Habinteg Housing Association Limited (202202823)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202823

Habinteg Housing Association Limited

28 March 2023

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 regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about being affected by cooking smells entering her property.

Scope of investigation

2. In raising a complaint with the landlord and in her correspondence with this Service, the resident had described the adverse effect on an existing medical condition that the cooking smells had caused. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments but it is beyond the remit and expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there is a causal link between the landlord’s actions, or lack thereof, and the resident’s reported health issues. What the Ombudsman can consider is how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and whether it treated her fairly.

Background and summary of events

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has resided in the property, a two-bedroom maisonette, since 2010.
4. In October 2020, the resident raised a complaint with her landlord concerning various issues, including how the landlord responded to her requests to repair the downstairs toilet extractor fan to prevent cooking smells entering her property. The resident subsequently brought the complaint to this Service (case reference 202016207) and a determination was issued on 30 June 2021. The Ombudsman determined there had been a service failure regarding how the landlord handled the repairs to the extractor fan as there had been an unreasonable delay before the fan was replaced. The landlord subsequently installed a new extractor fan.
5. In March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and informed it the new extractor fan had not resolved the issue of cooking smells entering her property. She wished to make a new complaint regarding this and described how strong cooking smells continued to enter her property via the downstairs toilet, the sink area and the bedroom. She stated this had exacerbated existing health problems.
6. The landlord arranged an inspection of the property to investigate the issue, but declined to open a complaint on the grounds that it considered the matter had already been responded to during the previous complaint and Ombudsman investigation. However, following further correspondence with this Service and the resident, it agreed to open a new complaint on 27 July 2022. It also arranged for a surveyor to attend and carry out a further inspection.
7. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
   1. Noted that it had arranged a second inspection of both the neighbour’s and the resident’s property and that it had arranged for the neighbour to be cooking while the inspection took place. The surveyor reported they did not detect any cooking smells in the resident’s property but noted the aromas may be entering through the venting pipe. While they advised it would not be possible to prevent all cooking smells from entering the resident’s property, they recommended the vent be relocated to try and redirect the cooking smells away from the resident’s property.
   2. Confirmed a repair appointment for 22 August 2022 to move the vent.
   3. Accepted it had not done enough to investigate the issue. It noted that the type of food that was cooked during the surveyor’s inspection was not the same type of food that was causing the issue and that it should have been more specific when it asked the neighbour to cook during the second surveyor’s inspection.
   4. Apologised for not considering the resident’s earlier request to undertake a smoke test, which she believed would identify other potential entry points to the property apart from the vent.
   5. Confirmed it would arrange for a smoke test to be carried out and would contact the resident once it had sourced a suitable contractor.
   6. Apologised for not undertaking a proper investigation of the matter and offered a goodwill gesture of £100 to the resident for the inconvenience this caused.
8. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as follows: the landlord had yet to undertake the smoke test it agreed to in its stage two response; the work to move the vent was done to a poor standard; that she was still experiencing cooking smells entering the property and; that the level of compensation the landlord offered did not properly reflect the stress and inconvenience the matter had caused her.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

9. Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 concerns statutory nuisance and inspections. Section 79(1)(c) of the act states that “fumes or gases emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance” constitutes statutory nuisance.
10. 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”.
11. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance service standards sets out how it categorises its repair types and its target timescales. For a routine repair, the landlord states that it aims to complete the repair within 28 calendar days from when it was reported.
12. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider making an offer of discretionary compensation in circumstances where “inconvenience has been caused by [the landlord’s] actions or failure to act”. The policy does not give any guidance on what level of financial redress should be offered.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about being affected by cooking smells entering her property.

13. Once the resident informed the landlord of continuing issues with cooking smells entering her property and the problems this caused her, it had a duty to respond to the matter in line with its obligations set out in the tenancy agreement, its published policies and procedures, and to ensure that it was in compliance with the relevant legislation.
14. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to inspect both the resident’s and neighbour’s properties and observe the condition of the resident’s property while her neighbour was cooking. While the surveyor did not report noting any smell entering the property, they recommended raising a repair to move the vent in the resident’s property. The landlord duly did this.
15. However, the landlord acknowledged that it’s overall response to the issue was inadequate. It accepted it should have specifically asked the resident’s neighbour to cook the type of food that the resident had stated caused strong odours to enter the resident’s property. It also accepted that it should have considered the resident’s earlier request to undertake a smoke test.
16. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, offer compensation and explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. This position is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It looked to put things right by offering £100 compensation and agreeing to arrange for a smoke test to be undertaken. It looked to learn from its mistakes by making changes to its procedures when arranging inspections. The stage two response explained it had made changes to the guidance it provides its surveyors when arranging inspections to ensure issues are examined properly and special arrangements are considered when the matter is an intermittent issue.
17. The landlord’s compensation offer of £100 is broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, which is available on our website, and which recommends a payment of £50 to £100 for service failure of a short duration that did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. This may include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. The distress the resident has been caused by the issue is acknowledged, along with her concerns about the effects of the cooking smells on her health. However, the compensation offered recognised the landlord’s delay in fully investigating the issue and its failure to consider additional actions such as the requested smoke test, as well the inconvenience these factors caused the resident, and is considered reasonable redress in the circumstances.
18. In correspondence with this Service, the resident has described the compensation offered as inadequate because it did not take into account the total length of time she had experienced cooking smells in her property. However, this investigation has only considered the time period of this complaint, and historical issues with cooking smells raised by the resident in a previous complaint with the landlord have already been considered by this Service, as noted above.
19. The resident stated that she was dissatisfied with the quality of the completed work to relocate the vent. The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 October 2022 to inform it of the poor quality of the work. The landlord replied on 10 October 2022 and stated that it would arrange an inspection of the vent. A work order was raised on 11 October 2022 to inspect the vent and to reseal the external pipe vent if required. It is not clear from the evidence provided if this work has been completed.  It is recommended that the landlord write to the resident to confirm the status of the work and whether the engineer who inspected the pipe resealed the vent pipe or found the original work to be adequate. The landlord should also consider offering further compensation to the resident if it did not arrange an appointment within its 28 calendar day target for a routine repair.
20. The resident has also stated her dissatisfaction that the smoke test that the landlord agreed to undertake had yet to occur. The landlord arranged for a contractor to visit the resident’s and neighbour’s property to undertake a smoke test on 14 October 2022. However, this did not take place and despite the landlord’s efforts, it has yet to be rescheduled. Records show the landlord has advised the resident it hopes to carry out the test early this year.
21. Records show the landlord has been in regular contact with the resident to keep updated on the status of the smoke test. While the delay in arranging this is understandably very frustrating for the resident and likely to cause her further distress, based on the information available, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to progress the smoke test and has limited other options available to it. While the resident has suggested the landlord could force entry to the neighbour’s property to carry out the test, the Ombudsman is satisfied this would not be a reasonable action and the landlord would be unlikely to have a legal basis for doing so. It should, however, continue with its efforts to progress the issue and keep the resident updated in this regard.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it responded to the resident’s reports about being affected by cooking smells entering her home which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Recommendation

23. As the finding of reasonable redress was made based on the £100 compensation offered by the landlord, the landlord is ordered to pay this to the resident, if it has not done so already.
24. It is recommended that the landlord write to the resident to confirm the status of the inspection of the vent pipe and whether the engineer who inspected the pipe resealed the vent pipe or found the original work to be adequate. The landlord should also consider offering further compensation to the resident if it did not arrange an appointment within its 28 calendar day target for a routine repair.
25. Ensure the smoke test offered in the landlord’s complaint response is completed within a reasonable time period considering the circumstances.