London Borough of Hounslow (202337986)

Decision
Case ID	202337986
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Hounslow
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	12 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a first floor flat. The resident has referred to her neighbour as part of this complaint. For the purpose of this report they will be referred to as neighbour A. Neighbour A was also a tenant of the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about rubbish and the smell of smoke coming from a neighbour’s property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about rubbish and the smell of smoke coming from a neighbour’s property.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s concerns about rubbish and the smell of smoke coming from the neighbour’s property.

5. There were unreasonable delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns raised in this report. This included that it had failed to carry out repairs in line with its published timescales. The landlord accepted in its final response to the resident’s complaint that there had been delays and that its communication had been inefficient. However, the landlord failed to offer a suitable level of redress for this.

 

 

Complaint handling

6. There were significant delays in the landlord sending its complaint responses to the resident which required our intervention. The landlord then failed to appropriately acknowledge its delays in its responses to the resident’s complaint. As a result the landlord has not acted in line with our dispute resolution principles of be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order   The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 10 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors. This compensation is made up as follows: £250 for its errors in its handling of the resident’s concerns about rubbish and the smell of smoke coming from neighbour A’s property. £250 for its delays in its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	10 December 2025
3	Instruction order The landlord must provide information to the resident about how she can make a personal injury claim in respect of her health.	10 December 2025

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should share the details of its liability insurer or assess the resident’s claim internally about the damage she said has been caused by the smoke coming from neighbour A’s property.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 February 2023	The resident complained the landlord had not addressed her reports about the rubbish and the smell of smoke coming from neighbour A’s flat below. She explained: The odour from the smoke was getting into her carpets, sofa, clothes and was impacting her health. Neighbour A’s rubbish bins were overflowing due to them not being put out at the correct times. Carers had been discarding their rubbish, as well as masks and gloves on the porch after visiting neighbour A’s property. The front garden was overgrown and filled with rubbish which neighbour A was responsible for. The resident said she was unhappy the landlord had not carried out any repairs to eliminate the gaps between the properties to prevent the smoke entering her flat. She said the landlord had agreed to do these works. She also said neighbour A was vulnerable and this impacted their ability to manage the front garden which the landlord had not taken into consideration.
March 2024 to June 2024	The resident continued to complain to the landlord about the issues raised in her formal complaint. She also contacted us for assistance in progressing the complaint.
3 June 2024	We advised the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint within 5 working days.
10 June 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord explained the action it had taken between March 2023 to June 2024, which included that it had: Carried out inspections within both properties. Repaired neighbour A’s front door to prevent the smoke escaping. Visited both properties on 3 occasions to witness the impact of the smoke on the resident. The landlord apologised for its delays in carrying out the repairs to eliminate the pathways between the resident’s and neighbour A’s properties. It had scheduled to complete these works on 18 June 2024. The landlord also apologised for its poor communication and because it had not previously explained to the resident that smoking within a private premises was a lawful activity and was exempt from being a statutory nuisance. The landlord said it would concentrate on trying to rectify any defects within neighbour A’s property to address the smoke entering the resident’s flat.
24 June 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the issues remained unresolved including that: Neighbour A’s bins were overflowing. The landlord had known for 3 months about the sofa being dumped in neighbour A’s front garden which was also overgrown. The repairs had not resolved the issue of the smoke permeating into the resident’s property.
4 September 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said it had: Accepted it had taken a considerable amount of time to resolve the issues raised by the resident and that its communication should have been more efficient. Reminded neighbour A about keeping their front garden in good order. It also followed this by sending them a warning letter. Carried out work within neighbour A’s property on 18 June 2024 to cover potential holes between neighbour A and the resident’s property. Identified further repair during a follow up visit to neighbour A’s property which it had scheduled to complete on 18 September 2024. Apologised it had not updated the resident about the actions it had taken and provided contact details if the resident needed to make any further reports about neighbour A’s handling of their rubbish and front garden.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s responses to her complaint and asked us to investigate. She said the landlord had failed to respond to her on multiple occasions when she tried to complain about the issues.       The resident said she had: Constantly cleaned her furnishings, clothes, and living space because they smelt of smoke. Purchased air purifiers to reduce the impact of the smoke. Paid contractors to carry out repairs to seal gaps under the stairs, her front door, and to replace the flooring throughout her property. She said due to the continued impact of the smell of smoke she will need to replace the flooring again. The resident was also unhappy the landlord had not completed the repairs it had agreed to do in its final response. She said this was because neighbour A had refused it access. The resident said she had been exposed to the smoke for over 2 years, and this had impacted her health. She is seeking compensation to cover the works carried out within her own property, as well as the cost of air purifiers, and for new flooring throughout. The resident has also updated us that neighbour A unfortunately died in July 2025.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of rubbish and the smell of smoke coming from a neighbour’s property.
Finding	Maladministration

7. We understand that the situation involving neighbour A has caused the resident significant distress. It is important to be aware that it is outside our role to establish whether neighbour A has committed ASB but rather we will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, taking into account its own internal policies and industry best practice.

