Origin Housing Limited (202123164)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123164

Origin Housing Limited

30 June 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of foul smells and fly infestations within the block.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about threats of violence from a neighbour.
3. The reported lack of reasonable adjustments and support provided by the landlord.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be permanently rehoused.
5. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be permanently rehoused is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because this aspect of the resident’s complaint was not considered by the landlord as part of its final complaint response sent on 7 September 2021. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all of the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion… are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.
The resident should also be aware that this aspect of his complaint may also be outside the jurisdiction of this Service because it relates to rehousing, which is the responsibility of the local authority. The information submitted to this Service indicates that vacancies in the landlord’s social housing properties are referred to the local authority for allocation and the landlord is unable to make direct offers. Matters relating to rehousing by the local authority come under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Housing Ombudsman “may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion…fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.

Background

The property is a one bedroom flat on the seventh floor of a block. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy which started on 8 November 2019.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is obligated to allow the tenant to quietly hold and enjoy the premises.
The landlord’s tenancy conditions confirm that the grounds for possession are set out in Schedule two of the 1988 Housing Act and includes the following mandatory grounds:
1. Ground 13 – the condition of the property or the common parts has deteriorated because of the behaviour of the tenant, or any other person living at the property.
2. Ground 14 – the tenant or someone living or visiting the Property has been guilty of conduct which is or is likely to cause, a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours.
Smells and flies were found to be originating from a neighbour’s property (referred to in this report as ‘the neighbour’s property’), which was on the floor below the resident’s property. The tenant of the neighbouring property is referred to in this report as ‘the neighbour’.

