when neighbour A is at hospital, their son drinks on the balcony, smokes cannabis and plays loud music until about 4am.
In August 2021, the fire brigade was called as the resident reported a chemical smell in her bathroom. On attendance fire officers noted that the smell was bleach. At the same time, the caretaker (employed by the landlord) had attended to assess the situation and had said that he did not think that the smell was coming from neighbour A and suggested that it might be an alternative property. The landlord arranged for both properties to be inspected on 22 September 2021.
The resident complained to the landlord on 3 September 2021, she said that she had reported ASB, as there was drug use and smells coming from the flat below her. She felt that it was taking too long to deal with, and she was dissatisfied that a caretaker had checked her vents as she expected a contractor.
On 28 September 2021, a contractor visited the residents and neighbour A’s property and was only able to obtain access to the resident’s home. The contractor told the landlord that, “smells experienced are coming from the small W.C extractor fan as everything is sealed up exceptionally well.” It noted that there were no smells evident at the time of the visit and that the resident said that the smells were sporadic and there had not been any smells for a couple of weeks. The contractor suggested turning the extraction system up to create more negative pressure in the toilet to prevent any smells from entering.
On 6 October 2021, the resident reported that she had smelt cannabis twice that week and asked for an update about having filters fitted to stop the smell accessing her home. The landlord instructed contractors to “stop up” any gaps in the ceiling of two neighbouring properties on 11 October 2021, it also contacted the resident to provide an update.
The resident complained to the landlord on 23 November 2021, that she had made a complaint several weeks previously and had not heard anything. The landlord responded on 25 November 2021, and noted that the resident said that she was dissatisfied because the actions it stated it would do to resolve the cannabis smells have not been completed and it had not kept the resident updated; she felt that the issues had been going on for too long and, it was still unclear regarding which property the smell was coming from. In response the housing manager agreed to chase up the technical team and send weekly reminders until they have completed their actions and write to the block regarding drug taking and point out that it is a breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord sent its stage one response on 30 November 2021, it said that the complaint was about the lack of contact and follow up work following an inspection at her home. It also:
1. Confirmed that an inspection had taken place on 1 November 2021, and that there were no smells evident at the time, and that any smells “could be coming from the WC extractor fan as the flat was “sealed up well”.
2. It was arranging for fans to be overhauled to ensure they were functioning correctly and hoped that this would be before 6 December 2021.
3. It upheld the complaint and apologised that the resident had cause to complain.
The resident responded on 1 December 2021, and said that she thought the landlord had incorrect information about her complaint. She said that:
1. She had reported the smell of cannabis on 11 May 2021, and had given a crime reference number and although, she had been given assurances that the matter would be investigated, seven months had passed, and the issue was unresolved.
2. An inspector had attended, after she had complained, who she had told that the issue was not persistent. He had said that filters could be fitted to the vents to stop the smell and said that this would be arranged. She had chased this up and it was still not done.
3. She was housebound and a vulnerable adult with ongoing health problems. The smell of cannabis was impacting on both her and her son’s health, her son has asthma and sinus problems, and when the smell was strong, she has nose bleeds.
4. She had been told that her complaint had been closed and said that she had been failed by the landlord and wanted to escalate her complaint to stage two because of the lack of service that she had received from it.
5. She wanted the landlord to compensate her as the situation had also affected her mental wellbeing and caused her unnecessary stress and suffering.
The landlord responded by email and apologised that the resident felt that her feedback had not been fully considered and offered reassurances that several actions had been put in place, these were:
1. It would be sending out a cautionary letter to her neighbours regarding the use of cannabis and explaining that further action will be taken if allegations were substantiated.
2. Repairs to the extractor fan had been arranged for 9 December 2021.
3. It acknowledged that she wanted her complaint to be reviewed at stage two and said that they would close stage one down and if she remained dissatisfied, she should write to them within twenty working days setting out the reasons for her dissatisfaction.
4. It acknowledged delays in responding to her initial issue and it not providing clear outcomes regarding the inspection that had taken place on 1 November 2021, and apologised for this. It also offered £150 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble caused to her.
