Peabody Trust (202416800)

Background

1. The resident told the landlord she was unable to leave her window open due to the smell of cannabis from a neighbouring property and her property was too hot. She said the situation was making her ill. She also said the landlord had failed to respond to the request from the police to arrange a meeting to discuss her neighbour’s drug taking. The resident moved out of the property after she exhausted the landlord’s complaints policy.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the smell of cannabis from a neighbouring property.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of excessive heat in her property and request for insulation.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of the smell of cannabis from a neighbouring property.
4. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of excessive heat in her property and request for insulation.
5. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord did not open an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case, complete a risk assessment or investigate the resident’s reports of drug taking. It also failed to manage the resident’s expectations or keep her updated.
7. The landlord did not investigate the resident’s reports of excessive heating or address her request for insulation. It did not put monitoring arrangements in place to determine the source of the heat and whether it was excessive. Neither did it explore the potential impact the heating was having on the resident. The landlord’s failure to do this meant it did not meet its obligations under the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
8. The landlord offered an apology and compensation for its poor complaints handling.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

9. It is noted that the resident referred to a possible impact upon her health. While these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a person’s health.
10. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused for a court or insurer to consider. They are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to take her concerns further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

11. It is noted that the resident said she had reported issues of odours entering her home for several years. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
12. Taking account of the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events leading up to when the resident made a complaint in July 2024, up to March 2025 when the landlord issued its final complaint response.
13. In cases involving ASB or odour transference, as is predominantly the case here, it is not this Service’s role to establish whether the reported incidents occurred, but to determine whether the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair in all the circumstances.
14. Whilst the use of illegal drugs is a criminal matter, landlords are able to and should investigate matters such as smoking cannabis under their own powers and remit as a landlord. This is because their residents are required to comply with their tenancy agreements and not cause a nuisance or annoyance to others. This includes not using drugs in their homes. While partnership work is vital in these circumstances, landlords should not rely on the police to carry out such investigations before investigating the matter themselves.
15. Having been notified of the issue of cannabis odours entering the resident’s property, the landlord was required to investigate and where appropriate, to take action. In this case, the resident told the landlord on 29 May 2024 she was unable to leave her window open due to the smell of cannabis from a neighbouring property. She said the situation was making her ill. She also said the landlord had failed to respond to the request from the police to arrange a meeting to discuss her neighbour’s actions.
16. There is no evidence the landlord opened an ASB case or responded to the resident’s concerns. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this given substance misuse is included in its definition of ASB in its ASB policy. The landlord’s failure to do this meant it did not gather evidence and gain an understanding of the nature and extent of the problem. It also meant the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations and set out what it could do. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will respond to reports of ASB within 2 working days.
17. The landlord also failed to complete a risk assessment. This was not consistent with its ASB policy.
18. Risk assessments form part of statutory guidance which accompanies the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014. This says landlords should assess the risk of harm to the victim, along with any potential vulnerabilities, at the time it receives an ASB report. Failing to undertake a risk assessment at an early stage of an ASB report instantly puts residents at a disadvantage, and many other failings often follow.
19. The landlord’s lack of response and action may have suggested to the resident that it was not taking her concerns seriously. It is likely this would have caused her distress and inconvenience. She subsequently raised a complaint that the landlord had not responded to her ASB reports.
20. The landlord issued its stage1 complaint response on 24 January 2025.
21. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
22. In this case, the landlord noted that the joint visit that was scheduled to take place in January 2024 with the police was not arranged. It said this was due to staff shortages. Whilst this provided clarity, the landlord did not offer an apology for failing to investigate the resident’s reports of drug taking or liaising with the police. This demonstrated it did not take learning from the complaint. This was a failure.
23. The landlord noted that it reassessed the situation in July 2024 and it was determined a joint visit was no longer required. It said this was because the resident had confirmed on 8 July 2024 that the smell was under control. There is no evidence the resident was informed of the landlord’s decision at the time. This demonstrated poor communication on the part of the landlord.
24. The landlord noted that drug use was a criminal offence and the police were responsible for investigating criminal matters.It also said it would work in partnership with the police to take enforcement action. Whilst this was appropriate, it did not tellthe resident to report the issue to the police. This was a missed opportunity.
25. The landlord offered to meet the resident to discuss her concerns in more detail and agree a way forward. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously. It also demonstrated the landlord was willing to use its powers, rather than just rely on the police to address the resident’s concerns. This was appropriate.
26. The resident told the landlord on 28 January 2025 that she was unable to attend the meeting that had been arranged. She also noted that whilst she told the landlord on 8 July 2024 that the situation was under control, she also said the problem would happen again. She asked the landlord to speak to her neighbour and provide her with an update afterwards. No specific incidents of drug misuse were shared with the landlord.
27. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. It would have been reasonable for it to have done this and to have confirmed whether it was going to open an ASB case or take any further action. This was not consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy and meant it failed to manage the resident’s expectations.
28. The landlord noted on 19 March 2025 in its final complaint response that the resident did not respond to its request to meet. It also said it did not have an open ASB case or any reports of drug taking. This was not consistent with information held on file and caused confusion.
29. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of service failure has been made in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. An award of compensation has been made to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident.