Summary of events

The resident submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord on 23 July 2021, in which he stated the following:
1. He had contacted the landlord on 3 June 2021 regarding the problems with the neighbour and the landlord had also been made aware of the problems many weeks prior to this.
2. The resident had contacted the police who had visited the neighbour three times but had been unable to take action due to their restricted powers.
3. The resident requested the landlord for details of its plans to support him and the neighbour.
4. The neighbour had made death threats, which were reported to the police on 22 June 2021.
5. The neighbour had threatened to burn down the block and had targeted his threats towards single women and gay men in the block.
6. The resident said he had no choice but to move to alternative accommodation for safety reasons and therefore he requested compensation and a rent rebate. He explained that he would be spending part of his time in the property and part in the alternative accommodation.
7. He requested a “concrete strategy” for the landlord to deal with the problem and the landlord to set out its financial proposals.
On 23 July 2021, the landlord wrote to the residents affected by the smells and flies to apologise that it had not yet resolved the problem. The landlord stated that it had worked hard to gain access to the neighbour’s property but had been unsuccessful. It had also been working with its solicitors on legal remedies and had also asked the police to share their information regarding an incident involving them and the neighbour on 21 July 2021. The landlord said it would arrange a virtual meeting on 27 July 2021 for it to provide a further update to residents. In the meantime, it reminded residents that they should call 999 if they had any concerns about the neighbour.
The resident wrote to the landlord on the same day (23 July 2021) and stated that the landlord had not addressed the key issues in his complaint. He requested an immediate “rent freeze” from May 2021.
On the same day (23 July 2021), one of the residents wrote to the landlord on behalf of other residents (including the resident). She stated the following:
1. The landlord had not been in contact with residents during that week and had not informed residents that a scheduled visit to the neighbour had been cancelled.
2. one of the landlord’s staff had raised the problems regarding the neighbour with the landlord “at the start of the year” and it appeared that no progress had been made by the landlord.
3. After residents notified the police of the smells, they attended on 21 July 2021, broke into the neighbour’s property and had advised those present that there was “a serious hoarding” problem in the neighbour’s flat, with human waste throughout the property.
4. The email stated that the landlord had a duty of care towards residents.
5. Following the police visit on 21 July 2021, the neighbour had made threats, which resulted in a further call to the police to report this. The neighbour had reportedly made a statement about setting fire to the block.
6. The email stated that the landlord may have been responsible for a data breach as the neighbour seemed to be aware of information that some residents had passed to the landlord about the neighbour.
7. The email ended by requesting a reduction in residents’ rent until the landlord had resolved the problem.
On 30 July 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to report that he had received bites from the flies in his property. He attached photos of the marks on his skin. The landlord replied on the same day to advise the resident that it had offered to decant any of the residents who are struggling to remain in their home due to the smells and flies. The offer had been made at the recent virtual meeting between residents and the landlord. The landlord stated that residents would be decanted to hotel accommodation as close as possible to the block. The landlord asked the resident to confirm whether he wanted to be placed in temporary accommodation.
On 2 August 2021, the landlord wrote to the residents affected by the smells and flies to advise them of the following:
1. The landlord had started cleaning the affected floor of the block on a daily basis and the cleaning company was also carrying out ‘fogging’ on each floor every day in order to help with the smells (fogging involves spraying a fine mist of disinfectant on the walls and floors).
2. The paperwork relating to the landlord’s application for a ‘no notice’ injunction had been processed by the court on 30 July 2021.
3. The fly bags previously installed by the landlord were changed on 28 July 2021 and would continue to be monitored and/or changed on a weekly basis by the landlord’s pest control company.
4. Air purifiers had been delivered to the block on 30 July 2021 and one of the landlord’s engineers had checked them on 2 August 2021 and found them to be working. The engineer believed they were making a difference in relation to the smells.
5. The landlord said it would send a further update to residents on 9 August 2021.
On 4 August 2021, the landlord wrote to residents to advise them that it had been working with solicitors to obtain an emergency injunction in relation to the neighbour because of the smells and flies emanating from his flat. The landlord offered residents £250 to cover the discomfort they had experienced and offered to temporarily move any of the affected residents to a hotel next door while it was trying to resolve the situation.
On 7 August 2021, the landlord served a Notice Seeking Possession (NSP) on the neighbour using section 21(1) of the Housing Act 1988. The NSP said the resident had breached section 14 of his tenancy agreement and gave him until 16 January 2022 to vacate the premises.
The landlord sent an update to the affected residents on 10 August 2021 and included confirmation that a court hearing was scheduled to take place on 11 August 2021 to consider its application for an injunction.
