We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Arhag Housing Association Limited (202324893)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324893

Arhag Housing Association Limited

25 October 2024

 

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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of reports of toxic fumes in the property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which was transferred from a previous landlord. The current landlord offered a new tenancy for the resident to sign but says that the resident refused to do so. The property is a 2-bed first floor flat.
  2. The landlord was made aware that the residents had significant medical issues, along with mobility and mental health issues.
  3. The resident previously reported issues with smells and fumes from the property below. She suspected that there was drug use, which led to the smells/fumes entering her property. The resident explained that she believed these were affecting her and her daughter’s health. The landlord maintained that there was no evidence of this following its investigations and those of the police.
  4. In January 2023, the landlord identified that the resident had removed the flue from the neighbouring property. This caused significant damage to the boiler and led to the neighbour having to leave the property until the boiler system was repaired. Further meetings between the resident, landlord and the police took place.
  5. The resident raised a complaint on 4 September 2023 due to an ‘ammonia’ smell in the property. She reiterated claims that it was due to the actions of her neighbour. The landlord attended and agreed to place the resident in temporary accommodation while it investigated the problem.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 17 September 2023. Within its response, it outlined the actions it had taken to investigate the smell and the claims that a neighbouring property was responsible. It confirmed that the resident was moved to temporary accommodation while investigations continued.
  7. The landlord carried out further investigations and treatments while the resident was in the temporary accommodation. In December 2023, the resident contacted this service and the landlord was asked to escalate the complaint.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 16 February 2024. Its response provided a timeline of events and detailed its investigation and any treatments or works it had undertaken. The landlord said an independent survey was carried out and it was awaiting the report. It said that, based on the outcome of the independent survey, it would liaise with the resident’s legal representative as to how it would proceed. The landlord explained that following a transfer request on medical grounds, the resident’s priority banding had been increased. However, it also indicated that it did not have any properties within its stock that would fully meet her needs.
  9. Following the stage 2 response, the landlord said it was satisfied that there was no risk in the resident returning to the property. The resident disputed this through her legal representative and since then 2 further air quality tests have been carried out. The resident has remained in the temporary accommodation during that time.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of toxic fumes in the property

  1. The landlord acknowledged that there was a history of reports from the resident about smells/fumes from the neighbouring property, with drugs being an alleged cause of them. The landlord said it had found no evidence of such activity and directed the resident to the police. In November 2022, the police attended the neighbour’s property following a similar report from the resident. The police found no evidence of the resident’s claims but advised the resident that it would carry out further unannounced visits to her neighbours given the reports she had made.
  2. As the landlord was unable to confirm the resident’s concerns, it was reasonable for the landlord to engage with the police. Given the lack of evidence provided by the resident or obtained by the police, there was no fault on the part of the landlord.
  3. In January 2023, the resident removed the boiler flue from the neighbouring property. This was apparently based on her continued belief that a neighbouring property was directing fumes into her property.
  4. The landlord and the police met with the resident and carried out further inspections of the neighbouring properties to assess the resident’s concerns. Again, it found no evidence of anybody directing fumes into her property and it was unable to smell the fumes she had referred to.
  5. Given the nature of the resident’s concerns, it would be necessary for the landlord to seek evidence of those actions. As it was unable to identify either the smell or a method by which somebody was directing fumes into her property, the landlord would be unable to take any action to address her concerns.
  6. It is evident that the landlord acted quickly upon receiving new reports of a strong chemical smell in September 2023. It arranged for a plumber to attend on 9 September 2023 and the Head of Housing visited on 12 September 2023. Following that visit, the landlord decided to decant the resident into temporary accommodation. The landlord made an offer of temporary accommodation on 15 September 2023. Given the resident’s concerns around health implications and the unknown nature and source of the smell, the landlord’s decision was reasonable.
  7. After the resident was decanted, the landlord carried out further checks to try and identify the cause of the smell. However, these checks were unsuccessful in identifying a source. The landlord also engaged with the local council’s Environmental Health team but emails show that they did not respond. As it was unable to identify a source of the smell, the landlord took a reasonable step in trying to remove the smell with a disinfection treatment.
  8. Following that treatment, the landlord said it was satisfied that it was safe for the resident to return to the property. The resident maintained that she did not agree, despite the landlord’s actions. At this time, the resident engaged with a legal representative and it was eventually agreed that an independent survey of the property would be undertaken. The results of this test came back after the stage 2 complaint response.
  9. The report from that survey said that there was no ‘ammonia-like’ smell in the property and a specific test for ammonia came back negative. The surveyor also carried out tests between the property and the neighbouring property. It was unable to find any method by which fumes were being, or could be, directed into the resident’s property.
  10. Ultimately, in the absence of any evidence of “toxic fumes” prior to September 2023, it was reasonable for the landlord to take no further action. This applies to either changes to the property or the enforcement action that the resident had requested the landlord take against her neighbour. It is clear that when the landlord found evidence of a smell in the property, it acted swiftly by decanting the resident. Its actions were proportionate given the unknown nature and cause of the smell, especially when considering the resident’s health concerns and known vulnerabilities. The actions taken during the complaint period were reasonable as the landlord looked to treat the smell and identify any potential cause. Having considered the landlord’s actions during this period, the Ombudsman makes a finding of no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer

  1. The resident made enquiries about a property transfer due to medical needs in June 2023. She provided letters from medical professionals which outlined their opinion on the suitability of the property.
  2. It is evident that following receipt of that information, the landlord provided mutual exchange forms and offered further advice around obtaining a property transfer. Based on the information it received, the landlord advised the resident that it would be difficult for it to meet a lot of her needs, given its current property stock. Given that limited stock, it said it would not currently be able to meet all of her requirements, as it did not have wheelchair accessible ground floor properties in the area she had specifically chosen. It was reasonable for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectation at this stage.
  3. The resident was advised to fill in further forms around medical requirements, so that her housing application could be reassessed. However, the landlord was clear in its position throughout that it would not be able to offer a property that met all the criteria. Despite not being able to make a suitable offer, the landlord contacted the local council to seek alternative properties or methods by which it could look to re-house the resident. Again, the landlord acted reasonably in exploring other options to assist with meeting the resident’s request.
  4. When the property on the ground floor of her current building became available, the landlord offered this to the resident, despite it not being wheelchair accessible. Although it did not meet all of her criteria, this was a reasonable proposition. Given the current situation, despite not meeting all of the resident’s needs, it would have offered some additional benefit in that it was on the ground floor.
  5. It is evident that once the landlord received the required medical information, it upgraded the banding on the housing application. However, it also maintained that the resident would need to continue to seek alternative means by which to obtain a property exchange if she needed the property to meet all her requirements.
  6. Ultimately, the landlord has shown adequate management of the resident’s request for a property transfer. It offered sound advice, set the resident’s expectations correctly throughout and sought to assist the process with the help of the local council. Given the resident’s requirements for a property and the limited scope in terms of area, it outlined that it could not meet those needs and suggested an expansion of the resident’s criteria. It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord managed the process in a timely and reasonable manner and offered an appropriate level of service. In view of these findings, this Service found there to be no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of toxic fumes in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer.