Habinteg Housing Association Limited (202323678)

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323678

Habinteg Housing Association Limited

15 July 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Request for a smoke test to establish how cooking fumes were entering the property.
2. Concerns raised regarding the landlord’s management of asbestos within her property.
3. Concerns raised regarding her fences at the property.
4. Concerns raised about her health and wellbeing due to noise from the neighbouring property.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is 2-bedroom end-of-terrace 2-storey property with a private garden.
The resident is elderly and has disabilities and health conditions. One health condition is pain caused to the resident’s eyes when in contact with cooking fumes due to contracting shingles in her eyes in 2016.
In a previous stage 2 response dated 23 August 2022 (brought to this service and determined on 28 March 2023 under case reference 202202823), the landlord agreed to undertake a smoke test to establish how cooking smells from the neighbouring property were entering the resident’s property.
The landlord carried out the smoke test on 24 May 2023. It was then in communication with the resident over the next 4 months regarding repairs recommended in the report to reduce the migration of smells into her property. During this timeframe the resident also reported concerns to the landlord about:
1. The neighbour’s rose bushes attached to her fences at the front and rear of the property.
2. Its electrician attending her property without knowledge of the asbestos in her ceilings.
3. Excessive noise heard from the neighbouring property.
On 27 September 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint regarding:
1. The length of time taken by the landlord to complete a smoke test.
2. The landlord’s refusal to carry out a further smoke test as recommended in the smoke test report dated 6 June 2023.
3. The landlord had not given her neighbour a timescale for removing plants and other items from her fences so she could paint them.
4. Its electrician attempting to drill in her ceilings when these contained asbestos.
5. She could hear her neighbours’ children “banging and screaming”.
6. The landlord not providing appropriate support to resolve the issues within a reasonable timeframe which had impacted her health and wellbeing.
On 26 October 2023 the landlord provided a stage 1 response. This stated:
1. Its delay in completing the smoke test was due to her neighbour’s personal circumstances.
2. Its surveyor and contractor would attend on 30 October 2023 to post inspect the remedial works she had carried out and to identify any further repairs.
3. It asked her neighbour to remove their rosebush from her fence at the front and to remove their rosebush, piece of laminate (flooring) and wicker from the rear fence by 20 October 2023. It was aware this had not been carried out but said its neighbourhood manager was proactively working to resolve the issue.
4. It would engage with a horticulturalist about when to prune and maintain rosebushes and ensure the neighbour maintained their garden and rosebushes appropriately.
5. It was up to the electrician to work safely and take steps to undertake an asbestos survey if they suspected this was present. Its records show there were no health and safety issues in the resident’s home.
6. It had offered to increase the £100 compensation (recommended during the previous complaints process) to £350 to acknowledge that things could have been carried out quicker.
7. Its neighbourhood manager had suggested completing diary sheets/logs of when the incidents occur and they also provided her with a link to the ASB team at the local council.
8. It would pass her case to its ASB officer for investigation if it considered the noise was excessive.
In her escalation request dated 28 October 2023 the resident stated:
1. The landlord had failed to consider her illness while handling her request for a smoke test.
2. She confirmed her agreement for its surveyor to post-inspect remedial works. She previously gave her availability for the landlord to check this but no one attended.
3. She wanted the landlord to request that her neighbour remove the twine and rosebush within 1 week.
4. If the landlord engaged a horticulturalist to maintain the neighbour’s garden, that would be unfair. She also questioned its provision of fencing in the neighbour’s garden.
5. She had provided it with a report from an asbestos test in 2017 which found asbestos was present in the ceilings at her home.
6. Her neighbour had shouted at her while putting up fence panels in her garden.
A stage 2 panel hearing took place 29 November 2023 which was attended by the resident. In its final response dated 8 December 2023, the landlord stated:
1. Its surveyor inspected works to fill holes on 20 October 2023 and confirmed it had ordered a further smoke test.
2. As the resident had informed it that she was still experiencing cooking fumes in her property, it would inspect work carried out at the neighbour’s property.
3. The resident had confirmed that the neighbours’ plants were no longer tied to her fence panel. However, she queried if the fence posts it had installed in her neighbour’s garden were in the most appropriate position.
4. It clarified that it intended to ask the horticulturist for advice on pruning and maintaining gardens that it would ask the neighbour to adhere to.
5. It thanked her for providing the 2017 asbestos report and said it would use this to populate its new asbestos register.
6. The resident had agreed to provide diary sheets/incident logs and therefore at the appropriate time its ASB officer would be available to work with her and address the ASB issues reported.
The resident told us on 18December 2023 that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her complaints raised through its complaints process.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

We have previously considered the resident’s concerns raised about cooking smells entering her property in a previous determination dated 28 March 2023. This considered the landlord’s handling of this concern up to the date of its final response of 23 August 2022. We have therefore considered the landlord’s handling of this matter since August 2022 up to the date of the final complaint response of 8 December 2023.
We acknowledge the resident’s comments that the situation with the landlord was adversely impacting her health. However, we are unable to investigate if there was a causal link between reports of health issues or the worsening of health issues experienced by the resident and the actions of the landlord. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option. However, we will consider if the landlord took into account the resident’s vulnerabilities while handling her concerns.

