Leeds Jewish Housing Association Limited (202333695)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333695

Leeds Jewish Housing Association Limited

30 June 2025

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 landlords handling of the resident’s reports of cigarette smoke entering the property.
2. The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of carbon monoxide from the boiler in the property.
3. The landlords handling of the residents reports of a wasp infestation.
4. The landlords handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident lived in a one bedroom flat located on the first floor of the block. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, and the tenancy began on 7 August 2023. The resident has confirmed to the Ombudsman she no longer lives in the property. The landlord has stated to this Service its records show the resident has complex PTSD, chronic fatigue and a sleep disorder.
The resident reported issues to the landlord in August 2023, shortly after moving into the property. On 14 August 2023 and 17 August 2023 the resident informed the landlord that she was finding that cigarette smoke from the downstairs flat was contaminating her space, and it was affecting her health. Also on 17 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said she suspected there was a wasp nest outside her kitchen window.
A gas warning notice was issued for the boiler in the property on 8 September 2023 by a gas distribution company. The warning stated the appliance was immediately dangerous, noted the carbon monoxide alarm was activated and the appliance was capped.
On 13 September 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. The resident stated:
1. She had had a history of complex PTSD and suffered from chronic fatigue (ME), a debilitating chronic illness with associated chemical sensitivity and reduced immunity, which was worsened by stress and chemical exposure.
2. Since she moved into the property on 7 August 2023 she had been experiencing daily headaches, worsened fatigue, faintness, dizziness, nausea and vertigo, confusion and had felt generally weak and poorly. The headaches meant she was on daily strong painkillers.
3. She assumed her symptoms were because cigarette smoke from her downstairs neighbours residence was filtering up into her property and had verbally complained about passive smoking within the building, later requesting the building be properly sealed so that she did not have to breathe the downstairs tenant’s cigarette smoke as per the landlord’s duty of care but was initially told nothing could be done. Instead, she was advised to take pictures of any holes and unsealed parts. The issue was not investigated and remained
4. She had complained about wasps that flew daily into her property due to a pre-existing problem of a suspected wasp nest inhibiting her from opening the windows. Someone from pest control attended but she suspected they did not inspect the roof or building as the problem persisted. She was subsequently told that was up to residents to remedy which she believed should have been dealt with prior to her moving in.
5. The carbon monoxide alarm went off and she called the gas distribution company on the advice of a friend who advised to immediately open all windows and evacuate the building. The gas distribution company’s gas engineer attended and declared the flat level one unsafe because of carbon monoxide which was coming from the boiler, which was the only thing capable of omitting that level of carbon monoxide and capped the gas. She spent hours in A&E and was diagnosed with carbon monoxide poisoning.
6. Upon return from the hospital, the landlord sent it’s gas contractor out who informed her had been responsible for servicing the boiler before she moved in on the 7 August 2023. The contractor set about fixing the boiler and uncapped the gas. He then insisted that the problem was her recently installed oven and told her that the carbon monoxide poisoning needed to be proved by submitting her medical notes to the landlord.
7. Having fixed the boiler, the contractor was anxious to tamper with the oven. She told him not to but he stood in front of her, blocking her from it and continued to touch it. She had to call somebody on the phone to tell him not to touch the oven and to leave her property. She felt that it was completely inappropriate for the landlord to send out the same engineer who was responsible for servicing the boiler (of which she had been given no documentation) to ‘check ‘the boiler for safety as he was not an independent party. He set about concealing what he had done from the offset and tried to pressure her into allowing him to tamper with her oven. She was vulnerable and alone and given her history she felt that should not have happened to her. She had no copy of the gas service report and stated she would like to see it.
8. She wanted the full asbestos assessment as she realised that she only had a partial report.
9. She had been visited by a gas contractor that day who arrived unannounced at her door and apparently without the knowledge of the landlord, insisting upon gaining access to her appliance, claiming it had been the cause of her carbon monoxide poisoning and not their work.
10. She had felt harassed and made vulnerable as a result of being visited by the same engineer who was responsible for making safe the gas boiler, who set about pressuring her into agreeing with him that her oven was the cause of the carbon monoxide leak and clearly had nothing but his own agenda in mind. She felt upset and like she had not been heard and taken seriously and protected.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 19 September 2023 and informed her it would respond within ten days of the date of it’s letter.