30. This Service is unable to determine whether the resident’s property was too hot. The assessment has focused on establishing whether the landlord’s response was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
31. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Whilst reasonable timescales are not defined in law, the potential health risks of excess heat are significant and can lead to dehydration, trauma, increased risk of stroke, cardiovascular and respiratory difficulties.
32. While individual preferences regarding temperatures are subjective and it is difficult for a landlord to ensure all resident’s preferences are met, they are responsible for ensuring risks are monitored and managed.
33. The resident told the landlord on 29 May 2024 that her neighbour left his heating on all night and due to the lack of insulation between the flats, her property was like a sauna. She said the situation affected her health and she had provided the landlord with a letter from her doctor confirming this. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had an obligation to meet its responsibilities under the HHSRS.
34. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns or her subsequent email of 25 July 2024. This was a failure given the landlord had been placed on notice and it was aware the resident had multiple health conditions. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have completed an investigation into her concerns. This could have included placing a heat monitoring device in the resident’s property to identify the heating levels and the source of the problem. Early monitoring would have informed the landlord if the resident was exposed to any risk and whether it needed to take any action to prevent risk of harm.
35. The landlord noted on 24 January 2025 in its stage 1 complaint response that it could not tell the resident’s neighbour when they could have their heating on. Whilst this provided clarity, the landlord failed to investigate whether the heat in the resident’s property was excessive or explore the potential impact it was having on her. The landlord’s failure to do this meant it did not meet its obligations under the HHSRS.
36. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about excessive heat and request for insulation in its final complaint response sent on 19 March 2025. This meant the resident was unclear on what steps the landlord was taking to address her concerns. This was a further failure. The Ombudsman’s complaints handling code (the Code) says landlords should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
37. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of maladministration has been made in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. An award of compensation has been made to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident.

38. The resident made a complaint on 25 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day. This was consistent with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. This says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The landlord said it would provide a response within 10 working days.
39. The landlord did not issue its stage 1 complaint response by the deadline date and there is no evidence it told the resident there would be a delay in responding. This was not consistent with its complaints policy or the Code.
40. The resident chased up the landlord on a number of occasions in September 2024 and October 2024. The landlord offered the resident an apology for the delay in responding to her complaint on 15 October 2024. Whilst this was appropriate, it did not confirm when it would provide a response. This was a further failure.
41. The landlord did not issue its stage 1 complaint response until 24 January 2025. This was 6 months after the resident made her complaint and was not consistent with the timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. Whilst it offered an apology for the delay in responding, it did not offer the resident any compensation. This was not consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy.
42. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 February 2025. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint escalation request until 20 February 2025 and only after contact from this Service. This was a further failure. It said it would provide a response by 19 March 2025.
43. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 19 March 2025. It offered the resident an apology and £150 compensation for its poor complaints handling. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
44. When all circumstances of the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint are considered, a finding of reasonable redress has been made.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

45. We did not identify any issues with the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Communication

46. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times and it failed to respond to a number of her request for updates.