Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202208805)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208805

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

29 June 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of smoke entering his property from his neighbour’s flat.
2. This Service has also considered the complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, living in a flat.
4. The resident reported that he could smell cannabis in his property on 8 March 2022, which he thought was entering from his neighbour’s property through a broken vent. He said the smell was impacting his sleep, mental and physical health. The landlord scheduled a repair for 18 May 2022.
5. The resident raised a complaint on 29 July 2022 as he did not think the landlord had taken the issue seriously. In his complaint escalation, he said that the repairs had not resolved the issue.
6. In the landlord’s final response, it stated it had carried out extensive investigations but could not find a way that smoke could travel between the properties or identify any further required repair works. It said it was unable to identify the smell of cannabis during its visits, so it was unable to take legal action against the neighbour as it did not have sufficient evidence. It had also discussed moving options with the resident.
7. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response as the issue was still ongoing and Environmental Health (EH) had identified “a void in the party wall”. He also stated that there were outstanding repairs to his front door, which prevented him from completing a mutual exchange. He wanted the landlord to enforce his neighbour to stop smoking in the property, or complete repairs to ensure smoke could not enter his property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. The resident has raised concerns regarding the health implications of the reported smoke in his property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about his health. However, it is beyond the remit of our service to determine whether there was a causal link between the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of smoke entering his property and the impact on his health.
9. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, he should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstance.
10. Moreover, it is noted that the resident initially reported his concerns with smoke in March 2020. As the resident confirmed at the time that the issues had improved, and did not report the issue again until March 2022, the earlier reports will not be considered within this investigation. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. Therefore, this report will focus on the events from March 2022.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of smoke entering his property from his neighbour’s flat

11. Following the resident’s reports of the smell of cannabis entering his property, the landlord would be expected to take steps in line with its ASB policy to verify the allegations and take appropriate tenancy and/or legal action. This Service would also expect the landlord to consider any repair issues that may contribute to the smell of smoke entering the resident’s property.
12. The tenancy agreement outlines that the landlord will consider drug use to be a form of ASB. As such, the landlord should have taken steps, in line with its ASB policy, to establish whether ASB was occurring following receipt of the resident’s reports. In order to take action, landlords require evidence of the reported behaviour, so it was appropriate that it advised the resident to complete diary sheets. The Ombudsman appreciates that as the resident declined to complete these, the landlord would have had little evidence to rely on. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord explained the importance of such evidence to the resident in order to support its investigation.
13. The landlord would be expected to have undertaken some level of investigation to satisfy for itself that the alleged criminal activity was not being perpetrated. It was not appropriate or sufficient to solely signpost the resident to the police, as the landlord also had a responsibility to prevent such behaviour. There is no evidence that it discussed the reports with the neighbour until a property visit on 20 October 2022, seven months after the issue was initially reported. This was an unreasonable delay. It is also noted that the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the actions it would take as it advised the resident on 20 May 2022 that it would consider sending a letter to the neighbour regarding his reports; however, there is no evidence that it did.
14. The landlord concluded following the property visits that it could not identify the smell or use of cannabis. It was therefore limited in the actions it could take, as it would not be appropriate to take tenancy or legal action against the neighbour without evidence of the alleged behaviour. The landlord also explained to the resident that it was unable to stop his neighbour from smoking cigarettes in the property.
15. As the landlord was unable to find evidence that the neighbour was smoking cannabis, or prevent him from smoking cigarettes, it was appropriate that it assessed whether any repairs could be completed to mitigate the impact on the resident. The resident reported that a vent in the property was broken and letting in smoke on 14 March 2022. The landlord promptly raised a repair on 16 March 2022 which was appropriate, as in accordance with the tenancy agreement the repair fell within its remit of responsibilities. However, the landlord did not schedule an appointment until 18 May 2022. This was considerably longer than this Service would expect for a minor repair.
16. There were subsequently numerous follow-on repair works to fill holes behind the cupboards, skirting boards, and radiator, which were completed on 31 October 2022. Given the clear, ongoing impact on the resident, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not prioritise the follow-on appointments to ensure the repair was promptly completed. As it failed to do so, it took over six months to complete the repairs in full, which was an unreasonable timeframe and prolonged the impact on the resident.
17. It is acknowledged that the landlord was not necessarily responsible for the entire delay as it noted on 4 August 2022 that the repair was suspended as the resident did not want a specific contractor to attend. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord discussed the reasons for this decision with the resident, so it is unclear whether it should have taken steps to make accommodations to the resident.
18. In his complaint to this Service, the resident stated he did not think the landlord had taken sufficient action as EH had identified additional repairs. The EH inspection identified “a possible gap around a service pipe within the ceiling void that passes through the party wall” and “a small piece of plasterboard missing exposing the insulation behind to the same wall”. It is important to note that EH stated the chance that smoke was passing through the party wall was low, so further repairs would not necessarily resolve the issues. The inspection also occurred after the landlord’s final complaint response, so the landlord did not have the opportunity to consider the additional information within the complaint process. It is therefore recommended that the landlord informs the resident whether it will complete further repairs or provide an explanation if it does not deem the work necessary.
19. The resident raised concerns when he initially reported the issues in March 2021 that the property was not suitable for him due to the smoke impacting his health. He also subsequently advised that he was seeking alternative accommodation. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have inspected the property at this time, to confirm for itself that it remained habitable. However, it did not do this until the visit on 15 August 2022. Nonetheless, it was appropriate that the landlord discussed property move options with the resident, as it advised him to request emergency accommodation from the council, provide evidence so it could assess his banding for its internal transfer and discussed mutual exchanges. As a result, the landlord managed the resident’s expectations regarding the property move options available.
20. On 18 July 2022 the resident chased repairs to his front door, which, in accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for. The resident then raised concerns that a mutual exchange would not be a viable option due to the outstanding front door repair. The landlord internally recognised that it had failed to raise the required follow-on works following a temporary repair and an appointment was subsequently scheduled for 28 September 2022. However, the resident advised this Service on 4 November 2022 that the works had not been completed and had been outstanding since May 2022. The landlord has therefore failed to fulfil its repair obligations or ensure that the resident has a fair opportunity to move properties through mutual exchange. An order has been made below to ensure the required repairs are completed.
21. Overall, there were significant delays in the landlord taking appropriate steps in line with its ASB policy to investigate the resident’s reports of his neighbour smoking cannabis and to complete the required repairs. This caused the resident significant distress, particularly due to the reported impact on his health, and time and effort pursuing the issue. The landlord failed to recognise its failings or the impact on the resident. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website), compensation of £300 is appropriate in cases where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings or tried to put things right.