On the same day the landlord emailed the resident and informed her that it had a couple of other gas contractors and was checking availability. It stated they would need to carry out a gas safety check of the oven and the boiler to safely uncap the gas supply and asked the resident if that was okay and her availability.
The landlord issued its stage one response dated 21 September 2023. The landlord stated that:
1. It would arrange for a property surveyor, to attend the property regarding the reports of cigarette smoke and inspect for any holes and would also inspect the flat below. It asked the resident to provide dates for when that would be convenient to book in.
2. It was aware that the resident had been visited by it’s pest control contractor on four separate occasions and no nest was found at that time. It had spoken to the contractor and it advised that it would need to carry out an inspection in the resident’s loft. It asked the resident if she agreed to provide dates for when that would be convenient.
3. The resident’s email on 13 September 2023 was the first time she had raised any concerns regarding carbon monoxide poisoning. The gas check was passed prior to her moving in. Once the resident moved in, she had a further gas check through it’s contractor and that indicated that the gas supply was safe and the gas was uncapped. The resident had confirmed that since moving in she had a cooker installed by a Gas Safe contractor. Once the resident notified it that she had a suspected carbon monoxide leak, it spoke to the gas distribution company who confirmed there was no carbon monoxide in her property. It was aware that the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) were notified of the incident as she told the gas distribution company that she had carbon monoxide poisoning. The HSE had since confirmed that the gas distribution company stated there was no carbon monoxide in the property and that the resident confirmed to the HSE that the hospital found no carbon monoxide in her bloodstream. Once the gas distribution company confirmed that it was safe to do so, it arranged for it’s contractor to visit the property and check the gas. They attended the property but were unable to carry out the check as the resident would not allow them to touch the cooker at that time. The landlord needed to be able to check all gas outlets to certify that it was safe and could be switched back on. Since that time, an engineer from an alternative company attended the property who was able to carry out a full check and uncap the gas supply. Both the HSE and the landlord had spoken to the gas distribution company who had confirmed that the certificate issued by their engineer stated that no carbon monoxide was found and therefore it refuted the claim. It did not know why the statement would have been made to the resident. It did not have any contract with the gas distribution company and was therefore unable to take it any further.
4. It confirmed that it’s out of hours contract had a rota of engineers, and the same engineer who carried out the original gas check was sent, which was done by coincidence. The engineer insisting on looking at the gas cooker was correct, and the correct procedure was followed. The resident had raised the concern that the gas engineer who attended on 8 September 2023 was aggressive and standing over her when he was carrying out his duties. It was sorry to hear that the resident felt intimidated in any way. It apologised for any distress caused.
5. The resident raised that it did not provide her with a means of heat for two weeks during the period from 8 September 2023. It did not anticipate that she would be without heat for an extended period. It was also anticipated that the temperatures would be over 20 degrees Celsius. The resident had since confirmed that she had borrowed a heater from a friend. Therefore, it was its finding that it acted within acceptable time frames to attempt to get her gas back on. It also gave her permission to source her own gas engineer, therefore the appropriate options were given to her.
6. The resident raised a concern that on 22 September 2023 when she reported a further carbon monoxide alarm activation that she was not called back promptly enough. It had reviewed the records and could see that the resident had called out of hours and it responded within five hours of it’s office opening so responded to her within the time frames of it’s communication charter of three working days.
7. According to it’s checklist the information regarding the carbon monoxide alarm and what to do when it sounded was provided to the resident.
8. Regarding the unannounced visit, it had asked it’s contractor to attend the residents property who followed it’s instruction. It apologised that the resident was not given warning of the visit.
9. It apologised to the resident that she was not provided with a gas certificate when the gas check was carried out. There was no gas on when she moved into the property and it could see that the check was carried out before that was turned on. It enclosed a copy of the certificate for her records.
10. It was standard practice for it to provide the summary of the full asbestos report to tenants on sign up, which is what she was provided with but was aware that she had since been provided with the full report.