The landlord sent a letter to all residents on 3 December 2021, it reminded residents about the terms of the tenancy agreement that prohibits the illegal smoking, taking or distribution of drugs in the building and asked residents to report any issues to both the police and it.
The landlord contacted the resident on 23 December 2021. It apologised that she had to escalate her complaint and said that it had identified the contractor who had said that filters could be fitted to the extractor fans and that it would get this arranged. It had arranged to deliver an air filter machine on 27 December 2021, and hoped that this would help the situation. It also confirmed that the complaint had been escalated to stage two.
The landlords housing manager spoke to the resident on 7 January 2022, and sent a follow up email that confirmed that:
1. She had mentioned two flats where the smell of cannabis was coming from that needed to be investigated.
2. It had discussed with her the letter sent to all neighbours about the use of cannabis and the need to report incidents to the landlord and the police. It would also follow up with the police to see if they had received any reports because of the letter. The police would also be asked to carry out random patrols in the block and visit those addresses that she had identified.
3. She had logged a repair to the main door which was insecure.
4. The landlord offered to visit to photograph the extractor fans, but the resident said that was not necessary and had already been done.
5. The resident confirmed that she did not want to move out of her flat, and the landlord confirmed that this was only asked to rule this out as an option to resolve the issue.
6. It would liaise with police to try to identify and address any illegal drug taking and would update the resident weekly on any actions taken.
On 11 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to say that she was concerned that the housing manager had contacted her and not the complaints team. The landlord explained that it had established a ‘complaints task force’ to take an integrated approach to dealing with complaints to ensure that the issue was fully resolved. The resident agreed that this approach made sense and said that she understood that the landlord would close the complaint at this point but that the resident could contact the Housing Ombudsman in eight weeks if things were not resolved.
The landlord responded to the resident on 11 January 2022, and confirmed that the response should be considered as its stage two response. It said that:
1. It would contact the extractor fan company to see if the fitting of an odour filter was an option. It would arrange an appointment for the fan to be serviced.
2. It apologised for the confusion about the complaint task force and confirmed that going forward the housing manager would still be responsible for addressing illegal use of cannabis.
3. It upheld the complaint and offered £150 compensation.
Specialist contractors instructed by the landlord visited on 20 January 2022 and produced a follow up report that said that the extraction systems between the residents and neighbour A’s properties were working and that there was no work required as there were no faults identified.
The resident called the landlord for an update on 21 January 2022. It confirmed that it had arranged for two other apartments to have their fans serviced on 14 February 2022, and 28 February 2022. The resident queried if there could be a tear in the vent shaft which emits onto the roof and said that smells were now coming through the washing machine cupboard and that she was feeling down as she cannot open a window. The resident also said that the housing manager had been out to speak to neighbours about allegations of cannabis use and one was upset and said that it was not coming from their home, yet the neighbour had seen them with a “joint.”
On 9 February 2022, the landlord visited neighbour A who denied that the smell of cannabis was coming from their property. The landlord had information that the smell might be coming from another property in the block, a visit was unsuccessful, so a letter was sent to this resident. The landlord updated the resident following the visit to the neighbour A, the resident did not agree that cannabis was not smoked at the property, however, she did suggest it could be another neighbour. The landlord agreed to investigate this.
On 21 February 2022, the landlord exchanged internal emails with colleagues and said that the resident had pointed out that contractors who had attended previously had carried out a different inspection than the previous contractors.
The landlord also queried if there could be damage or a blockage to the ventilation shaft. It also commented that the resident’s life was “being made an absolute misery” and went on to say that she was unable to use one of the bathrooms and that the smell was “really getting to her.”
The landlord provided an update to the resident on 28 February 2022, that said:
1. Contractors had attempted to service two other resident’s extractor fans. Of the two, one was being inspected that day and the other had not been available, but it would remain on the landlord’s call list until access was achieved.
2. The resident’s feedback regarding the extent of the tests carried out had been shared with contractors.
3. Reporting incidents of cannabis use to the police was key as they could attend and gather evidence, it would also continue to carry out visits to find out where the smell was coming from.
