Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Flagship Housing Group Limited (202405308)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405308

Flagship Housing Group Limited

13 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to a smell in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. His tenancy at the property began on 3 July 2023. The property is a 2 bedroom bungalow. The resident has mobility difficulties and is asthmatic.
  2. On 19 July 2023, the resident reported a “smell of cigarette smoke” in the property’s living room to the landlord. He said he believed this was coming from the radiators in the property. The landlord’s gas contractor attended the property on 1 August 2023. On 15 August 2023, it replaced the living room radiator.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 1 November 2023. He said that the smell was still present in the living room and hallway of the property, and he was unable to remove or cover it. This was causing him to avoid using the living room as it affected his asthma. He accused the landlord of failing to clean the property properly before his tenancy began.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 15 November 2023. It said that it was investigating the possibility of using a “neutralising spray or deodoriser” to resolve the issue. It advised it had also contacted the local authority’s environmental health (EH) department for advice.
  5. On 4 March 2024, the landlord moved the resident into alternative accommodation for a week. During this time, it carried out works to remove floor tiles in the lounge and hallway that it believed had absorbed the odour. It also carried out a deep clean of the window frames and ducting.
  6. On 11 March 2024, the resident returned to the property. He contacted the landlord to say that the smell remained. He asked it to escalate his complaint and move him from the property.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 30 April 2024. It said that it had made attempts to resolve the smell, but unfortunately these had not been successful. It said it had now approved the resident for a management transfer and would work with him to identify a suitable alternative property. The landlord apologised for the time it had taken trying to address the smell, and the impact on the resident of this. It offered him £1,000 compensation.
  8. On the same day, the landlord spoke with the resident and agreed to increase its offer of compensation to £1234.50. This represented 25% of rent on the property for the 10 months since the resident’s tenancy began.
  9. The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 9 May 2024. He expressed dissatisfaction with the compensation offered by the landlord. He claimed this did not reflect the money he had invested into the property such as having carpets fitted or the costs he would incur in moving, once a suitable property was found through the management transfer process.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has said that the smell in the property had an impact on both his physical and mental health. The Ombudsman is unable to determine the causes of ill health, and whether these can be attributed to a landlord’s actions or lack thereof. Such matters are best suited to consideration via the courts or a personal injury claim. This investigation will, however, give due regard to general distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced.

Landlord’s response to a smell in the property

  1. The landlord has provided records of the work carried out in the property before it was let to the resident. These show that it had each room of the property stain blocked and redecorated. The landlord has said that, for heavily nicotine stained properties “a stain block is used, this seals all the walls and stops any stains or smells from seeping through. This underwent two coats in [the property] to ensure double protection. During the inspection, there were no visible signs that this procedure had failed”.
  2. The resident reported that he did not detect the smell in the property in the first few weeks of his tenancy due to the smell of the fresh paint. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord also did not detect this prior to letting the property and believed it had taken sufficient measures to address any odour.
  3. The resident first reported the smell to the landlord on 19 July 2023. He attributed this to the radiator in the living room. The landlord appropriately raised a job to its gas contractor. It asked the contractor to treat it as a priority due to the resident’s vulnerabilities. The contractor attended on 1 August 2023 and replaced the living room radiator on 15 August 2023. This was within the 28 calendar days the landlord’s repairs policy sets to complete routine repairs.
  4. After the radiator was replaced, there is no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord about the smell again until 1 November 2023. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to believe that replacing the radiator had resolved the issue.
  5. Following the resident’s complaint of 1 November 2023, the landlord visited the property on 10 November 2023. In its stage 1 complaint response, issued 5 days later, it said it would look into using a neutralising spray or deodoriser to address the smell. It also said it would seek advice from EH.
  6. The landlord’s records show that it contacted EH about the issue, but they advised on 19 December 2023 that they were unable to assist as it did not fall within their remit.
  7. Separately, the landlord made internal enquiries to determine the best way to address the smell. It updated the resident on 31 January 2024 to say it was waiting for quotes from contractors for a “deep neutralisation treatment and clean”. The landlord provided similar updates to the resident on 6 and 13 February 2024, keeping the resident appropriately informed despite the lack of progress.
  8. On 23 February 2024, the landlord decided to change its approach. It proposed to lift the resident’s carpets and remove the floor tiles underneath, which it believed had absorbed the smell, before refitting the carpets. It also said it would arrange for a contractor to clean all the window frames, vents and ducting in the property. The landlord appropriately decided to move the resident into temporary accommodation for a week whilst it carried out these works.
  9. The landlord arranged the works promptly and they commenced just over a week later, on 4 March 2024. The works were completed on schedule and the resident returned to the property on 11 March 2024 as planned.
  10. On the day that he returned, the resident contacted the landlord and asked to escalate his complaint. He said that the smell remained, and he now wished to be moved from the property. The landlord’s internal records show that its repair department felt it had “gone above any beyond” and there was “nothing more” it could do. It noted that a member of its staff, as well as 2 independent contractors, had carried out a “sniff test” of the property prior to commencing works and been unable to detect any smell.
  11. The landlord visited the resident again on 3 April 2024. During this visit it advised him that it would consider him for a ‘management transfer’ to a new property, as he had requested. The Ombudsman notes that during this visit, the landlord raised concerns that the smell was strongest in the hallway close to the loft hatch – meaning it may be embedded in the loft insulation. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord investigated this further, and a recommendation is made about this below.
  12. The landlord reasonably decided to extend the timeframe for its stage 2 complaint response, to await the outcome of the management transfer request. This was approved on 23 April 2024 and the landlord provided its stage 2 response the following week. It also assisted the resident in applying to rejoin the local authority’s housing register.
  13. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that although it had made efforts to resolve the smell, these had been unsuccessful. It appropriately apologised for the time it had taken and the impact upon the resident. It offered an initial £1,000 compensation, which it later agreed to increase to £1234.50 – reflecting 25% of rent on the property since the resident’s tenancy had begun. This amount was in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances of severe maladministration.
  14. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this offer represents reasonable redress for the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman does not dispute the high level distress and inconvenience the situation has caused to the resident. However, it is evident that the smell was not detectable when the landlord let the property to him. Once the resident reported the smell, the landlord made appropriate attempts to investigate and resolve the smell, including carrying out extensive works in the property. When it was apparent the issue was not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction the landlord reasonably agreed to movie the resident via management transfer.
  15. The Ombudsman is sympathetic to the resident’s concerns about the expense of moving home again and losing the investment he has made in the property. However, it would not be reasonable for this service to order compensation for costs or losses that the resident has not yet incurred.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its response to the smell in the property.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that, if it has not already done so, the landlord pays the resident the £1,234.50 compensation it previously offered. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent upon this.
  2. The Ombudsman also recommends that the landlord carry out an inspection of the insulation in the property’s loft to determine whether it should replace this to help alleviate the smell.