A gas inspection organised by the resident through gas safe took place on 5 October 2023 and the report was issued on 13 October 2023. The report stated defects were identified with the appliance and as a result an in accordance with the Gas Industry Unsafe Situations Procedure the appliance was classified as Immediately Dangerous and disconnected from the gas supply.
The resident informed the landlord on 22 October 2023 that she did not accept and disputed the complaint response issued 4 October 2023. The resident said she was dissatisfied with the complaints outcome and disputed the accuracy of some of the information provided that tried to disprove the credibility of the issues raised without investigation, which should have been acted upon immediately due to the serious nature of risk to health. There was no other escalation reasons provided by the resident.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request the next day and informed the resident that it would issue a stage two response within 20 working days from the date of the letter.
The next day the landlord contacted the resident to offer to discuss the escalation request and asked when it would be convenient for the resident or if she preferred she could provide the reasons in writing. The resident responded the next day and said being placed in a position of having to make a complaint about issues she had raised not being dealt with was the overriding concern. Inaccurate representation of events, to her knowledge, included that there had been only one visit from pest control, which comprised of a visual inspection from the ground and did not extend to any extensive search. Subsequently to that visit, during the period of one hour of having a window open, 15 wasps came into the property whilst a friend was round. The report served to discredit and undermine the validity of the issues presented.
Between 13 November 2023 and 6 December 2023 emails were sent between the landlord and solicitors on behalf of the resident.
The landlord issued it’s stage two response to the resident on 12 December 2023. The response stated that it tried to contact the resident or her solicitor eleven times between 24 October 2023 to 6 December 2023. As it had not heard back from the resident, it could only base the stage two outcome on the correspondence it had received. The landlord stated that:
1. Inaccurate representation of events response: It was difficult to know the particular events the resident was referring to but it had pieced together a detailed timeline which did seem to correlate with emails received, visits by contractors together with calls from third parties such as Health and Safety Executive and Gas Safe therefore it was unable to proceed further with that element of the complaint.
2. Number of visits by pest control response. The stage 1 outcome stated that there were numerous visits from pest control and upon checking it’s records that did seem to be the case. It appeared however that visits were made but as they did not need to access the inside of the resident’s property they did not make the resident aware of the visits. The contractor should have either knocked on her door or left a calling card informing her of their visit. The landlord apologised and said it had asked the contractor to do so in future.
3. To the discredit and undermining the validity of the issues response. It apologised that the resident felt that way. The point was difficult to respond to without understanding what issues the resident felt were undermined. It did appear that a detailed and thorough response was given at stage 1 and there were also offers made to talk those through with her in advance. Without more information it could not give any further response to that element of the complaint.
4. Use of language response. It apologised if any language used had caused the resident offence. It was unclear what exactly that was referring to. The language used at stage one did appear formal in its tone, however the complaints process was a formal process. After reading through the stage one complaint it could not see the term “allegedly” which she had stated she was unhappy with. It noted the responding officer at stage one had used the term “suspected” which may be what the resident was referring to. It understood that may be construed as giving an opinion in order to “discredit” her, however the responding officer was unable to confirm that there was a carbon monoxide leak at that point, and it thought that was why the term was used. If it gave the resident the impression of trying to discredit her it apologised.
5. Not taking the events seriously response. It was unsure which particular part of the gas event the resident was referring to which made it difficult to review. Therefore, it had looked through events in totality rather than in one specific part. It noted in the stage one response that it acted on the advice of the Health and Safety Executive and Gas Safe together with two separate approved gas safe contractors. It was therefore unclear which specific event was not taken seriously. It was concerned that was how the resident felt and if it had made her feel that was the case it apologised, as after speaking to the staff involved it was not their intention.
6. It was unable to give the resident a more thorough response but hoped that she felt every effort was made to contact here, to gain more details around her complaint escalation, with over ten attempts made since 24 October 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