Response to the resident’s request for a smoke test to establish how cooking fumes were entering the property

In her September 2023 formal complaint, the resident said she was dissatisfied with the length of time taken by the landlord to complete the smoke test and regarding its refusal to carry out a further one.
The landlord agreed on 23 August 2022 to undertake a smoke test to establish how cooking fumes from the neighbouring property (there was a shared wall between the two properties) were entering the resident’s property to provide a suitable remedy. This issue was affecting the resident’s eye and previous repairs carried out had not resolved the issue.
Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 act states that “fumes or gases emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance” constitutes statutory nuisance.
The landlord’s tenant handbook sets out its repair responsibilities. This, in part, states that the landlord is responsible for the upkeep of the “structure and outside of the properties, including drains, gutters and outside pipes”.
The landlord arranged for an independent company to undertake the smoke test and this took place on 24 May 2023. By doing what it previously agreed, the landlord acted appropriately. However, as it took 9 months to arrange the test, the landlord did not act within the 28 calendar day timescale for routine repairs stated in its repairs and maintenance service standards. In its stage 1 and 2 complaints responses, the landlord explained that the delay in carrying out the test was due to the neighbour’s personal circumstances. We note that it was necessary for the neighbour’s household to make arrangements to stay away from their property while the smoke test was being undertaken. Evidence we have seen indicates the landlord made several attempts to arrange the smoke test with the resident’s neighbour but that initially, they did not agree to the dates being proposed. However the neighbour later agreed for the smoke company to attend on 24 May 2023.
We recognise that the landlord had to balance the resident’s personal circumstances with the neighbour’s situation. However, by continuing in its efforts to get the neighbour to agree a date for the smoke test as opposed to taking enforcement action to access their property to complete the test, this prolonged the situation for the resident. This meant there was an unreasonable delay in addressing any repairs needed to minimise smells entering her property.
The report dated 6 June 2023 found that smoke and odours were migrating from the neighbouring property into the resident’s property. The report recommended:
1. The gaps in the wall between the two properties were sealed up in accordance with the relevant building standard and fire regulations.
2. Re-test once remedial work is complete.
The landlord completed works on the neighbour’s side by 5 July 2023. Prior to this in June 2023 the resident told the landlord that she had completed remedial works to fill in the gaps within her property herself. It was agreed that the landlord’s surveyor would inspect the work in her property.
It is clear the resident initially chased the landlord to inspect on several occasions in June and July 2023 but no visit was forthcoming. This was unreasonable. The landlord then offered to inspect her property on 16 August 2023, however the resident was on holiday. Due to ongoing smells that the resident said was coming from her kitchen sink and WC, around the same time, she asked the landlord that the smoke company also attend the landlord’s inspection to assess if works had been successful in preventing the smells entering her home. In its stage 1 response explained that, prior to arranging a further smoke test, it wanted its surveyor and contractor to attend her property to inspect but also to identify if there were any further repairs. It confirmed it would visit on 30 October 2023 and told the resident that it would arrange a smoke test within 30 days of this visit. Given the resident had reported ongoing smells, the landlord’s approach was reasonable.
The landlord’s surveyor attended on 30 October 2023 as agreed however as at the date of the landlord’s final complaint response issued more than 5 weeks later, it had not completed the smoke re-test. This is evidence of the landlord not doing what it said it would do. However, the landlord confirmed it had raised a job for the smoke re-test and said that it would post-inspect the remedial works carried out in the neighbouring property to see if further repairs were required. This was appropriate however we expect the landlord to demonstrate it has adhered to actions agreed in its final response within a reasonable timeframe.
It is clear that the landlord did not complete the smoke re-test within the timeframe agreed. This is further evidence of the landlord failing to do what it agreed with the resident. The smoke re-test however was subsequently carried out on 23 September 2024. Following this, the landlord undertook a recommended repair to remedy holes in the soil stack (in October 2024) which were enabling cooking fumes to reach the resident’s property. The resident confirmed to us that the work undertaken by the landlord has resolved the issue. While we welcome that a solution to the problem has been provided, this happened more than 10 months after its 8 December 2023 stage 2 response. We are mindful that this is more than 2 years after the landlord initially agreeing to conduct a smoke test (on 23 August 2022). The purpose of this was to identify a suitable remedy to resolve the issue. This delay in providing a resolution was unreasonable particularly given the resident’s vulnerabilities. The delay and failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities while handling her request for a smoke test was a significant failing.
In its stage 1 response the landlord referenced having offered the resident (on 30 June 2025) £250 in acknowledgment of the delay in completing the original smoke test. This was reasonable and is evidence of the landlord acting in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
However, considering the additional failings identified during this investigation, and in consultation with our remedies guidance, this amount was insufficient to put these right. Additional failings include the landlord’s delay in completing the smoke re-test and the extended timeframe taken to remedy the issue of cooking fumes migrating into the resident’s property. This results in a finding of maladministration. It is reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to her (£550 in total compensation including the £350 offered in June 2023 and referenced in its stage 1 response).