The resident approached this Service on 16 March 2022, and said that she was disabled and housebound and had mental health issues, which the landlord was aware of. She has internal air vents within the property, in both bathrooms and in the open plan kitchen/lounge. The smell of cannabis that comes through the vents from a neighbour’s property has affected her ability to live comfortably in her home, and when the smell gets strong it impacted on her sinuses which leads to nose bleeds. It also affected her youngest son who has asthma. the situation had also significantly affected her mental health.
She said that she wanted the landlord to:
1. Check for leakages within the neighbour’s air vent system.
2. Check that there is no blockage from the escape point on the roof of the building.
3. Compensate her for the impact this situation had on her life.

Actions taken post complaint.

On 18 April 2022, the resident asked the landlord for an update about an outstanding work order and told it that:
1. The issue remained ongoing after 11 months, and that she had recently had sinus problems and two nose bleeds (that she believed to be because of the smell of drug use).
2. The heightened stress had caused tinnitus, impacted on her mental health, and she felt that she had been “dragged down to the depths of despair.”
3. The smell of drugs was not as often as experienced in the past, but it was still present, and over the Easter weekend she had smelt drugs once in the early morning and several times late at night. She did not believe that it was another neighbour using drugs and maintained that she could hear someone in neighbour A’s home, and that the smell was coming from neighbour A’s home.
4. She was concerned about the summer months as the drug use increased then.
The landlord responded and said that it had discussed the issue with a contractor who intended to send an operative out to check for any loose pipes in the property. It also enquired if she had reported incidents to the police and asked for permission to share the email with the housing manager. The resident gave permission to share the email and said that she was unsure about the pipe and that she had not reported incidents to the police as she felt that “it clearly gets nowhere and is just wasting my own time and adding pressure on my own mental wellbeing. I am finding this whole long episode far too much to deal with as it is because it is impacting my health on a huge scale.” She had also been told by the landlord that the police were making regular patrols. The landlord agreed to get the pipe checked and check if the police patrols were still ongoing.
On 20 April 2022, the resident reported that at approximately 6:30am there was a strong smell of drug use in her hallway and bathroom. She heard a noise from the flat underneath that she believes is the room used by neighbour A’s son, who she believes is the perpetrator. The landlord responded and said that it would check with the housing manager to see what the next steps were.
The resident made a further report on 25 April 2022, she said that there had been more smells in the bathroom and along the hallway at the weekend and that she was suffering nose bleeds which her doctor said could be caused by the smell aggravating her sinuses and causing bleeding. She had also seen neighbour A’s son sitting on the balcony smoking drugs. She felt that this would continue “as long as they are allowed to get away with it.” The landlord made a note on the internal case management system that said it had spoken to the housing manager and that it needed video evidence as it was the resident’s word against neighbour A’s.
On 29 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident, it said that:
1. It had met with her as part of a visit to the block accompanied by a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO).
2. It needed evidence of the drug use and unless it had evidence it was unable to take any action.
3. It confirmed that the resident had said that the drug use happens at night and weekends when the landlord’s staff are not around and that the police are “not likely to call round at short notice with their priorities.”
4. It asked if she had photographic evidence of the use of drugs on the balcony.
5. The police and the landlord had visited neighbour A and had not smelt drugs in any room or on the balcony. Based on having no evidence, there were no grounds to act against neighbour A.
6. The PCSO had smelt drug use in the communal area, immediately outside the communal front door, but it was hard to tell where it was coming from, and neighbour A had also mentioned that students come into the block who smoke drugs.
7. The landlord would send a general letter to remind residents that the smoking of illegal drugs is prohibited on the premises.
The resident responded on the same day. She said that she did not recall being asked for photographic evidence and that she had made a note to get some going forward. She asked that the landlord check the vent system to understand how they work and check for any blockages, she also asked that when the landlord sends out the general letter it ensures that all residents receive a copy as she understood that it had ran out last time leaving some residents not receiving a letter.
The resident has also spoken to this Service and has said that cold smoke testing was arranged for 6 June 2023, but has not been done. She also said that the situation is still ongoing and that she smells drug use on at least three or four times per week and has caused her extreme stress, which has resulted in an increased number of migraines and positional vertigo.