The resident said the lack of action taken by the landlord in resolving the issues she raised affected her mental and physical health. The Ombudsman does not doubt her comments. However, as this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be decided by the courts, as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
Whilst it is noted that the resident continued to have concerns regarding the actions of the landlord in relation to issues raised after the stage two response was issued in December 2023, this investigation report will not consider the events which have arisen after the date of the landlord’s Stage two response. This is because the landlord has not had an opportunity to investigate and respond to any complaint which may be raised by the resident in respect of those events. Any such issues or events that have occurred after the stage two response issued in December 2023 that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. When referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the evidence provided showed the resident raised concerns about the shower and electrical sockets in the property. However, as neither of those issues were raised in the complaint made by the resident and therefore had not gone through the landlord’s internal complaints process at the time the complaint was referred to the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman cannot consider those concerns as part of this investigation.

The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of cigarette smoke entering the property.

The landlord’s repairs policy supplied to this investigation did not specify any categories of repairs, it also did not provide timescales of when a resident should expect a repair to be completed. A check of the landlords website showed it categorises repairs as emergency to be dealt with within 24 hours, urgent repairs to be dealt with within 7 days and routine repairs to be dealt with within 28 days.
It is noted that in addition to those timescales not being in the landlord’s repairs policy. The policy itself states it was due for review in 2019. This does not appear to have taken place as the landlord still has the policy published on it’s website stating a review was due in 2019. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to review the policy or if it has done so already to update it’s website.
The repairs policy states in section 3 that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property and its fixtures and keeping in repair and proper working order all installations for the supply of water, gas and electricity, for sanitation and for space and water heating. This is also confirmed in section 4.1.1 of the residents tenancy agreement.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the property has compartmentalisation and/or if this is adequate. The role of the Ombudsman is to determine if, in responding to the resident’s concerns about this, the landlord complied with it’s relevant policies and procedures and whether it’s response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. This will include a consideration of how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about it‘s handling of the matter.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to investigate the smoke ingress from the property below was not adequate. In responding to the resident’s concerns the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have considered for example undertaking an inspection to establish whether her concerns regarding transmission of cigarette smoke / fumes was due to a repair issue with the structure of the building and if it needed addressing.
There was no evidence the landlord considered that prior to it issuing it’s stage one response. In the stage one response, although it asked the resident for dates it’s surveyor could attend the property to carry out an inspection, the landlord has not evidenced it either raised for an inspection to take place or that it followed the reports up with the resident. At the end of the complaints process the landlord therefore had not evidenced it took appropriate steps to satisfy itself, and the resident, that the transmission of cigarette smoke / fumes was not due to an issue which required it to take action and that the resident’s concerns were appropriately addressed.
The resident in correspondence on 14 August 2023 and 17 August 2023 stated that the issues she was reporting of cigarette smoke entering her property was affecting her health. Smoke could pose a statutory nuisance if it substantially impacted the resident’s enjoyment of her property or be likely to injure her health.
The landlord would be expected to have considered the resident’s reports and her stated effects in it’s consideration of the action it would take. The health risks associated with secondary cigarette smoke along with the resident’s health concerns of the effects the cigarette smoke she was reporting may have had on her did not appear to have been appropriately considered by the landlord. This was a failing by the landlord.
The resident in her complaint stated she had been asked to take pictures and provide those to the landlord. The landlord failed in its complaint response to address the resident’s statement that she had been asked to take photographs of holes in the property. It is not clear why the landlord asked the resident to provide photographs given the source of the ingress had not been established and the resident would not be expected to have the relevant knowledge to identify any such areas.
At the time the stage two response was issued the resident’s reports remained unresolved and the landlord has failed to evidence it took any action to investigate the residents reports and the possible impact on her vulnerabilities. The issue remained outstanding at the end of the complaint’s process, 82 working days after the resident first reported the issue. This was maladministration by the landlord and it should pay the resident £150.

The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of carbon monoxide from the boiler in the property.