The landlord’s handling of the smell of smoke coming from a neighbour’s property

8. The resident complained about the smell of smoke permeating from neighbour A’s property, into the resident’s property in September 2022. The landlord responded by advising neighbour A to contact its repairs team so it could carry out an inspection to identify any gaps between the properties. Whilst it was positive the landlord identified this could be a repair issue, it should not have put the onus on neighbour A, who was vulnerable, to arrange the inspection. The landlord should have raised the issue as a routine repair which its published timescales state it aims to complete within 20 working days.
9. In March 2023 the landlord’s neighbourhood enforcement team visited the resident’s property and agreed there was a smell of smoke coming from neighbour A’s property. It was positive the landlord apologised for its delays in responding to the resident and that it raised the matter with its repairs team. However, there was then a further delay when the landlord then took 4 months to carry out the inspection and repair the gaps in neighbour A’s front door. This work should have been completed within its timescale of a routine repair. We understand these repeated delays caused the resident frustration who was trying to seek a resolution to the issue of the smell of the smoke within her property.
10. In July 2023 the resident told the landlord the repairs to the front door had not resolved the issue of the smoke permeating her property. The presence of the smoke was again corroborated by the neighbourhood enforcement team who visited on 5 occasions between August 2023 and March 2024. This team advised the landlord it should inspect the possible pathways between the properties allowing the smoke to travel.
11. It took the landlord 9 months (May 2024) to agree to carry out a follow up inspection of neighbour A’s property. Whilst it was positive the enforcement team visited the property in that time as witnesses; the landlord’s repairs team should have carried out a post inspection of the works it had carried out. This should have been completed as a routine repair from when the resident put the landlord on notice that the repair had not worked.
12. During the landlord’s inspection of neighbour A’s property its operative recommended blocking off an identified pathway for the smoke in a cupboard ceiling. It was positive the landlord completed this as a routine repair within its published timescales (June 2024).
13. It is accepted the repairs completed by the landlord had not resolved the issue of the smoke permeating into the resident’s property by July 2024. It was appropriate the landlord followed this up with another inspection of neighbour A’s property.
14. Sometimes investigating circumstances such as all of the above can take multiple visits and there may be more than 1 underlying cause. However, the landlord should have kept the resident updated and it should have responded to any repairs within its published timescales.
15. The landlord said in its final response to the resident’s complaint (September 2024) it had identified further repairs which it had scheduled to complete that same month. However, the resident has said neighbour A prevented the landlord from accessing their property to complete any of these repairs. If the landlord experienced any difficulty in accessing the resident’s property, we would expect it to have followed its relevant policy to resolve any access issues. This is to ensure the landlord carries out necessary repairs.
16. In August 2023 and in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response (June 2024), the landlord said it could not take any formal action against neighbour A. The landlord said this was because they were smoking in their private premises which meant the activity was exempt from being a statutory nuisance. The resident disagrees with this decision.

 

17. Neighbour A was entitled to smoke legal substances in their property. There was also no clause in neighbour A’s tenancy agreement prohibiting them from smoking in their private property. For this reason, the landlord would not have been able to take any legal action against neighbour A in respect of breaching their tenancy agreement.
18. Theoretically it is possible for smoking to have such an impact it would cause a statutory nuisance. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 states that smoke (This does not apply to the smell of smoke) from a premises could be a statutory nuisance if it:
    1. Unreasonably and substantially interferes with the use or enjoyment of a home.
    2. Injures health or is likely to injure health.
19. Between March 2023 and the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint (September 2024), the landlord took a number of reasonable steps to investigate, which are all actions listed in its ASB policy, to determine if the resident’s complaint about the smell of smoke coming from neighbour A’s property could be considered as a statutory nuisance. This included:
    1. Neighbourhood enforcement officers carried out multiple visits and witnessed the smoke in neighbour A and the resident’s property.
    2. It issued neighbour A with a tenancy warning letter explaining about the impact the smoke was having on local residents.
    3. Gave both parties advice about using air purifiers and keeping their windows open.
    4. The landlord offered both parties mediation. We are not commenting on the reason this was not taken up by the resident.
20. However, we have seen no evidence the landlord contacted or signposted the resident to the local environmental health team. Where it has been accepted by both parties that there was smoke in the resident’s property, this agency would have been the most appropriate to investigate and determine if the levels of that smoke and air quality met the threshold for a statutory nuisance.
21. The resident told us the smoke permeating the property affected her health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
22. The resident also raised the issue of her health to the landlord. It failed to address these concerns about her health. The landlord should have advised the resident how she could make a personal injury claim if she considered her health had been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. This is the reason we have ordered the landlord to do this. It must inform the resident about how she can make such a claim either via its liability insurer (if it has one) or to the landlord internally. If the landlord assesses the claim internally, it should write to the resident confirming the reasons for its decision.
23. The resident has raised complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had a chance to put things right first. There is no evidence the resident raised complaints about:
    1. The landlord being responsible for the repairs she arranged to be completed within her own property.
    2. The landlord not cleaning or removing the rubbish from neighbour A’s property following their death. 
24. We have no power to investigate these further concerns raised by the resident. However, the resident may be able to make a liability claim if she believes any damage to her personal belongings, including the flooring has happened due to the landlord’s negligence in its handling of these repairs. We will not comment on its insurer or the likely outcome of an insurance claim if one is made. We will make a recommendation for the landlord to share the details of its insurer or assess the resident’s claim internally and provide a response.

