Flagship Housing Group Limited (202310430)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310430

Flagship Housing Group Limited

10 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of toxic fumes in the property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom semi-detached bungalow. The resident has a number of medical conditions collectively known as Crest syndrome. This affects her mobility and her ability to use computers and phones. The complaint was brought to the landlord, and subsequently escalated to the Ombudsman, with the assistance of her sister. For clarity, this report refers to both the resident and her sister as “the resident.”
3. The resident viewed the property on 20 December 2022, and her tenancy with the landlord began on 12 January 2023. The landlord’s notes show that it advised the resident to contact its gas contractor on 17 February 2022, who attended on the same day and confirmed there were no gas leaks. On 18 February 2022, the resident reported that her and 3 members of her family were unwell, and she was currently living with her sister. She thought that it may have been because of paint fumes and asked for the landlord to provide details of the paint used and confirmation that the property was safe.
4. On 24 February 2023, the resident raised a complaint. She was living with her sister because of suspected air pollutant in the property due to the paint after void works. The resident and 3 family members were sick and wanted the issue sorted so she could move back into the property.
5. On 28 February 2023, the landlord emailed the resident a copy of the paints and sealant used in the void works. On 1 March 2023, the landlord visited the property with the contractors responsible for decorating the property. It concluded that there was no issue with the property and assured the resident that the property was safe. On 2 March 2023, the resident complained that the landlord had not taken the concerns seriously and that it should have carried out an air quality test.
6. On 9 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It noted that after her move on 13 January 2023, the resident and her family became unwell. It attended on 17 February 2023 and inspected the boiler, pipework, and alarms and everything was working well. It said that an air test would not have been beneficial and that the paint used was water-based trade emulsion paint. It said that it was confident that there was no risk to the resident’s health. It signposted the resident to its insurers should she wish to make a claim and signposted her to environmental health who could arrange an independent survey.
7. On 21 April 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She stated that she believed it was the sealant that caused the fumes and not the paint as stated by the landlord. She pointed out that she moved into the property on 9 February 2023, not January 2023 as stated in the complaint response. She said that she had completed an air quality test which recorded the air quality as severe. On 24 April 2023, the landlord requested a copy of the readings from the test, but the resident had not taken photos of it.
8. On 22 May 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the error in its stage 1 complaint response about the resident’s moving in date. It said that its health and safety team explained that the paints used in the property are publicly available and not subject to any additional safety precautions. It noted that she had not provided evidence of her own air quality test. The landlord apologised that the resident felt dismissed. It said it takes all health and safety concerns seriously and after a thorough investigation it was satisfied that there was no risk from the products used in the property. It signposted her to its insurers should she wish to pursue a claim.
9. When the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, she remained unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response. She said that she had to move into her sister’s house for a month to ventilate the property. As a resolution to the complaint, she wanted the landlord to apologise for its lack of action and lack of compassion about her health concerns, compensation for the stress and upset caused, and reimbursement of £40 she spent on an air quality test.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation 

10. The resident has said that the landlord’s actions caused her sickness. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements.
11. We are also unable to investigate the paint used by the landlord or decide if the paint was or was not emitting particles at an unsafe level. Such a determination is beyond the scope of our service.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of toxic fumes in the property

12. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. When a landlord receives a report of potential toxic fumes, the Ombudsman would expect it to carry out an investigation proportionate to the potential risk and provide an update to the resident of its investigation in a timely manner.
13. The landlord responded appropriately to the initial report of fumes on 17 February 2023 by sending a gas contractor to check the boiler and pipework and confirmed there were no gas leaks or issues with the pipework and alarms. This was an appropriate response by the landlord.
14. After the resident reported sickness which she attributed to fumes from the paints and sealants in the property, it is evident that the landlord conducted a thorough investigation. It obtained details of the products used from its contractor which it provided to the resident, and it surveyed the property within 2 weeks of the report, with its contractors and the resident present. It concluded that the property was safe and assured the resident that it was safe for her to move back into the property. These were all appropriate steps for the landlord to take in the circumstances.
15. The landlord signposted the resident to its insurers if she wished to pursue a personal injury claim and it signposted her to environmental health should she wish to obtain an independent survey of the property. These were appropriate steps by the landlord.
16. After it surveyed the property and provided its outcome to the resident, she remained unhappy because she felt the landlord dismissed her concerns and that it should have carried out an air quality test. The evidence shows that the landlord considered this request, but it concluded that an air quality test was not necessary. The landlord appropriately advised the resident of this. It assured her that it was not dismissing her concerns and apologised if she felt that way. This was a reasonable response from the landlord.
17. This Service finds that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of toxic fumes in the property. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In this case, the landlord’s surveyor carried out a thorough investigation and appropriately communicated the outcome in a timely manner.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of toxic fumes in the property.