Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel - find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Livv Housing Group (202105994)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105994

Livv Housing Group

27 April 2022


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:
    1. response to the resident’s reports of smoke pollution caused by her neighbours and resulting request for repairs and improvements to her windows and household ventilation.
    2. handling of a mutual exchange application and request for transfer.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a two bedroom house. The resident is a vulnerable adult with known disabilities including a spinal condition making it difficult to stand and a respiratory condition. 
  2. The resident contacted this service on 11 June 2021 regarding problems with her landlord. The resident said that she had tried to make a complaint to her landlord verbally in April and May but had been unable to do so. The resident said that the landlord was ignoring her concerns regarding chimney smoke from one of her neighbours across the street and from a neighbour on her side of the street burning rubbish in their garden.
  3. The resident said this affected her very badly since she has a respiratory condition which is made worse by smoke in her environment. The resident said that ash was entering her home via faulty windows and repairs were needed.
  4. The resident has a range of both current and historic concerns about different neighbours and this has made her want to move either by bidding through a choice based lettings system or through a mutual exchange. The resident has said she finds the property pool transfer system difficult to use and is disappointed a mutual exchange did not take place when she found a partner to swap with. The resident has said the exchange fell through due to a lack of appropriate adaptations in the bathroom of the property she wanted.
  5. Following contact with the landlord from this service about both the above complaints, a repairs inspection was made on 17 June 2021. The landlord said that no ash was found, only household dust. The landlord checked all doors and windows and said they were secure. The rear door had been replaced in March 2019 and the operative said the front door already had new gaskets fitted recently. The landlord’s repairs records show that a job was raised to overhaul the pvcu windows on 4 June 2019 and the operative said that vents in the windows had been updated. 
  6. The landlord was in contact with the Environmental Health service at the Local Authority regarding the neighbour’s chimney and log burner on 25 June 2021. The Environmental Health service said that all complied with the Clean Air Act 1993 and following an investigation the case would be closed due to the lack of evidence of any statutory nuisance. The evidence suggests that at least one of these neighbours is a tenant of the landlord since the landlord says that their actions did not constitute a tenancy breach.
  7. On 28 June 2021, the landlord provided a stage one response to the resident’s complaint. The response went through each report made by the resident about her neighbours since 2016 including burning rubbish in the garden and using a log burner. The landlord said that the Environmental Health service were aware of the situation and it was not illegal or a tenancy breach. The landlord said that it had conducted interviews with the relevant parties and was also in contact with the police who had not found any evidence of targeted harassment or anti-social behaviour. The response also explained the actions taken following the repairs inspection which included applying a fungicidal barrier to areas affected by black mould around the bedroom windows as well as a works order for plasterwork.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 July 2021 saying that the outstanding repairs had not been completed and that she would like to move home.
  9. The landlord sent a stage two response to the resident on 29 July 2021. The landlord said that some of her belongings would need to be moved in order for the plasterwork job to be completed. The landlord was aware that the resident may have an objection or physical difficulty with this and said that help was available. The landlord said that a member of its well-being team would contact the resident and this visit took place on 17 August 2021. The resident said that she did not require support with mental health issues and the assessment did not indicate that further support with mental health was required.
  10. The stage two response said that an appointment would be made to fit an extractor fan. The landlord said it would contact the resident to ensure that her medical details were updated and correctly recorded for her ‘property pool’ application – a choice-based lettings transfer system. The landlord also said the resident’s mutual exchange application had been approved and was live.
  11. The resident submitted an application for a mutual exchange to a specific property on 29 August 2021 which the landlord confirmed was under consideration. The resident has since confirmed that the application fell through due to the need for adaptations in the bathroom, but she is still actively looking for a property via a mutual exchange.

Assessment and findings

Smoke pollution and resulting Repairs

  1. Both the landlord and the Local Authority are aware of the concerns raised by the resident and have made enquiries to determine whether there is any breach of the law under the Clean Air Act. It is not within the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman to comment on the outcome of the Local Authority investigations, but it was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to consult with the Local Authority regarding this matter and make the decision not to take any further action, such as a warning or an enforcement letter to any of its tenants, based on the information they provided which was that there no breach or illegal activity.
  2. Repair records show that the landlord carried out checks on the resident’s windows and doors following her complaint and made arrangements for any necessary repairs such as the fungicidal mould and plasterwork. The landlord has acknowledged within internal email discussions that ‘its impossible to make a building completely air tight’ and that the smell and ‘natural air exchange’ is inevitable in those circumstances.
  3. The resident has acknowledged that some of the windows in other parts of her home have been adjusted and the air quality is better as a result but the windows in her bedroom remain a concern.
  4. Those repairs were carried out within a reasonable timeframe following the contact from this service and according to the landlord’s repairs policy. There is no evidence that the landlord has failed to carry out its repairing obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant act 1985.
  5.  However, given the resident’s concern regarding the vents in her bedroom windows and the absence of a more recent inspection, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to investigate the bedroom windows further. It is also of concern that the resident felt that her initial concerns were being ignored by the landlord and she felt obliged to contact this service as a result. The landlord should therefore consider whether its complaints process is sufficiently accessible to residents making complaints by phone and this has been recommended below.  

Application for mutual exchange

  1. The resident has expressed a desire to move away from her property via a mutual exchange. There are a variety of reasons for this including historic accusations of anti-social behaviour and harassment from neighbours. The landlord has consulted with police and other neighbours about this and attempted to obtain any relevant corroborative evidence. The Housing Ombudsman is unable to comment on the level of priority given to the resident for rehousing since this is under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Adult Social Care Ombudsman.
  2. In its final stage complaint response, the landlord has said a mutual exchange application had been agreed in principle. However, when the resident found a partner to swap with and wanted to go ahead, the process fell through partly due to the lack of appropriate adaptations in the property the resident wanted to move to. There is also evidence that the landlord had difficulty carrying out the necessary checks on the resident’s property. While this has clearly led to disappointment for the resident, the landlord is entitled to carry out final checks on the condition of the property.
  3. The resident has said that she struggles in general with the ‘property pool’ system and she would ideally like some assistance with applying for properties, particularly if the landlord is unable to adjust the vents of her bedroom windows to her satisfaction. A recommendation about this has therefore been made below.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of smoke pollution and resulting repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange application.

Reasons

  1. The landlord responded to residents’ concerns about her windows appropriately, carrying out inspections and making repairs and adjustments where needed.
  2. The landlord has approved the resident’s application for mutual exchange and this option is available to the resident although she has said she finds the process difficult to navigate.

Orders and recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord carries out an inspection of the resident’s bedroom windows within four weeks and considers any adjustments needed to the window vents. The landlord should also assess any relevant supporting medical evidence the resident is able to provide.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord considers providing any practical assistance available to the resident to assist her with the ‘property pool’ and mutual exchange process.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord checks staff training is up to date to ensure its complaints process is sufficiently accessible to customers wishing to make a complaint by phone.