On 11 August 2021, the landlord obtained an injunction from the county court. The injunction prohibited the neighbour from engaging in certain activities, including:
1. Engaging in behaviour causing and/or capable of causing harassment, alarm or distress to any other residents;
2. Using or threatening to use violence towards other residents;
3. Engaging in behaviour causing and/or capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to other residents;
4. Behaving in a manner that causes and/or attempts to cause a health, safety or fire risk to other residents;
5. The neighbour was given 48 hours from the effective date of service to remove faeces and any offensive and/or rotten food from the premises;
6. The neighbour had 14 days from the date of service to bring the property up to an acceptable standard;
7. Should the neighbour fail to comply with the provisions within the order, the neighbour had to give the landlord access within 28 days of service of the order in order to inspect the premises and then carry out a deep clean to abate the nuisance.
8. The injunction also prohibited the neighbour from contacting one of the residents, who had acted as a witness in court.
Also on 11 August 2021, the landlord obtained an Anti-Social Behaviour Injunction with the power of arrest forbidding the neighbour from harassing, threatening or using violence towards any resident within the locality of the block.
On 13 August 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that its offer of compensation was “derisory” and requested clarification on whether the offer took into account mental distress and skin and gastro-intestinal disorders, which the resident said had arisen because of the “unsanitary living conditions” he had experienced for the past five months. The resident stated that he had registered a formal complaint that had not been answered. He requested a face-to-face meeting with one of the landlord’s senior managers.
An internal email from the landlord confirmed that, as it had not replied to the resident’s complaint dated 23 July 2021, it would now treat the resident’s email dated 13 August 2021 as a stage two complaint. The landlord’s internal records show that it met with the resident on 20 August 2021 for a face-to-face meeting at the landlord’s office, as had been requested by the resident.
The landlord sent an update to the affected residents on 16 August 2021, in which it confirmed that it had been awarded an injunction on 11 August 2021, but it was still waiting for the court to provide a copy of the injunction. The landlord summarised the provisions within the injunction. The landlord also invited residents to provide any feedback regarding the air purifiers and the fly bags it had provided.
The landlord sent an update to residents on 23 August 2021 advising them that it was still awaiting the injunction paperwork from the court.
On 26 August 2021, the landlord wrote to the residents affected by the smells and flies and apologised for the initial delays in identifying and tackling the problem. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £1,250 and offered to professionally clean the affected properties once the source of the smells and flies had been cleared. The landlord stated that it had also offered and provided alternative hotel accommodation to residents who felt unable to continue living in their home.
The landlord provided a further update to the residents affected by the smells and flies on 31 August 2021, 1 September 2021 and 6 September 2021. The landlord confirmed that the injunction had been served on the neighbour on 27 August 2021 and it provided a copy of the injunction to residents. The landlord also confirmed that it had not been given access to the neighbour’s property at a visit that took place on 1 September 2021 and therefore the visit had been rescheduled to the following week. Finally, the landlord advised residents that the next court hearing was scheduled to take place on 29 September 2021.
On 6 September 2021, the landlord visited the neighbour’s property and found evidence of “severe hoarding”.
The landlord sent its stage two reply on 7 September 2021, in which it included the following points:
1. The landlord apologised for not replying to the resident’s stage one complaint and it had therefore escalated the matter to stage two. The landlord offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £25 for its complaint handling.
2. The landlord explained that the situation had been difficult to resolve as the neighbour was a vulnerable person. However, the landlord accepted that there were initial delays in its handling of the matter and therefore it offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £250.
3. The landlord had also offered hotel accommodation and the resident had accepted the offer. The resident was therefore currently in hotel accommodation.
4. The landlord had obtained a court injunction prohibiting the neighbour from threatening or harassing other residents and visitors. The resident should inform the landlord of any future safety concerns.
5. The landlord was unable to reduce the resident’s rent as had been requested, however, the landlord offered an additional £1,000 and confirmed it would arrange professional cleaning of the resident’s home once the source of the smells and flies had been cleared.
6. The landlord had initially offered the resident hotel accommodation, which he accepted. However, the resident subsequently contacted the landlord and requested an alternative hotel which better suited his needs. The landlord was able to accommodate this request and placed him in a different hotel.
7. The landlord said it had not received a personal injury claim from the resident and therefore he should forward it to the landlord should he wish to pursue the claim. The landlord said the claim would be dealt with separately to the resident’s complaint.