Assessment and finding

Scope of the investigation

The resident has told this Service that the cannabis smell has had a negative impact on her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure to act by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

Resident’s reports of cannabis use (ASB) by a neighbour.

When considering complaints about ASB it is not the role of the Ombudsman to reach a determination on whether ASB has occurred. Instead, the Ombudsman looks at whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps, in line with its policies and procedures, to investigate the reports and take proportionate action, where necessary.
The landlord took some steps to investigate the resident’s reports of cannabis use by neighbour A (and other neighbours) between May 2018 and April 2022. This included speaking with neighbour A, writing to neighbour A, writing to all residents, checking with the caretaker, visiting the block, and liaising with the police. All these steps were appropriate and in line with its ASB policy. The landlord asked the resident (and other residents) to report incidents to the police and it, which was a reasonable request to gather evidence of the drug use. However, the Ombudsman notes that there is no evidence that the landlord asked its residents to report drug use to the police until December 2022. As drug use is a crime, under the Misuse of Illegal Drugs Act 1971-section 8, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have directed residents to request assistance from the police sooner and should have liaised better and more frequently with police colleagues for support and assistance to deal with the issue in a more joined up way. Reports could also be used to feed into local intelligence that might have prompted a multi-agency approach to the issue to resolve the situation earlier for the resident.
The landlord also received reports that the drug use was being perpetrated by other neighbours and took steps to investigate this. The landlord concluded that there was insufficient evidence to act against neighbour A. This was based on the neighbour’s response to the allegations and the evidence gathered from visits. This Service acknowledges that obtaining evidence the smell of cannabis is difficult for a landlord to do, it is especially complicated in situations where the allegations are denied by the alleged perpetrator (as was the situation in this case). However, not all options to gather evidence were explored by the landlord. The resident was not asked for photographic evidence of neighbour A smoking drugs until April 2022, when asked she agreed to do this and commented that she had seen neighbour A’s son smoking drugs during the previous summer. This was a missed opportunity, and the neighbour was left to endure the situation without a full explanation regarding the landlord’s intentions.
The landlord’s interventions between May 2021 and November 2021 were at times sporadic and some actions were not followed up. This Service notes that the landlord says that a risk assessment and action plan was discussed with the resident during a telephone call on 19 May 2021, however, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that a written action plan was completed and agreed with the resident or that it was updated and reviewed at any point during the time that the ASB was being investigated. A comprehensive and meaningful action plan would have been an opportunity to agree a preferred method of contact, and to arrange convenient dates and times when the landlord could catch up with the resident. It would also have been a chance for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectation in terms of what it was able to do and to set realistic objectives. The plan could have set a formal contact arrangement and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, helped form a better relationship between the resident and the landlord. It should also have set out specific actions the landlord would be taking to provide support, which would have given the resident some reassurance that it was taking appropriate action. It should also have been reviewed regularly, to ensure actions had been taken and to set new ones, as necessity arose. The consequence of poor action planning was that communication from the landlord was sporadic and often reactive, and this would have provided little assurance to the resident that the landlord was taking all reasonable steps to improve the situation.
It was appropriate that the landlord discussed the allegations made with neighbour A. However, although the landlord made some efforts to follow its ASB policy when responding to the resident’s reports of noise and ASB, this Service has not been provided with evidence that shows that it took a proactive approach to gather appropriate evidence to allow a better-informed discussion with neighbour A about the allegations, it could have asked the resident to keep a diary setting out dates and times of the smells in order to question neighbour A about who was present in the property at those times. It is recognised that the action a landlord takes must be proportionate. However, it should have given greater consideration, at an earlier stage, to the impact the neighbour’s alleged behaviour was having on the resident and her son, particularly considering their own vulnerabilities. The failure to do so meant they were left to live in an environment that was affecting their health and causing them distress, for a prolonged period.
