Origin Housing Limited (202119837)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119837

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 fire safety.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints regarding the smells and flies.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of communal cleaning.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about the cleaning.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy which began on 23 January 2021. The property is a one bedroom flat on the sixth floor of a block.
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.
It was established that smells and flies were originating from a neighbour’s property (referred to in this report as ‘the neighbour’s property’), which was on the same floor as the resident. The tenant of the neighbouring property is referred to in this report as ‘the neighbour’.

Summary of events

On 28 April 2021, the landlord wrote to residents of the block to confirm that it would introduce a ‘waking watch’ system until new fire alarm systems had been installed (a ‘waking watch’ is a fire safety service that involves trained professionals standing guard during the night, conducting regular patrols, and being equipped to take immediate action if necessary).
On 9 June 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to identify a neighbouring property that she believed was the source of the smells.
An internal landlord email dated 16 June 2021 stated that one of its pest control officers had concerns about the neighbour because of the smells and large number of flies apparently emanating from the property. The pest control officer had attempted to gain access to the property but had been unsuccessful.
The landlord wrote to residents of the block on 22 June 2021 to provide an update regarding the upgrades to the fire alarm system.
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.
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 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.
The resident wrote to the landlord on the same date (4 August 2021) to point out that the landlord’s offer of compensation had not mentioned the additional electricity costs of running the air purifier and also had not mentioned a reduction in the rent. The resident requested a copy of the ‘tariff’ that had been used to calculate the landlord’s offer of compensation. The landlord replied on the same date to say that it would look at the question of compensation for the additional costs of running the air purifier, however, it had already decided that a rent reduction was not possible.
The landlord sent a further reply to the resident on 5 August 2021 to confirm that no tariff had been used to calculate the £250 compensation offer. The relevant director had authorised the offer of £250. The landlord stated that it was seeking additional clarification on whether the offer could be increased.
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 the resident, 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 against the neighbour forbidding him from harassing, threatening or using violence towards any resident within the locality of the block.
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.
On 21 August 2021, the resident submitted a stage one complaint, in which she stated the following:
1. At a recent virtual meeting with residents, the landlord had said that compensation was calculated using a tariff and therefore the resident had requested a copy of the tariff, including whether it allowed for reimbursement of additional electricity used for the air purifiers.
2. At the virtual meeting, the residents had requested a timeline of the events regarding the neighbour’s property and they had not yet received this. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s assertion that it had been unaware that the smells and flies were emanating from the neighbour’s property.
3. The resident had been given contradictory information about the terms of the injunction.
4. The resident said that the landlord had been aware that the flies and smells were coming from the neighbour’s flat in February 2021 when the police entered the property.
5. The resident requested a copy of the correspondence showing that it had been misinformed about the source of the flies and smells.
6. The communal areas were untidy because of dust and other mess left by the contractors who were working there.
7. The neighbour had made threats to burn the block down and therefore the delay in finishing the fire alarm work meant that residents were at increased risk.
8. The landlord’s offer of £15 a day for meals was inadequate and would not enable her to eat healthy meals.
9. The fly bags placed in the internal corridors were designed for outdoor use and were therefore not suitable for use indoors.
10. The resident confirmed she had been offered compensation of £850 but had declined the offer and requested three months’ rent compensation and half-price rent until the neighbour’s property was hazard-free.
The landlord sent an update to residents on 23 August 2021 advising them that it was still awaiting the injunction paperwork from the court.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 August 2021 to ask if she was still required to pay full rent despite “missing court papers”, air purifiers that were not working and outdoor fly traps that were ineffective.
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 for 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”.
On 9 September 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to ask when she could expect a reply to her formal complaint.
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 removed. The neighbour informed the landlord that someone was due to collect some of the items.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 22 September 2021 requesting a reply to her complaint.
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 sent its stage one reply to the resident on 24 September 2021, in which it stated the following:
1. Residents had originally been offered compensation of £250 as a goodwill gesture, however, the offer had been increased to £850 for residents who did not wish to take up the offer of temporary accommodation.
2. The landlord outlined the terms of the injunction it had obtained.
3. The landlord had initially been misinformed about the source of the smells and flies and had been given the wrong flat number as the source.
4. The landlord had recently entered the neighbour’s property and removed the carpet from the main offending areas.
5. The landlord accepted there had been a delay in the investigation of the source of the smells and flies.
6. The landlord said it understood the reasons the resident had refused the offer of temporary accommodation, but explained that it had been offered as a respite for residents to get away from the problems they were facing.