Events after the landlord’s final response letter

The landlord sent an update to the affected residents on 14 September 2021 and carried out a visit to the neighbour’s property on 15 September 2021. The landlord’s record of the visit states that the smell had improved and some items had been removed.
On 23 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the affected residents confirming that the cleaning and carpet removal had taken place in the neighbour’s property on 22 September 2021.
The landlord visited the neighbour again on 27 September 2021 and recorded that the property appeared to be in a worse state than during the previous visit two weeks earlier.
On 30 September 2021, the landlord sent an update to residents affected by the smells and flies, in which it confirmed the following:
1. The landlord visited the property on 27 September 2021 and verified that the carpet had been removed from the neighbour’s property and the flat had been cleaned. The landlord would visit during the following week to check the condition of the property.
2. The landlord had attended court on 29 September 2021 and the injunction was still in place.
During October to December 2021, the landlord sent regular updates to the affected residents and carried out visits to monitor the condition of the neighbour’s property.
In January 2022, the landlord instructed its solicitors to apply for a possession order through the county court as the NSP had expired.
The resident wrote to this Service on 18 February 2022 to explain that he was seeking a rent free period from April 2021 due to the unhygienic conditions he had experienced as a result of the smells and flies coming from the neighbour’s property. He explained that he had been seeking a permanent decant and this was never offered by the landlord.
The landlord was granted an outright possession order on 24 May 2022 and the landlord has advised this Service that, following a protracted legal process, the neighbour was evicted in November 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 August 2021 and stated that the unsanitary living conditions had caused mental distress and skinand gastro-intestinal disorders. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that such issues are more appropriately addressed by the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this option.
The Ombudsman has assessed whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and reasonably responded, applied its policies and procedures, complied with any relevant legislation and followed good practice when reaching decisions.