Complaint handling

22. The resident initially raised a complaint on 29 July 2022 and the landlord responded on 5 August 2022 and stated the resident had agreed to close the complaint. The landlord’s response was not in line with this Service’s complaint handling code, as it failed to provide escalation rights. This caused a delay in progressing the complaint and resulted in the resident seeking advice from this Service and requesting to raise a further complaint on 22 August 2022. Ultimately, it caused a delay in progressing the complaint process.
23. The landlord issued a second stage one response on 16 September 2022. As it had already issued an initial stage one response, it would have been appropriate to handle the complaint at stage two. Furthermore, the response was nine days outside of the landlord’s ten working day response timeframe. The resident requested to escalate the complaint on 19 October 2022 and the landlord issued its stage two response within its 20-working day response timeframe. This Service’s complaint handling code outlines that two-stage complaint handling procedures are ideal to ensure that the process is not unduly long. Due to the landlord’s complaint handling failures, it issued three responses which prolonged the complaints process.
24. Although the delays were not necessarily extensive, it is evident that the resident spent additional time and trouble pursuing the complaint in order to receive a final response. As the landlord has failed to recognise its failings or take steps to put things right, compensation is warranted.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of smoke entering his property from his neighbour’s flat.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

27. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £300 due to its failures in handling the resident’s reports of smoke entering his property from his neighbour’s flat.
    2. £75 due to its complaint handling failures.
28. The landlord should complete the front door repairs within four weeks if the repairs remain outstanding or provide evidence the repairs have been completed.
29. The landlord must provide proof that it has complied with these orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

30. It is recommended that the landlord discusses the findings by the EH investigation with the resident and confirm whether it will complete the identified repairs.
31. It is recommended that the landlord assesses whether further staff training regarding complaint handling is required.