Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202011507)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011507

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

30 June 2022


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of fumes entering his property.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, as it seeks to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman has already decided upon.

Summary of events

  1. In July 2015, the Ombudsman issued a determination in respect to the resident’s reports of nuisance, specifically that his neighbour was dismantling motor vehicles and causing fumes and debris to enter his home. The determination found that a decision by the landlord to stop investigating the resident’s reports was fair and reasonable.
  2. In November 2018, the Ombudsman issued a determination in respect to the resident’s reports about fumes from a neighbouring property he described as like chemicals being burned, and reports about materials stored in garages below the property. The determination found that the fumes complaint was outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as the matters had already been decided upon; and that there was no maladministration about materials stored in garages below the property. The decision was upheld in a review in January 2019.
  3. In November 2020, the resident’s representative contacted the landlord to report he believed some sort of machinery was located in garages below the resident. He reported that these made a booming noise and there was a toxic “chemically bleachy stench.” The landlord tried to contact the resident soon after, then in December 2020, the resident’s representative requested escalation of the complaint. In January 2021, the police had involvement in respect to the resident’s reports that machinery was being run from the neighbour’s garage. The landlord reviewed information and informed the resident’s representative that the neighbour was not using the garage for anything they should not be.
  4. In March 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it had inspected the garage he believed had machinery in it and there was nothing in there. It said it had discussed this with his representative and apologised for not getting back to the resident in writing. It stated that it would not be investigating any further complaints of smells, fumes or noise coming from garages in the future.
  5. The resident informs this Service that he experiences industrial, toxic fumes coming from a neighbouring property, possibly a garage, and that machinery or a business such as dry cleaning are being run from a neighbour property. The resident has detailed that he now suspects these originate from a specific property, rather than another that the landlord investigated, and now suspects they have always originated from this property. The resident has reported that the property in question has changed occupancy but the issues such as machinery and toxic fumes continue.
  6. The resident’s account confirms the local authority have had involvement, and that the landlord has visited neighbouring properties and garages, including the property he now suspects the smells and machinery originate from; but he is dissatisfied with the level of the investigations and their outcome. The resident disagrees that the complaint is the same as a previous complaint, as his previous complaint related to drug fumes while the current one relates to machinery.
  7. The landlord informs this Service that the resident has made many allegations about fumes, poison and noise coming into the property and activities in garages below the flat. The landlord informs this Service that having been given access to neighbouring properties which include private properties, no machinery is in any of them or anything that would not be expected.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39 (o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.”
  2. While this Service understands the resident believes his health is affected by fumes, and understands how distressing this must be for him, this Service has seen no evidence to support that view or that fumes have entered the property.
  3. While this Service also understands the resident believes the current fumes are different to those in 2015 and 2018, the current complaint is of the same nature as complaints which were previously investigated by the landlord and determined by this Service in July 2015 and November 2018/January 2019. In other words, they all relate to smells and noise which have been unable to be verified.
  4. There has been no material change in circumstances since the previous determinations were made; and no additional evidence has been provided that inappropriate fumes (whatever the type) are entering the property, or that properties or garages are being inappropriately used.
  5. Accordingly, the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.