The landlord’s policies

The landlord’s pest control policy states that the landlord will…”assess all reported instances of need for pest control. If the issue affects the health of the resident or the fabric of the building then [the landlord] will arrange for necessary pest control”.
The landlord’s Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) policy defines ASB as:
1. Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person;
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises; or
3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord’s hoarding policy states that ‘hoarding disorder’ is the name of a psychiatric condition that produces symptoms such as the compulsive urge to acquire unusually large amounts of possessions and an inability to voluntarily get rid of those possessions, even when they have no practical usefulness or monetary value.
The hoarding policy also states that when hoarding negatively impacts on the hoarder’s life or on others, it becomes an issue which requires action to be taken. For example, when:
1. It is associated with self-neglect or safeguarding concerns;
2. It is contributing to a pest control issue;
3. It has health and safety implications e.g. fire risk;
4. The organisation is being hindered from carrying out a statutory duty (e.g. annual gas safety check).
The hoarding policy goes on to say: “Enforcement action should only be considered where it is necessary in the circumstances of the case…Enforcement action may include:
1. Applying for a common law injunction;
2. Applying for an Anti-Social Behaviour injunction;
3. Possession proceedings”.
The landlord’s compensation policy states:
1. Compensation will only be considered where there are no other reasonable options to resolve an issue.
2. The landlord may pay compensation if a resident is unable to use a room or service in their home because of a repair problem that is the landlord’s responsibility.
3. Compensation payments will be calculated based on each individual case.
4. Loss of room payments are not made during any decant period.