Response to the resident’s concerns raised about its management of asbestos within her home

The resident’s complaint concerned the landlord’s electrician attempting to drill into her asbestos-containing ceilings due to being unaware of the asbestos.
Landlords have a legal duty to manage asbestos in the common areas of their residential properties under regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 (CAR regulations). This requires landlords to identify any asbestos containing materials, to assess the risk, and to make a plan to manage that risk. This is echoed in the landlord’s asbestos policy.
There is, however, no ‘duty to manage’ or to maintain an asbestos register for domestic properties. The presence of asbestos itself in a domestic property does not constitute disrepair. However, if it is damaged or deteriorates, and there is the risk of asbestos dust, then the landlord should act to prevent disrepair arising.
The general duties in Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HASAWA) apply to domestic properties managed by landlords. This means that landlords have a duty to protect their tenants from any risks from work activities being carried out in their homes. Where work being done involves asbestos-containing materials then the regulations will also apply. These require that a risk assessment is carried out before any work is started to see if asbestos is present and to ensure that appropriate precautions are taken to deal with any asbestos identified.
On or around 5 September 2023 the landlord’s electrician attended the resident’s property to complete electrical testing. On the same date the resident contacted the landlord expressing her concern that the electrician had been unaware of asbestos in the ceiling. The resident explained the electrician wanted to drill in the ceilings containing asbestos to fit carbon monoxide and heat detectors. She confirmed the electrician used adhesive to attach the detectors on the ceilings after she refused to allow them to drill into her ceilings.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had no records of asbestos being present in the resident’s home and that it was up to the electrician to work safely, carrying out a survey if asbestos is suspected. It said however it would arrange for an asbestos survey of her home. Following this, the resident provided the landlord with an asbestos report of tests carried out in 2017. The landlord confirmed in its final response that it did have this information on file. It explained however that it was held in a documentation system that had not been checked when investigating her stage one complaint.
The landlord’s failure to share with its contactor information it had about asbestos identified in the resident’s home, is evidence of it failing to take adequate precautions to protect the resident from the asbestos previously identified. This lack of appropriate management of asbestos was a significant failing as it potentially compromised the health and safety of the resident. Also, the failure to acknowledge the situation the resident had brought the matter to its attention indicates it did not carry out a thorough investigation at stage 1.
In its final response, the landlord confirmed that the 2017 report would be used to populate its new ‘live asbestos register’. This action was appropriate as it would allow staff and contractors to view asbestos prevent the situation happening again. It also confirmed it would carry out an asbestos survey. Given the length since the previous survey, this action was also appropriate as it would identify if there was any deterioration in the condition of the asbestos within her home. The landlord raised an order for an asbestos management survey on 29 November 2023 which was completed on 6 December 2023. It also apologised for a lack of any response from its assets team when agreed with the resident.
This shows that the landlord took some steps to put right failings. However, it did not provide any apology for its failure to act in line with its obligations or offer the resident any compensation for its failings. Therefore, the redress offered was insufficient to resolve the resident’s complaint. The landlord therefore shall pay the resident £200 compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for failings while responding to her concerns. This is consistent with our guidance on remedies for maladministration where the landlord’s failing has adversely affected the resident although the impact is temporary.

