South Tyneside Council (202314195)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314195

South Tyneside Council

2 October 2025

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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of nuisance caused by his neighbour smoking.
2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

At the time of the complaint the resident had an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The property has since been transferred to another landlord.
The resident has physical and mental health diagnoses including autism and asthma.
On 21 April 2023 the resident called the landlord to report that his neighbour was smoking cigarettes and cannabis. He said the smoke was coming into his property making him feel unwell.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 April 2023 to raise a formal complaint. He said the smoke was witnessed by professionals during a joint visit the previous week. He asserted that the landlord had failed to reply to him “many times.”
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 1 June 2023, as follows:
1. It had spoken to the officer who visited the property on 21 April 2023. They reported they did not smell cigarette smoke when entering the building but it was noticeable when they left.
2. It had listened to a recording of its call with the resident on 27 April 2023. It was satisfied it was factual and appropriately conducted in accordance with its policies and procedures.
3. During unannounced visits it had not smelt cigarette smoke or cannabis both within the resident’s home or within the communal area. A letter had been sent to the block about smoking.
4. It investigated the resident’s concerns about communication issues. It acknowledged that there were a “small number” of occasions where a response was not received. It said this was due to “miscommunication” by staff.
5. It acknowledged that it failed to “consistently” deliver excellent service and meet service standards. It apologised for any inconvenience.
On 1 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to set out his dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response which he said was “flawed and dismissive.”
The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 6 July 2023 set out a summary of the resident’s recent reports and its subsequent response. It apologised again for its communication failures. It offered £30 compensation to try to put things right.
On 19 July 2023 the resident contacted us to report that he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. Furthermore, he believed the landlord deliberately delayed its response to the day the property was transferred to the new landlord.

Assessment

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of nuisance caused by his neighbour smoking

The landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour Procedure (ASB procedure) says that low level disagreements between neighbours where there is no breach of tenancy will generally not be considered as ASB cases.
The landlord’s Complaints and Compliments Policy and Procedure (complaints policy) says it will consider paying compensation if a resident has suffered stress and anxiety.
The resident first contacted the landlord to report nuisance smoking on 21 April 2023.
A file note dated 27 April 2023 set out the landlord’s conversation with the resident. When it said it intended to speak to his neighbour he asked why he had not been told. It advised it had “nothing to do with him”. It also set out his concerns that it was not taking him seriously. He felt that a visit to the neighbour was unnecessary because it should take him at his word. He had also expressed his dissatisfaction with the officer’s “attitude.”
It was reasonable that the landlord would consider visiting the resident’s neighbour to discuss the reports as part of its investigation. However, its response to his query about its visit was dismissive. Considering the nature of the complaint it would have been appropriate to check he was comfortable with the visit before going ahead. Its failure to acknowledge this was inappropriate.
A further file note dated 27 April 2023 confirmed the landlord spoke to the resident again later that day. It agreed it would discuss the reports with his neighbour. He agreed his neighbour was entitled to smoke in their property. However, his concern was that it was entering his property.
There is no evidence that the landlord considered whether there might be a point of entry within the property. It failed to carry out a thorough investigation which was inappropriate.
In an email to the landlord, also dated 27 April 2023, the resident said the issue had been witnessed by his advocate and an officer during a joint visit. In an email to the resident of 18 May 2023 his advocate said she had informed the landlord that she could smell smoke during the visit on 21 April. She confirmed the officer had said the same at the time.
During an email to the police on 26 May 2023 the landlord updated on the outcome of its joint visit with them. It had been unable to access the communal area and could not smell cannabis outside. A calling card was left notifying the neighbour of the complaint and asked them to make contact.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 1 June 2023 confirmed that the officer had smelt smoke during the visit on 21 April. Its subsequent response was reasonable, including that it had discussed the reports with the resident’s neighbour. However, we have not seen detailed file notes of these discussions which is a record keeping failure.
Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. Its response confirmed that it had appropriately investigated the resident’s complaint about a lack of communication. It was transparent about its failures and provided an explanation. However, it failed to consider compensation for distress and inconvenience in line with its complaints policy.
In his email to the landlord dated 27 June 2023 the resident set out the impact the smoke had on him including that it was making him “physically sick.” In an internal email of the same day the landlord asked its legal team to confirm if it was under any obligations to prevent smoke entering the property.
There’s no evidence that a reply was received and no evidence that the landlord followed up its query. Furthermore, it missed a second opportunity to consider whether there might be a point of entry within the structure of the building.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 6 July 2023 offered £30 compensation for its communication failures. This put right to some extent its failure set out above.
It’s unclear if the landlord investigated the resident’s reports as an ASB case. It would have been appropriate for it to have set out its approach to the resident in writing in line with its policy. This would’ve provided clarity and helped to manage his expectations around processes and outcomes.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £125 which is in line with our Remedies Guidance. It may deduct the £30 it offered if this has already been paid.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s Complaints and Compliments Policy and Procedure (complaints policy) says:
1. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. In exceptional circumstances it will extend its response by a further 10 working days. It will write to the resident to advise them of the new target date for completion.
2. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Where this is not possible it will issue a holding letter apologising for the delay and giving a new target date which should not exceed a further 10 working days.
3. In both cases if a further 10 working days is required it will need to agree the extension with the resident.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that exceptionally landlords may provide an explanation to a resident containing a clear time frame when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 20 working days at stage 1 or 10 working days at stage 2 is required it should be agreed with the resident.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 27 April 2023. A file note dated 4 May said it had not been able to contact the resident by phone. Therefore it emailed him asking that he make contact to discuss his complaint. We have not seen a copy of the email which is a record keeping failure.
A file note dated 12 May 2023 stated that the landlord emailed the resident to ask to extend the deadline for its complaint response to 30 May. This was an extension of 6 working days which was in line with its policy. It said the resident had agreed and a holding letter sent. We have not seen a copy of the email or letter which is a record keeping failure.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 1 June 2023. This was 2 working days over the target date however it’s acknowledged that the delay was of short duration.
The resident emailed the landlord on the same day to say he was unhappy that the response was emailed to him at the end of the day. He said he’d asked it previously not do this. It meant that when he called to discuss the response there was no one available. This caused distress. The landlord failed to take the resident’s needs into account which was inappropriate.
During June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report further incidents. On 29 June the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it was investigating the issue under the stage 2 complaint. It said it was waiting for information from other services to be able to respond. It asked for an extension to the deadline and said it was aiming to respond as soon as possible because it knew it was “bothering” the resident.
It was inappropriate of the landlord to delay its investigation into the substantive issue while it was waiting to issue the complaint response. Furthermore, it failed to adhere to its complaints policy by issuing a holding letter setting out the new target date. The language used in its response failed to reflect the resident’s lived experience. Its failures caused distress and inconvenience.
The resident’s frustration was evident when he emailed the landlord on the same day to request a meeting. He added that his priority was to seek a resolution to the substantive issue. He asked for a call back to arrange a meeting which his advocate would attend.
In a further email to the landlord, also dated 29 June 2023, the resident asked why it extended its complaint response without seeking his agreement.
On 4 July 2023 the landlord emailed the resident. It correctly identified that the Code permitted an extension of 10 working days without the resident’s permission. It said the delay was because it needed to arrange to meet with the resident and his advocate. It added, this was in addition to “the other meetings I have to do with other customers as well as the overall investigation into the complaint.” The tone of the response was inappropriate and dismissive.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was dated 6 July 2023 however it was not emailed to the resident until 14 July 2023. In its email to the resident of 12 July it said it was still working on the complaint therefore it could not have written its response on 6 July. In his communication with us the resident highlighted this error as contributing to his loss of trust in the landlord.
We acknowledge the resident’s concern that the landlord deliberately delayed issuing the response until the day of the stock transfer. However, there is no independent evidence to corroborate his assertion.
The landlord’s response said that the outcome of the complaint was discussed with the resident during a meeting with the Head of Housing and the investigating officer. In his communication with us the resident said the meeting did not take place. We have not seen any evidence that says otherwise.
Furthermore, the landlord’s response went on to acknowledge the resident’s request for a meeting with the Head of Housing. It explained why it did not think this was necessary. Its response was contradictory causing distress to the resident.
During his communication with us the resident also said he was unhappy that the landlord had not informed him of his right to escalate to the tenants panel. He referred to the complaints policy. The policy dated July 2023 makes a commitment to exploring the possibility of a tenants panel. It does not say there it was already in place at that time. Therefore there was no failure of service regarding this element of his complaint.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation which is in line with our Remedies Guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of nuisance caused by his neighbour smoking.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord must:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £225 compensation comprised of:
  1. £125 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the residents reports of nuisance caused by his neighbour smoking. It may deduct the £30 it offered if this has already been paid.
  2. £100 for the distress caused by its complaint handling failures.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance of the orders above to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure the language used in its communication with residents reflects their lived experience.