The landlord’s handling of foul smells and fly infestations within the block

The evidence shows that one of the resident’s neighbours had accumulated significant levels of items in his property and the property was in a poor state of hygiene, which caused unpleasant odours and large numbers of flies. The landlord concluded that the problems were linked to the neighbour hoarding possessions. The landlord has accepted that the smells and flies emanating from the neighbour’s property affected the resident’s property as well as those of other residents. The communal areas were also affected by the smells and flies.
The resident stated in his stage one complaint dated 23 July 2021 that he had contacted the landlord on 3 June 2021 about the smells and flies. He also stated that the landlord had been aware of the problem “many weeks prior to this”. The resident’s statement was not disputed by the landlord in its stage two reply on 7 September 2021 and the landlord accepted in the reply that there had been delays in identifying and tackling the issue early on. The resident’s email dated 13 August 2021 stated that the problem had been ongoing for five months, which suggests it began some time in February 2021.
Based on the evidence seen by this Service, the landlord did not start to take substantive action in relation to the problem until July 2021 when it wrote to the residents affected and stated that it had been working with its solicitors on legal remedies and had also contacted the police. The landlord stated that it had tried to gain access to the neighbour’s property but had been unsuccessful. It was unreasonable that the landlord took 4-5 months to take any effective action to reduce the impact of the smells and flies or to resolve the problem.
The initial action taken by the landlord was outlined in its letter dated 2 August, which was sent to the affected residents and stated that the landlord had:
1. Started cleaning the affected floor on a daily basis and carrying out ‘fogging’;
2. Applied for a common law injunction and an ASB injunction;
3. Fitted fly bags to reduce the number of flies present;
4. Installed air purifiers in an attempt to reduce the smells;
5. Given a commitment to provide regular updates to residents.
The evidence indicates that the landlord had still not been able to gain access at the time it provided the update to residents on 2 August 2021 and therefore it was appropriate that the landlord had started enforcement action by applying for the injunctions to address the nuisance being caused to other residents of the block. It was also reasonable for the landlord to take steps to mitigate the impact of the smells and flies on residents by increasing the cleaning frequency, using fly bags and installing air purifiers.
As well as applying for an injunction, the landlord also served a Notice Seeking Possession on the neighbour on 7 August 2021. As per the Covid rules in force at the time, the landlord was required to give four months’ notice before it could apply to the court for a possession order. The Ombudsman’s view is that it was reasonable for the landlord to serve the NSP as a safeguard should the injunction not bring about the required change in behaviour on the part of the neighbour.
The landlord was awarded an injunction on 11 August 2021 and, under the terms of the injunction, the neighbour had 48 hours from the date the injunction was served to remove the rotting food and faeces from his property and effectively then had a further 12 days to bring the property up to an acceptable standard. Should the neighbour fail to adhere to these terms, he had to give the landlord access to inspect the property and carry out a deep clean within 28 days of serving the injunction. The landlord therefore effectively had a 14 day period in which to inspect the property and arrange a deep clean if the neighbour failed to adequately clean the property. The injunction was served on the neighbour on 27 August 2021 and the landlord removed carpets and cleaned the neighbour’s property on 22 September 2021. The timing of the landlord’s cleaning of the property was appropriate as it had taken place within the 28-day period specified in the injunction. The landlord checked the property on 27 September 2021 to verify that the carpet had been removed and the property cleaned. This was also appropriate as the landlord needed to check whether the cleaning had achieved the desired results.
The landlord attended court again on 29 September 2021 and, although the court’s decision was that the injunction should remain in place, it limited the landlord’s powers to enforce the cleaning of the neighbour’s property. The landlord had acted reasonably by submitting its application in good time to the court and seeking a further injunction. The court’s decision, however, was outside of the landlord’s control. This Service is aware that during 2021 there were delays in obtaining documents from the courts due to backlogs caused by the pandemic and this is likely to have been the reason for the delay in the landlord receiving the injunction paperwork from the court in August 2021. The delay was again outside of the landlord’s control.
The evidence shows that the landlord had visited the property to monitor its condition at various times following the award of the initial injunction. For example, in September 2021 it had visited on 1 September 2021, 6 September 2021, 15 September 2021 and 27 September 2021. It was appropriate for the landlord to visit the property regularly so that it could inspect whether the condition had improved or deteriorated.
As well as taking enforcement action, the landlord also sought to arrange support for the resident. On 26 November 2021, the landlord had visited the neighbour and asked him whether he would be prepared to receive support from social services. Although the neighbour declined the landlord’s offer, it was appropriate for the landlord to explore whether the situation might improve with help from a support agency. This approach is in line with the landlord’s hoarding policy, which encourages its staff to engage with support agencies where possible.
While recognising that the situation was complex due to factors such as a lack of cooperation from the neighbour, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to maintain good communications with the affected residents. In this case, from 23 July 2021 the landlord sent regular email updates to the affected residents. The frequency of the updates varied, but were generally sent on a weekly or fortnightly basis. The updates covered progress in relation to the landlord’s legal action and other relevant issues, such as progress in obtaining the fly bags. The landlord also held virtual meetings with residents, for example on 27 July 2021, to allow residents to ask questions about progress in dealing with the problem. The landlord therefore maintained reasonable communications with the affected residents from July 2021 onwards. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of regular communication with residents prior to July 2021 and this was unreasonable as the evidence suggests that the landlord had been aware of the problem since February 2021.
The information provided by the landlord in the updates and virtual meetings indicates that it was attempting to be as open as possible with residents. For example, it provided residents with a copy of the injunction and kept residents updated about other legal action it was taking to resolve the problem. The content of the communication was therefore reasonable as the updates indicate that the landlord was transparent about the action it was taking.
The landlord confirmed in its email dated 30 July 2021 that it would temporarily decant the resident to a nearby hotel if he wished. It was reasonable for the landlord to make the offer because it showed that the landlord was aware of the impact the smells and flies were having on the resident and was seeking to offer support. It also showed that the landlord considered the problem to be serious enough to warrant making an offer of temporary accommodation.
On 4 August 2021, the landlord offered residents £250 to cover the discomfort they had experienced from the smells and flies. The landlord then wrote to residents on 26 August 2021 to confirm that it was now offering £1,250 plus an offer to professionally clean all of the affected properties once the source of the smells and flies had been cleared. The landlord’s offer was confirmed in its stage two reply on 7 September 2021. The landlord stated that it had considered the resident’s request for a rent reduction from April 2021 and stated that it was unable to agree this request. The only provisions within the landlord’s compensation policy for a rent reduction is where one or more rooms within a property are unusable due to repairs. In this case, although the Ombudsman recognises that the resident experienced significant discomfort as a result of the smells and flies, none of the rooms in the resident’s property were unusable due to repairs. Therefore, based on the landlord’s compensation policy, it was appropriate for the landlord to refuse the resident’s request for a rent reduction.
The landlord offered compensation of £1,250 as an alternative to a rent reduction to acknowledge the discomfort experienced by the resident. Given the delay in the landlord taking action to reduce the impact of the smells and flies, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that a landlord would be expected to offer financial redress of up to £1,000 in cases where there was a failure which had a significant physical and/or emotional impact on the resident. In this case, the evidence indicates that the initial delay did have a significant impact on the resident because it meant he had to endure the discomfort of the smells and flies during this period. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s offer of redress for its handling of the smells and fly infestations and has concluded that it was reasonable because:
1. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in managing the problem.
2. The landlord offered £1,250 financial redress, which is in line with the amount this Service would expect the resident to be offered given all the circumstances.
3. The landlord offered to professionally clean the resident’s property once the source of the smells and flies had been cleared.
4. The landlord offered residents temporary accommodation while the problems with the smells and flies were ongoing.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about threats of violence from a neighbour