7. The landlord confirmed there had been issues in accessing the neighbour’s property to install the new fire alarms, however, the alarm had been installed on 21 September 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 September 2021 with a transcript of a conversation between her and a member of the landlord’s staff. The resident stated that the member of staff had reported the problem to the landlord in February 2021.
On 25 September 2021, the resident sent a stage two complaint to the landlord, in which she expressed her dissatisfaction in relation to:
1. The landlord’s description of the terms of the injunction. The resident stated that the injunction had not yet been served on the neighbour.
2. The landlord had visited on 24 September 2021 to clean the neighbour’s property but had only removed a small amount of material.
3. The resident was concerned about the imminent expiry of the injunction.
4. The resident believed there was a lack of transparency regarding the landlord’s compensation policy.
5. The resident confirmed she had a copy of the compensation policy and had argued that her rent should be reduced by 50% to compensate her for the problems she had experienced.
6. The resident was concerned about the cladding and fire safety issues. She felt that the risks to residents had been made worse because the landlord had not gained access to the neighbour’s property sooner to fit the new fire alarm, even though the property was full of materials that might be a fire risk.
7. The resident reiterated that the initial complaints had been made about the smells and flies in February 2021.
8. The resident felt that the landlord had failed to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act and had not kept to the terms of the tenancy agreement.
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.
The landlord sent an update to residents on 5 October 2021, in which it confirmed that it would be visiting the neighbour’s property on 6 October 2021 and would provide a further update to residents following this visit.
The landlord sent a further update to residents on 6 October 2021 to confirm that it had visited the neighbour’s property that day and found that the neighbour had made some effort to clear the flat but still had a great deal to do. The landlord confirmed that the new court injunction had been hand-delivered to the neighbour on 6 October 2021 and that it would check the neighbour’s property again during the following week.
The landlord sent a ‘holding’ letter to the resident on 8 October 2021 in relation to her stage two complaint. The landlord confirmed that the full investigation of the complaint was underway, but that information was outstanding from other teams. The landlord apologised for the delay in replying.
On 15 October 2021, the landlord wrote to the affected residents with a further update. The landlord reported that it had visited the neighbour’s property that morning and felt that the neighbour should have made more progress in clearing the flat. Therefore, the landlord advised residents that it would refer the matter back to its solicitors.
On 19 October 2021, the landlord sent its stage two reply to the resident, in which it stated the following:
1. The injunction application had been sent to the court on 30 July 2021 and the injunction was obtained on 11 August 2021. However, the court paperwork was not issued by the court until 23 August 2021 due to backlogs.
2. The injunction hearing held on 29 September 2021 reduced the powers the landlord had been granted in the original injunction to enforce the cleaning of the neighbour’s property. Recent visits had shown little improvement and therefore the landlord had requested further court action.
3. The landlord clarified its offer of compensation and confirmed it was offering £1,250 to each household affected and it would arrange future professional cleaning of the resident’s property once the source of the smells and flies had been cleared. The landlord pointed out that the resident was sent a copy of its compensation policy, but its compensation procedure (which mentions ‘tariffs’) was an internal document used as a starting point to calculate compensation. The landlord explained that the issues within the block were unusual and did not fall within the usual parameters of the compensation policy.
4. The landlord stated that the impact of the problems on the cleaning service had been taken into account in calculating the compensation figure of £1,250.
5. The landlord again accepted that there were delays initially in locating the source of the smells and flies. This had been due to miscommunication and changes of staff in the relevant team. The landlord gave an undertaking to ensure that detailed handovers were carried out when staff leave.
6. Daily cleaning had been introduced, rather than the scheduled weekly clean and air purifiers had been installed. Also, on the recommendation of its pest control operative, fly bags were installed.
7. The freeholder of the building was responsible for the exterior of the block including the cladding. To ensure residents’ safety while fire alarms were being installed, the landlord introduced the waking watch patrols on 28 April 2021 until the installation was completed on 24 September 2021. The cladding and other remedial work was being progressed by the freeholder.
8. The landlord had been working with social services to manage the needs of the neighbour. The landlord would now contact other residents to discuss any support needs.
9. The landlord stated that the room loss provisions within its compensation policy would not usually apply where a room had become unusable due to the actions or inaction of a third party or where the landlord had offered reasonable alternative arrangements to cover a resident’s loss.
On 20 October 2021, the resident replied to the landlord’s stage two response and stated that she would be approaching the Ombudsman because the landlord had not provided any evidence in its letter to substantiate the points included in the letter.
On 23 October 2021, the resident contacted this Service to outline her complaint. She stated that the building had not been habitable between February 2021 and October 2021 and she had not been able to move from her home because she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and an attachment disorder. She stated that the landlord had been negligent in dealing with the smells and flies and that its offer of compensation was too low as the landlord’s compensation policy would entitle someone who was forced to leave their home to an 80% reduction in their rent.