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish if a carbon monoxide leak took place. Our role is to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to the reports of such a leak at the property.
The landlord has not provided evidence of the pre tenancy checks it would have carried out as part of its void works before the property was relet or what documents or certificates were issued to the resident on the commencement of the tenancy. This Service therefore cannot determine the landlord carried out the appropriate checks before the property was let to the resident. The resident in her complaint to the landlord also stated she had not been provided any documentation from the landlord. This was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord stated in it’s stage one complaint response that on 8 September 2023 that it’s engineer attended the resident’s property to check the gas and reestablish supply but that the resident refused and the gas remained off. It also stated that it was in contact with the Health and Safety Executive between 13 September 2023 and 15 September 2023 and was advised to not touch the boiler or carry out any gas checks therefore, it was unable to carry out any checks and therefore unable to reconnect the supply.
The landlord also stated it then contacted the resident on 18 September 2023 with the offer of an alternative contractor after being given permission and arranged an appointment for 21 September 2023 where the gas was deemed safe and uncapped. However the resident reported a further activation of the carbon monoxide alarm the same day and recontacted the national agency who turned off the supply but did not cap it. Following that, it could only send the original engineer who carried out the initial check and visited her on 8 September 2023. After the resident’s refusals for that engineer to attend, the landlord only had another engineer available on 26 September 2023 due to office closures but after speaking to Gas Safe it was advised it needed to wait until Gas Safe inspections had been done before it could look at reconnecting the supply. It had however supplied a water heater on 27 September 2023.
The landlord has provided no evidence to this Service of the events it has stated. There was no evidence of its contact with the Health and Safety Executive or Gas Safe and no records evidencing the inspections it undertook either prior to the property being let or following the resident’s reports to the landlord or the findings of those inspections and what works were completed. This was a significant record keeping failure by the landlord and therefore this Service is unable to determine the landlord did what it stated it had done in it’s correspondence with the resident.
In it’s stage one response, the landlord said the resident asked for a water heater on 25 September 2023 and an electric heater was supplied to the resident on 27 September 2023. The landlord stated it did not anticipate that the resident would be without heat for an extended period, that it was also anticipated that the temperatures would be over 20 degrees Celsius and that the resident had since confirmed that she had borrowed a heater from a friend. Therefore, it was it’s finding that it acted within acceptable time frames to attempt to get her gas back on.
This service cannot agree with that conclusion. In addition to the lack of evidence provided regarding the actions the landlord stated it had taken, the resident was left without a supply to heat her property and the resident had also made her vulnerabilities clear to the landlord. Regardless of the anticipated temperatures, the landlord had a duty of care to the resident and should have risk assessed the situation and discussed with the resident if she required any further support while she was without gas to the property before making any decision. The landlord has not evidenced it considered the resident’s health in relation to the gas being capped, her lack of heating in the property and if it needed to take any further steps to support the resident given her stated vulnerabilities and the reports of the carbon monoxide leak.
The resident stated she was not given a copy of the gas service report following the visit by the landlord’s contractor. This Service has also not been provided evidence of the gas service report. The landlord in its stage two response stated an engineer from an alternative company attended the property to carry out a full check and uncap the gas supply. The landlord has also not provided evidence of the contractor’s findings or assessments. A further failing by the landlord.
The resident also informed the landlord it’s contractor attended her property unannounced on 12 September 2023 and in her complaint to the landlord stated the landlord confirmed it had no knowledge of the contractor attending. This was a serious accusation that the landlord would have been expected to investigate.
The landlord confirmed in it’s complaint response that it did ask its contractor to attend the property and apologised that the resident was not given warning of the visit. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will keep tenants informed about progress with their repairs through means that are convenient to them including telephone, text and email. The landlord failed to do this and again considering it was aware the resident was vulnerable and had already informed it she was not happy with the actions of one of it’s contractors this would have caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
This Service’s spotlight report on heating and hot water stated it is important that landlords give tenants clear information at the start of the letting about what to do in an emergency. Landlords must provide new tenants with a copy of the gas safety certificate.
The report also states if a boiler or appliance is thought to be unsafe and is disconnected it is vital that the tenant is given clear information about why this action has been taken, how and when a repair or replacement will take place and what they should do in the meantime, taking account of the circumstances of the household such as providing temporary heaters.
The landlord’s evidence has failed to show it fulfilled those requirements and an order has been made for the landlord to review this Service’s spotlight report on heating and hot water and for the landlord consider the report against it’s current process and procedures.
Based on the evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations at the time which was likely to have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The Ombudsman’s investigation was hampered by the poor quality of the landlord’s records that were provided to this Service. The landlord did not provide any repair records in relation to the boiler. In addition the landlord has not provided a comprehensive record of communication between the landlord, the resident, contractors, the Health and Safety Executive, Gas Safe or the gas distribution company.
This indicates poor record keeping and information management practices. It is unclear from the information provided whether the data was difficult to extract, unreliable, or whether it was missing. This information helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies. From the evidence available, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord fulfilled its obligation under its repairs policy or pro-actively engaged with the parties mentioned or the resident up to the date of the stage two response.
As a result, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reported carbon monoxide leak. For the distress and inconvenience to the resident the landlord should pay the resident £500.

The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of a wasp infestation.