The landlord also tried to assess, if it could identify any faults within the property that would allow the transference of the cannabis smells and set out to eliminate them. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this was solution focused and shows the landlord did take steps to resolve the issue. Contractors acting on the landlord’s behalf inspected the resident’s home on three separate occasions on 19 June 2019, on 21 August 2020, and on 20 January 2022. Service sheets submitted after the inspections confirmed that the system was working correctly, and no recommendations were made in respect to the mechanical ventilation system.
On 20 January 2022, an engineer sent to inspect the extractor fans observed that the system was a mechanical extract ventilation (MEV) unit, so did not have any filters The engineer also noted that the only option available to the landlord would be to fill vents connected to the property, decommission the MEV system, and fit individual extractor fans in each property. However, it was also noted that this might not solve the issue.
While it is positive that the landlord considers all suggested recommendations, this Service acknowledges that it would be unreasonable for the landlord to carry out a wholescale overhaul of a working system when there are no guarantees that the changes will work and achieve the desired outcome (no smells). It would also be unfair to the resident to build expectations on something that might not work.
This Service notes that the landlord acted in a proactive, and problem-solving way by purchasing an air filter system for the resident in December 2021, which it hoped would assist with the smell that she was experiencing. It also ordered a USB plug to allow the resident to use the filter. This Service considers that after November 2021, the landlord was customer focused and committed to trying to help the resident to resolve the issue.
Taking all of this into consideration, this Service acknowledges that throughout the management of this complaint, there were times when the landlord took a proactive and customer focussed approach to the resides reports of a cannabis smell coming from a neighbouring property. However, there were also service failings regarding the landlord’s response which resulted in the resident feeling that she was not being listened to, or updated about actions taken, caused her unnecessary time and trouble by having to chase the landlord for updates and impacted on her mental and physical health.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident first logged her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB in September 2021. This was not logged as a formal complaint until the resident told the landlord again in November 2021. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to assess the situation sooner and take steps to offer reassurances to the resident that her reports were being giving the correct response.
The landlord responded at stage one in November 2021, unfortunately the response did not address all the issues and the resident had to contact the landlord again to explain her position. At this point, the landlord acknowledged that the response was delayed, and communication was not what it should have been. It also compensated the resident with a £150 payment for her time and trouble.
On 1 December 2021, the resident asked that her complaint was escalated to be reviewed by a senior manager at stage two. This was responded to on 11 January 2022, which was approximately 41 days later. The landlord’s complaint policy states that complaints should be responded to within 21 days at stage two, which means that it was approximately 20 days out of target.
The landlord fully upheld the complaint and offered a further £150 for the resident’s time and trouble. This Service considers that this was a reasonable response and as such acknowledges that the landlord accepted its failings, offered an apology, and offered compensation for the resident’s time and trouble. The Ombudsman therefore considers that there was reasonable redress for the service failings identified by this investigation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was service failure regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of cannabis smells from a neighbouring property.
In accordance paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlords failing in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord took some steps to resolve the ASB that was reported by the resident. However, when the allegations of cannabis smoking were denied, it looked to find a resolution by identifying a repair to the property. While this Service acknowledges that this was proactive and solution focused, it also considers that reports of the smell of cannabis coming through a window would never be resolved by fixing an extractor fan. The source of the cannabis smoking should have been investigated further and better use of the landlord’s time and resources should have been allocated to that, instead of to the repair requests, especially when the landlord had three expert reports that said that the fans were working correctly.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for its service failure to act in accordance with its complaint policy in terms of its response times and communication following an inspection. To put this right the landlord offered the resident £300 compensation, which consisted of a payment of £150 made in November 2021 for the resident’s time and trouble and a further £150 payment made in January 2022 as part of its stage two response for the time and trouble she had invested pursuing the issue. Given the level of service failure, this was appropriate and proportionate, and provided reasonable redress to the resident for the inconvenience and distress its failure caused to her.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord to
1. Pay the resident £100 (this is in addition to the previous £300 that the landlord has already paid to the resident) for the distress and inconvenience that she has suffered because of the failings identified in this report.
2. Develop and agree a risk assessment and action plan with the resident that sets out what actions are required and who will do them (including timescales) to address the ASB that is reported. The plan should establish regular contact arrangements and should be reviewed on at least a monthly basis.