During November 2021, the landlord sent further updates to the residents affected by the smells, and flies and on 5 November 2021 it advised residents in an update that it had referred the matter back to its solicitors to apply to the county court for a breach of the injunction by the neighbour.
On 26 November 2021, the landlord attended the neighbour’s property and noted there was a large number of flies within the property. During the visit, the landlord had asked the neighbour whether he would engage with social services to support him in relation to “the hoarding”. The neighbour declined this offer as he thought it would result in some of his belongings being removed.
In December 2021, the landlord sent an update to all residents of the block regarding fire safety. It confirmed that it had installed the new fire alarm system in consultation with the fire brigade and that the waking watch service had no longer been required following the completion of the fire alarm installation.
From 3 December to 9 December 2021, there were exchanges of emails between the landlord and the resident regarding the fly bags that had been installed. Having been advised by the resident that the fly bags were unsuitable for indoor use, the landlord had contacted its pest control team to source alternative fly bags.
On 10 December 2021, the landlord sent an update to the affected residents and confirmed it was still awaiting a further court date. The landlord stated that it would visit the neighbour’s property on 13 December 2021.
On 15 December 2021, the resident wrote to this Service and stated that the landlord had been negligent and had breached its contract. The resident cited case law regarding damages for breach of contract.
On 20 January 2022, the landlord sent an update to residents in the block regarding the cleaning. The landlord advised residents that prior to Christmas, the vacuum cleaner and other cleaning materials were stolen from its storage unit and this was the reason the cleaning had not been carried out to the required standards. The landlord confirmed that it had ordered new materials, which would be delivered by the following week and apologised for the standard of cleaning. The landlord also stated that a deep clean of the block would be carried out during the following week.
The landlord sent a further update to residents on 20 January 2022 regarding the smells and flies. It confirmed that as the NSP had expired, it had now requested its solicitors to progress the case to court for a possession hearing. The landlord also confirmed that it would be ordering the same fly bags that residents had supplied.
The resident replied on the same date (20 January 2022) to request clarification from the landlord regarding the reason for the reduction in cleaning. She felt that the landlord’s explanations had been contradictory. The resident stated that residents had been “subjected to living in filth and squalor”.
On 28 January 2022, the landlord sent an update to residents to confirm that a new vacuum cleaner had been sourced and a deep clean had been carried out during the week to bring the condition of the block back to the expected standard.
The landlord sent an update to the residents affected by the smells and flies on 4 February 2022 confirming that the legal paperwork relating to the application for possession had been sent to the county court and the landlord was now waiting for a court hearing.
On 1 March 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to ask about the replacement fly bags and also stated that the communal areas were “filthy”.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 March 2022 to say that the communal corridor floor was “a mess” and the skirting boards, the fire exit stairs, the lift and other communal areas were “filthy”.
On 13 March 2022, the landlord carried out a deep clean of the block, including washing the walls and ceilings.
On 18 March 2022, the resident informed the landlord that the cleaner seemed to have stopped cleaning the block.
On 14 April 2022, the landlord carried out a further deep clean of the block, including washing the walls and ceilings.
On 4 May 2022, the landlord sent an update to the residents affected by the smells and flies to confirm it had been granted a further injunction on 7 April 2022. The landlord visited the neighbour’s property on 8 April 2022 and noted that the neighbour had breached the injunction and the landlord therefore notified its solicitors. On 24 May 2022, the landlord was granted an outright possession order by the county court.
On 16 June 2022, the landlord’s solicitor wrote to the landlord to confirm that it had submitted an application to the county court for an eviction warrant.
In June 2022, the resident sent various emails to the landlord and to this Service regarding the standard of cleaning in the block. The resident then submitted a stage one complaint on 22 June 2022 regarding the communal cleaning. The landlord replied to the stage one complaint on 4 July 2022, in which it stated:
1. The cleaning had been provided apart from during a two week period in March/April 2022 when the service had a high staff absence rate.
2. The landlord said that it would usually have emailed residents to advise them when service levels could not be achieved due to staff sickness, however, the landlord was unable to locate any such emails that had been sent to residents in March/April 2022 regarding the reduced service.
3. An estate inspection had been carried out by the landlord on 14 June 2022 and the block had been found to be in reasonable condition, apart from some issues on the floor of the block where the neighbour’s property was located. The landlord would therefore carry out additional cleaning of the block every Tuesday until the issues regarding the neighbour were resolved.
