Westward Housing Group Limited (202429599)

Background

1. The resident lives in a first floor, 1-bedroom flat. He told the landlord his neighbour smoked cannabis and the smell entered his home and was affecting his asthma. He told this Service the landlord failed to investigate his concerns or provide him with updates. He wanted the landlord to carry out a property inspection to identify how the smoke and odours were entering his home and to stop the problem occurring.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the smell of cannabis from a neighbouring property.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of the smell of cannabis from the neighbouring property.
4. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to complete a risk assessment or agree an action plan with the resident, despite logging his reports as an ASB case. Its communication with the resident was also poor at times. The landlord apologised and offered compensation for the delay in responding to the resident’s correspondence.
6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. It is noted that the resident said he had reported issues of odours entering his home since 2019. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
8. Taking account of the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events leading up to when the resident made a complaint in August 2024, up to October 2024, when the landlord issued its final complaint response.
9. The resident told this Service that the cannabis smell has had a negative impact on his health. Whilst the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, 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 he considers that his 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.
10. In cases involving ASB or odour transference, as is predominantly the case here, it is not this Service’s role to establish whether the reported incidents occurred, but to determine whether the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair in all the circumstances.
11. Having been notified of the issue of cannabis odours and smoke entering the resident’s property, the landlord was required to investigate and where appropriate, to take action. In this case, the resident told the landlord on 16 April 2024 that his flat smelt of cannabis since a new tenant moved into the property below.
12. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns on the same day and said it had logged an ASB report. Whilst this demonstrated the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously, there is no evidence it completed a risk assessment or agreed an action plan with the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this given smoking cannabis is included in its definition of ASB in its ASB policy. The landlord’s failure to do this was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations and set out what it could do.
13. The resident told the landlord on 23 April 2024 that his living room was full of smoke and he had to open the windows. He said the problem happened every day and he had photographs of the smoky room. The landlord responded on the same day and told him to report the issue of drug use to the police. This was appropriate given the police are best placed to deal with criminal behaviour.
14. The landlord asked the resident to complete ASB diary sheets if the problem persisted. This was consistent with its ASB policy as it needed to gather evidence and gain an understanding of the nature and extent of the problem. It also demonstrated the landlord took a victim centred approach and was willing to use its powers, rather than just rely on the police to address the resident’s concerns.
15. The landlord said it would arrange for a surveyor to carry out a property inspection to check if there were any holes or cracks that allowed smoke and odours to enter the resident’s property. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it was resolution focused and wanted to put things right for the resident. An appointment was arranged for 2 July 2024.
16. The landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour on 26 April 2024 and noted it had received reports of cannabis use from the address. It said it was a breach of the tenancy agreement to use illegal drugs and it would work with the police and take enforcement action if it received further reports. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and in accordance with its ASB policy.
17. The resident’s neighbour told the landlord on 26 April 2024 that he did not smoke cannabis but used CBD oil. In the absence of any evidence, the landlord was restricted in what further action it could take. It provided the resident with an update on the same day and reminded him to report any incidents of drug use to both it and the police. This was consistent with its ASB policy.
18. The resident told the landlord on 29 April 2024 that he had reported his concerns to the police, although he did not provide a crime reference number. There is no evidence the landlord followed the matter up with the police. This was a missed opportunity.
19. The landlord provided the resident with a further update on 16 May 2024. It said his neighbour tried to use CBD oil in a different way to try and alleviate the problem of odour transference. It also confirmed it had referred his concerns regarding the cracks in the walls and skirting boards to its property maintenance team.
20. The landlord visited the resident’s home on 2 July 2024. Whilst it said there were no odours coming up through the floorboards, it is unclear on what basis this conclusion was reached given no details of the inspection were provided to this Service. There is also no evidence the landlord provided the resident with an update following the inspection. This demonstrated poor communication on the part of the landlord and meant the resident was not clear on what action, if any, was being taken to address his concerns.
21. The failure to provide the resident with an update led to him chasing up the landlord on 19 July 2024. He said he wanted the landlord to take urgent action to address his concerns about smoke and cannabis smells entering his flat. He asked the landlord to establish if the smoke and smells could enter his home through gaps in the skirting boards and boxed in area in the bathroom. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request. This was a failure and led to the resident chasing up the landlord again on 2 August 2024.
22. The resident made a complaint on 12 August 2024. He said the landlord had failed to respond to his reports of ongoing ASB or keep him updated. He wanted the landlord to establish how the smoke was entering his home and to stop it. He also asked the landlord to provide an explanation as to why it had not responded to his emails and why it did not send a copy of the letter regarding cannabis use to all of the residents who lived on the estate. He noted the landlord agreed to do this during the visit on 2 July 2024.
23. The landlord issued a letter to all of the resident’s who lived in the block on 20 August 2024. This included reminding them that it was a breach of the tenancy agreement to use cannabis. It said residents should report any concerns regarding drug use to the police. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
24. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 20 August 2024.
25. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
26. In this case, the landlord acknowledged there was a delay in responding to the resident’s email. It apologised for the delay and offered the resident £25 compensation. This was consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy. It also confirmed that it had introduced new ways of working and apologised for the delay in sending out the letter regarding cannabis use. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it took learning from the resident’s complaint.
27. The landlord confirmed it would respond to the resident’s query regarding smoke and odours entering his home through gaps in the skirting board and boxed in area in the bathroom. No timescales were provided for doing this and meant the resident was not clear when he would receive a reply. The landlord also noted it was not treating his concerns about cannabis use as ASB. It said it had not opened an ASB case because his neighbour was using CBD oil. Whilst this provided clarity and ensured the landlord managed the resident’s expectations, this information contradicted previous advice that had been given to the resident, which included giving him reference numbers for his ASB reports.
28. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about odours and smoke entering his home through holes in the skirting boards and boxed in area in the bathroom. This was a failure and meant the resident was unclear on what action was being taken by the landlord to address his concerns.
29. The landlord reconfirmed its position on 8 October 2024 in its final complaint response. This included noting there was no evidence of a tenancy breach or criminality. It also noted its property services team had not followed up on the resident’s concerns regarding the skirting boards and boxed in area in the bathroom. It said this was because it could find no evidence of smoke or odours entering the resident’s flat. The landlord acknowledged the delay in providing the information and increased its offer of compensation to £50.

30. The resident made a complaint on 12 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It issued its stage 1 complaint response on 20 August 2024. This was 6 working days after the resident raised his complaint and was consistent with the 10-working day target in the landlord’s complaints policy.
31. The resident escalated his complaint on 10 September 2024. The complaint escalation request was acknowledged on the following day and the landlord issued its final complaint response on 8 October 2024. This was within the 20-working day target for responding to stage 2 complaints.

Learning

32. The landlord should ensure all reports of ASB are triaged at the outset to determine if they are considered as ASB under its ASB policy. The landlord’s failure to do this meant it did not manage the resident’s expectations.