Response to the resident’s concerns about her fences

In her complaint the resident said she was unhappy about the length of time taken by the landlord to get her neighbour to remove items attached to or behind her front and rear fences.
The landlord’s tenant handbook sets out its and the resident’s responsibilities. This states the landlord is responsible for boundary walls, fencing and gates where it had provided these. However, in the resident’s case, she had installed both the fences at the front of her property and at the boundary in her rear garden. This is not in dispute.
The resident first contacted the landlord on 13 August 2023 asking it to assist with getting the neighbour to detach rose bushes from her front and rear fences. She was concerned about the weight of these causing damage to the fences and wanted to repair and paint the fences. The resident reiterated her request on a number of occasions over the next few weeks mentioning other items the neighbour had put up against the fences. She also said the neighbour was not maintaining the rose bushes meaning she had clear leaves and petals in her garden.
Initially the landlord indicated it would not get involved as it considered the matter a ‘neighbour dispute’ however, it subsequently agreed to ask her neighbour to remove plants and items against her fencing. We note that the resident previously brought a similar matter to us (determined in 2019) regarding encroaching plants involving a different neighbour. It was recommended at this time that the landlord consider a permanent solution to this issue suggesting it agreed with the neighbour, a timetable of trimming the foliage. Therefore, in the circumstances, the landlord’s commitment to raise this matter with the resident’s neighbour to enable the resident to proceed with repairing the fences, was appropriate.
On 22 September 2023 the landlord confirmed it had spoken to her neighbour during its visit to the scheme that week who had agreed to detach plants from the (resident’s) fences. The landlord gave the neighbour a deadline of 20 October 2023 to take this action however this was not adhered to by the neighbour.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged this and told the resident its neighbourhood manager was proactively working to resolve the issue. It also told the resident in both complaint responses that it would engage with a horticulturalist for advice regarding when to prune rose bushes and ensure the neighbour maintained these and garden appropriately going forward. As this is evidence of the landlord taking steps to avoid similar issues reoccurring, this was reasonable.
By mid-November 2023, the neighbour had detached their rose bushes and removed their items that had been against the resident’s fences. The landlord also installed fences on the boundary (next to the resident’s fences) so the neighbour could grow plants against it. While the resident questioned the fairness of it providing fencing in the neighbour’s garden, we recognise that the landlord took this step to resolve the situation for the resident and to avoid the same situation reoccurring. Therefore it acted reasonably in this regard.
It is unclear from the available evidence if the landlord got the neighbour to agree to garden and rosebush maintenance on a periodic basis, as mentioned. We acknowledge however that as the neighbour has since moved, it is not appropriate to include a recommendation in relation to this matter. Overall, the landlord’s response to this concern was reasonable.

Response to concerns raised about her health and wellbeing due to noise from the neighbouring property

In her formal complaint the resident said her health and wellbeing had been affected by the landlord’s lack of support provided to resolve her concerns. The resident specifically mentioned the impact of the cooking smells from the neighbouring property. We have already assessed the landlord’s approach to this complaint above therefore we will not address further here.
The resident also said that noise from her neighbour (children “screaming and banging”) was also impacting her health and wellbeing. This concern was echoed by the resident’s daughter in her email to the landlord dated 6 October 2023 in which she stated “noise levels” were unreasonable. In the resident’s stage 2 complaint, she reported the neighbour had shouted at her when she was putting up fence panels in her garden and that she had reported this to the police.
The tenant handbook states: “everyone is entitled to live in peace and quiet in their own home, and not be disturbed by the behaviour of neighbours”. It encourages residents, as an initial step and if safe to do so, to speak to their neighbour about the impact of the behaviour causing concern. The handbook states if the situation does not stop, it can take action to address ASB where this is experienced. Depending on the severity of the problem, it will use tools ranging from informally helping residents resolve their differences to taking legal action which may lead to possession proceedings.
In response to the resident’s reports of noise and ASB, the landlord asked her to keep a diary of any further incidents and told her once it had this information it would forward her case to its ASB officer. Its request was in line with its handbook which makes clear it expected residents to keep written notes of incidents. This would enable the landlord to gather sufficient evidence to further evaluate the situation and determine the appropriate course of action, therefore was appropriate.
As at the date of its final response, the landlord had not received noise logs from the resident. However, evidence we have seen shows that within a few weeks of its final complaint response, the landlord allocated its ASB officer to the resident’s case (in January 2024). The officer sent a letter to the neighbour in relation to the resident’s reports (although we have not seen a copy of this letter). We note that the resident’s neighbour subsequently moved out of the neighbouring property in July 2024, therefore putting an end to the issues experienced.
It is evident that the landlord also installed ‘a noise reduction panel’ within the neighbouring property during the void period. As this was done to reduce noise transference, this action was appropriate and shows the landlord took steps at this time to avoid any further noise transference issues. The resident has since told us she no longer experienced noise problems.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns raised about her health and wellbeing due to noise from the neighbouring property was reasonable and proportionate.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for a smoke test to establish how cooking fumes were entering the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about its management of asbestos within her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about her fences at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns raised about her health and wellbeing due to noise from the neighbouring property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 4 weeks:
1. Provides an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
2. Pays the resident further compensation of £400 (£750 including £350 offered in June 2023) made up of:
  1. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for failings in its response to the resident’s request for a smoke test.
  2. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for failings in its response to the resident’s concerns about its management of asbestos within her property.
3. Provides us with evidence of compliance with the above orders.