The police forced entry into the neighbour’s property on 21 July 2021 after residents had reported their concerns about foul smells emanating from the property. Following this incident, the neighbour reportedly made threats of violence towards some of the residents and had also threatened to set fire to the building. The neighbour’s threats were also reported to the police by residents and on 23 July 2021 one of the residents informed the landlord, on behalf of other residents, about the incident.
On 11 August 2021, the landlord obtained a ‘no notice’ ASB injunction with the power of arrest under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which prohibited the neighbour from harassing, threatening or using violence towards any of the residents. In addition, the landlord obtained a separate common law injunction on the same day, which prohibited the resident from storing or bringing flammable liquids into the block and from behaving in a manner that causes a health, safety or fire risk to any resident in the block. By obtaining the injunctions, the landlord took reasonable steps to safeguard the residents from violence by the neighbour and from the neighbour causing a fire.

The reported lack of reasonable adjustments and support provided by the landlord

The landlord’s customer service standards (available on its website) state: “we will make reasonable adjustments for our customers and stakeholders with disabilities to ensure our services are fair and accessible…”.
The evidence does not show whether the resident had a disability as defined in the Equality Act 2010.
The resident advised the landlord on 30 July 2021 that he had received bites from flies in his property. The landlord replied on 2 August 2021 to advise the resident that it was willing to offer the resident temporary, alternative accommodation in a nearby hotel. The landlord’s offer of temporary accommodation was a reasonable measure to alleviate the discomfort being experienced by the resident and to support him during what was undoubtedly a difficult period.
The landlord’s stage two reply explained that after moving to the hotel, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the hotel room was unsuitable for his needs. The landlord therefore offered (and the resident accepted) a room in a different hotel, which better suited his needs. The view of the Ombudsman is that the landlord acted reasonably by listening to the resident’s request and offering an alternative that was more suitable to his needs.
As part of its stage two reply, the landlord offered to professionally clean the resident’s property once the source of the smells and flies had been cleared. The landlord’s offer was reasonable given that the resident had reported medical conditions that he had attributed to the “unsanitary living conditions” in his property.
During the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation, he requested a meeting with one of the landlord’s senior managers. The request was agreed and the meeting took place on 20 August 2021. Based on the contents of the landlord’s stage two reply, the meeting was used as an opportunity for the landlord to understand the resident’s outstanding concerns. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to meet with the resident in order to understand his needs and concerns.
In summary, the view of this Service is that the landlord offered a reasonable level of support and adjustments in relation to the problems experienced by the resident at the time because:
1. The landlord offered the resident temporary accommodation.
2. At the resident’s request, the landlord changed the hotel to one that better suited his needs.
3. The landlord offered to professionally clean the resident’s property once the problems had been resolved.
4. One of the landlord’s senior managers met with the resident to understand his concerns.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. The complaints policy states that a response will be sent to stage one complaints within ten working days and in the case of stage two complaints, a response will be sent within 20 working days.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 23 July 2021 regarding the problems with the neighbour’s property. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 13 August 2021 to report the ongoing problems being caused by the smells and flies. He reminded the landlord that he had not yet received a reply to his complaint. Internal emails sent by the landlord indicate that it had failed to reply to the resident’s complaint dated 23 July 2021 and therefore it would escalate his email dated 13 August 2021 to stage two of its process. Although the landlord had sent updates to all of the affected residents in the intervening period, it was inappropriate that the landlord had not replied to the resident’s complaint because it meant that the specific points raised in his complaint had not been addressed. For example, the resident had requested details about the landlord’s strategy for resolving the problem and for details about its financial proposals in terms of a ‘rent freeze’.
It was reasonable for the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two in order to avoid unduly prolonging the complaints process for the resident. The landlord sent its stage two reply on 7 September 2021, which was 17 working days after registering the resident’s email dated 13 August 2021 as a stage two complaint. Therefore, the landlord sent its stage two reply within an appropriate timescale. The stage two reply offered redress to the resident for its complaints handling as follows:
1. The landlord apologised for its failure to reply to the resident’s stage one complaint.
2. The landlord offered a goodwill gesture of £25 (the landlord’s compensation procedure suggests a £10 gift voucher for failure to provide a timely response to a complaint and therefore the offer of £25 was a proportionate sum for failing to reply).
3. The landlord agreed to escalate the complaint to stage two in order to prevent further undue delay in the resident progressing through the complaints procedure.
The view of this Service is that the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to its complaint handling failings as it apologised, gave proportionate financial redress and escalated the complaint to stage two.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of foul smells and fly infestations within the block.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s concerns about threats of violence from a neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to the reported lack of reasonable adjustments and support provided by the landlord.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its complaints handling.

Reasons

There was a delay in the landlord taking action to deal with the foul smells and flies emanating from the neighbour’s property, however, the landlord apologised for the delay, offered reasonable financial redress, offered to professionally clean the resident’s property once the problem had been resolved and offered the resident temporary accommodation.
The landlord obtained an ASB injunction and a common law injunction to safeguard residents from acts of violence and the potential fire risks posed by the neighbour.
The landlord offered reasonable support and adjustments by offering the resident temporary accommodation, moving him to a more suitable hotel, offering to professionally clean his property once the problems had been resolved and arranging for a senior manager to meet with him to discuss his concerns.
The landlord apologised for not registering the resident’s complaint, escalated the complaint to stage two and offered suitable financial redress.