The resident raised the issue with wasps on 17 August 2023 which was within the first week of moving into the property. Although the landlord has evidenced it raised a works order on 17 August 2023 and 22 September 2023, the landlord has not provided any evidence of those visits taking place including inspection reports and if any further works were required. Therefore this Service cannot determine the extent of the landlord’s actions.
In an email to the landlord on 20 September 2023 the resident informed it she suffered from chronic fatigue (ME) which meant she had compromised immunity and multiple allergies including anaphylaxis. The resident said a sting could be serious for her. The landlord would have therefore been expected to consider the resident’s statement and her vulnerabilities in relation to the issue raised. There is no evidence it did so.
The landlord’s stage one response stated it was aware that the resident had been visited by it’s pest control contractor on four separate occasions and no nest was found at that time. The landlord has failed to evidence the dates of each of those visits or the actions it took during those visits and this Service cannot corroborate that statement with the evidence provided.
The landlord also stated in the stage one response that it had spoken to it’s contractor who advised that it would need to carry out an inspection in the resident’s loft and asked the resident if she agreed to provide dates for when that would be convenient. The landlord has not provided evidence of it’s contact with the contractor either through copies of emails sent or of notes from any telephone conversations. This Service is therefore unable to determine what discussions took place and when or why it took until the stage one response for the resident to be informed.
The landlord in it’s stage two response then stated the visits it said had took place in the stage one response to the residents property were to the outside of the property and therefore no internal inspection took place. This was despite the works orders evidenced to this Service requesting internal or external removal of wasp nests. There was also no evidence provided of the resident being informed of any visits taking place so that she could discuss the reports with the contractor on at the property.
As previously stated the landlord’s repairs policy states residents will be informed about progress with their repairs through means that are convenient to them including telephone, text and email. The landlord failed to do that. The landlord by attending only the outside of the property had failed to therefore evidence it conducted a thorough investigation into the resident’s concerns, or discussed the issues with the resident to establish where any wasps could potentially be entering the building.
It is a concern that the resident was neither informed of the visits taking place or was provided with the outcome or findings of the visits. The landlord would be expected once notified of the resident’s concerns to carry out an investigation within appropriate timescales, inform the resident of the actions it planned to take and inform her of the outcome and findings of those actions. This did not happen in this case and was a failing by the landlord.
The landlord failed to evidence it conducted the number of inspections it stated it had in it’s complaint responses. There was no evidence of the inspections that took place and no evidence the landlord considered the resident’s concerns of the wasps on her potential health. This is maladministration by the landlord and it should pay the resident £150.

The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord received the complaint on 13 September 2023 and issued it’s acknowledgement to the resident on 19 September 2023. The acknowledgment letter stated it would issue the response within ten working days of the date of the acknowledgement letter.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that at stage one the target time for responding to a complaint is 10 working days from the receipt date. This would have meant the resident should have expected a reply no later than 26 September 2023. The landlord in its acknowledgment letter stating it would issue the response within ten days of the date of the acknowledgment letter was not in line with its complaints policy.
The stage one complaint was dated 21 September 2023, however it referred to events that took place after that date. The resident in her escalation request stated the stage one letter was issued on 4 October 2023. Therefore given the landlord referred to events in the stage one response that took place after the stated issue date of the stage one response the landlord had incorrectly dated the letter it issued to the resident. The failure to correctly date the stage one response was a failure by the landlord.
This meant that based on the content of the stage one response and the resident’s escalation email the stage one response appears to have been issued 16 working days after the landlord received the complaint and therefore outside of the timescales in its complaints policy of 10 working days.
The landlord did acknowledge some failings in it’s stage one and stage two responses including it failing to inform the resident of a visit from its gas engineer to check the oven, not providing a copy of the gas certificate when she moved in, its contractors failing to make the resident aware of its visits to inspect the property for wasp nests however no offers of redress were made to the resident.
The stage two response was issued after 37 working days which was outside it’s complaints policy timescale of 20 days. However there was evidence the landlord had been contacted by a solicitor on behalf of the resident and the evidence provided showed the landlord was seeking to clarify if the solicitor would be acting on behalf of the resident in relation to her complaint and it was also contacting the resident to seek clarification for the reasons for the escalation to stage two.
Given the delays in the stage one response being issued, the incorrect date used on the stage one response and the landlord’s failure to offer redress for the failures it did identify in its complaint responses. This Service finds service failure in the landlords handling of the residents complaint and it should pay the resident £75.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cigarette smoke entering the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of carbon monoxide from the boiler in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlords handling of the residents reports of a wasp infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a sum of £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of cigarette smoke entering the property. The payment is to be paid directly to the resident and not against the rent account.
3. Pay the resident a sum of £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of carbon monoxide from the boiler in the property. The payment is to be paid directly to the resident and not against the rent account.
4. Pay the resident a sum of £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlords handling of the residents reports of a wasp infestation. The payment is to be paid directly to the resident and not against the rent account.
5. Pay the resident a sum of £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The payment is to be paid directly to the resident and not against the rent account.
6. Review this Service’s spotlight report on heating and hot water and consider the report against its current processes and procedures.

Recommendations

The landlord to review it’s repairs policy or if it has done so already, to publish the latest repairs policy and make it available on it’s website.
The landlord reviews this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management and considers the reports against its record keeping practices.