The landlord’s handling of the rubbish

25. The resident complained about neighbour A’s handling of their rubbish overflowing in the front garden of the property in September 2022. We have not seen any evidence the landlord communicated with the resident about this until March 2023. This was a significant delay in the landlord’s communication. The landlord should have:
    1. Contacted the resident within 10 working days in line with its ASB policy for non-urgent matters.
    2. Investigated the resident’s concerns which would include collecting evidence and communicating with neighbour A about the complaint it had received.
    3. Updated the resident with the action it had taken until it had closed its investigation.
26. The landlord sent neighbour A a tenancy warning letter on 30 March 2023. This set out the allegation of ASB against them. It also explained that as part of their tenancy agreement, they had agreed to dispose of rubbish in a safe and responsible way.
27. The landlord’s action was proportionate which set out for neighbour A that the allegations, if proven, would be a breach of her tenancy for which the landlord could take further action against them. This is also listed as one of the options the landlord will take in responding to cases such as this in its ASB policy.
28. We have not seen any communication between the resident and the landlord about this issue between April 2023 and March 2024. It would therefore be reasonable for the landlord to have concluded the matter had been resolved.
29. The landlord was put on notice in April 2024 by the resident about the following allegations in relation to neighbour A:
    1. Their bins were constantly overflowing into the garden and onto the street.
    2. Used disposable gloves and masks were being discarded on the porch.
    3. There was a sofa in the front garden.
    4. The front garden was overgrown.
30. We have not seen any reason the landlord took 3 months (June 2024) to respond to the resident about these allegations. We understand the resident chased the landlord during this time which added to her frustration and inconvenience in trying to resolve this.
31. However, the landlord acted positively in June 2024 by sending a further tenancy warning letter to neighbour A. The tone of this warning was clear and appropriate and evidenced the landlord had also witnessed the allegations reported by the resident. The landlord gave neighbour A 7 days to rectify the issues relating to the rubbish and the front garden.
32. Between August 2024 and September 2024 the landlord was right that it:
    1. Apologised to the resident for its delays in handling the resident’s reports about garden maintenance and rubbish. 
    2. Signposted neighbour A to its garden maintenance service for future support.
    3. Provided the resident with contact details so she could report any further issues directly to a specified member of the landlord’s staff.

 

 

33. Overall, there was significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the issues referred to above. The landlord acknowledged some of these delays in its complaint responses. It also accepted its communication was inefficient which meant the resident was having to chase multiple different departments whilst trying to seek a resolution to the complaint.
34. The landlord failed to provide suitable redress for its errors and missed the opportunity to put things right in its complaints process resulting in our finding of maladministration.
35. Our remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. This suggests awards of between £100 and £600 for such situations, where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

36. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s formal complaint which she raised on 28 February 2023. She continued to complain to the landlord about the issues and asked us to intervene due to its lack of response. We advised the landlord to provide the resident with its stage 1 complaint response which it sent to her on 10 June 2024. This was 324 working days after the resident first raised the complaint. This was a significant delay and was outside the timescales set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling.
37. We would expect a landlord to provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of its acknowledgment of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s delay in its complaint handling missed an opportunity for it to provide a coordinated response across its teams to address the resident’s concerns raised in her complaint. This poor level of communication frustrated the resident because she was having to chase the landlord to engage with her through its complaints process. This had a significant impact on the resident who was trying to seek a resolution to the matters within her complaint.
38. We have not seen whether the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint. However, it sent its stage 2 complaint response (September 2024) 52 working days after the resident asked it to escalate the complaint. We would expect a landlord to provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of its acknowledgment of the complaint.
39. We have not seen any proportionate reason for the delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. The landlord also failed to recognise its overall significant delays in its complaint handling within its final response to the resident’s complaint. We understand this lack of acknowledgment will have caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience. As a result, the landlord missed the chance to put things right resulting in our finding of maladministration.
40. We have considered our remedies guidance. Our award of £250 compensation has taken into consideration the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s errors in which it failed to act in line with our dispute resolution principles of be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.

Learning

Communication

41. In this case, the landlord failed to keep the resident regularly updated. On some occasions the landlord did not respond at all. This left the resident chasing the landlord whilst she was left feeling frustrated and dissatisfied. This may have been avoided if the landlord had provided regular updates and communicated its actions and decisions in a clear and timely manner.
42. The landlord should ensure its staff recognise, record, and respond to residents’ complaints in line with the timescales set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.