4. The landlord confirmed that the annual charge for communal cleaning was £347.95 per property and therefore the landlord would refund a proportion of this sum to reflect the two week period when the cleaning service was not provided.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 July 2022 to say she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage one reply. The resident stated that she had written previously to the landlord about the lack of cleaning over the previous 12 months. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 9 July 2022 and enclosed photos showing areas in the communal corridor that she stated had not been cleaned.
On 20 July 2022, the landlord wrote to the residents affected by the smells and flies to inform them it was still awaiting an eviction date for the neighbour.
On 21 July 2022, the resident wrote to advise the landlord that she was still waiting for a revised cleaning bill for non-cleaning. She also requested a full breakdown from January 2021 to July 2022 of when cleaning was meant to have taken place but was not delivered and how much she was owed by the landlord for all instances of non-cleaning. The resident chased the landlord for a reply on 28 July 2022 and on 2 August 2022.
On 25 August 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that she had previously asked for her complaint about cleaning to be escalated to stage two. The resident quoted previous emails she had sent and stated that between February 2021 to August 2022, residents had not had regular and consistent cleaning.
On 19 October 2022, the landlord sent its stage two reply about the cleaning issues, in which it stated the following:
1. Although there was no evidence of a total absence of cleaning throughout the period February 2021-August 2022, the landlord accepted that the service had been inconsistent and there were gaps in its quality inspections. The landlord recognised that the inconsistent service occurred during a time when communal cleaning was especially important because of the ongoing issues with the neighbour.
2. The landlord therefore agreed to refund the cleaning element of the service charges for the entire period and also offered £100 for complaint handling failures in relation to the resident’s complaints about cleaning.
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

On 15 December 2021, the resident wrote to this Service and stated that in her view the landlord had been negligent and had breached its contract. The resident cited examples of case law where damages had been awarded for negligence or a breach of contract.
It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to determine negligence or liability in the same way as the courts, or to order damages in relation to these, as these are matters where a court can offer a definitive and legally binding decision. This is consistent with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice should she wish to pursue a claim for damages in relation to negligence. 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 resident wrote to the landlord about the smells and flies on various occasions after its final response letter dated 19 October 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. This assessment can, therefore, only consider the landlord’s response to issues and incidents relating to the smells and flies up to the date of the final response. This approach is consistent with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

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 decant policy states that daily allowances may be offered to residents who are decanted into an alternative property without cooking facilities, eg a hotel. This will be a daily food allowance of £15 per day.
The landlord’s estate services policy states: “Where there are communal areas a cleaning and caretaking service will be provided by [the landlord] to keep these areas clean and tidy”.
The landlord’s cleaning information sheet for the block in question shows that internal cleaning for the block is scheduled to be carried out weekly and the tasks to be done include:
1. Sweeping and mopping or vacuuming floors;
2. Cleaning the lift
3. Spot cleaning the walls.

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 her stage one complaint that the landlord had been aware that smells and flies were emanating from the neighbour’s property since February 2021. The resident said that three of the landlord’s staff had been present when the police were given access to the neighbour’s property in February 2021. However, in its letter dated 24 September 2021, the landlord stated that the visit referred to occurred in March 2021. Although the date the landlord became aware of the problem is disputed, the landlord accepted in its stage two reply that some of its staff were aware of the situation earlier in the year. It acknowledged that there had been a delay in managing the issues in the neighbour’s property due to miscommunication and changes in the team that was responsible for dealing with the problem.
Based on the evidence seen by this Service, the landlord did not start to take any 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. Given that the presence of the smells and flies had been sufficiently serious to convince the police to visit the property earlier in the year, it was unreasonable that the landlord took 4-5 months to begin taking action. The delay meant that during this period, no meaningful action had been taken by the landlord 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 certain items 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, as were any delays in the court sending the landlord copies of the injunctions.
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 and October 2021 it had visited on 1 September 2021, 6 September 2021, 15 September 2021, 27 September 2021, 6 October 2021 and 15 October 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 landlord had been aware of the problem since February or March 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.
In its letter dated 4 August 2021, the landlord confirmed it had offered to move the resident temporarily to a hotel next door. The landlord explained in its stage one reply dated 24 September 2021 that it had offered the temporary accommodation as respite from the problems the resident was facing with the smells and flies. The resident later confirmed that she had refused the offer to move temporarily because she was suffering from PTSD and an attachment disorder. This Service understands the reasons the resident refused the offer of temporary accommodation, however, in the Ombudsman’s view, 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 an offer of temporary accommodation.
In terms of the compensation offered to residents, on 4 August 2021 the landlord offered residents £250 to cover the discomfort they had experienced from the smells and flies. The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 August 2021 to say that it would be seeking additional clarification on whether the sum could be increased. The sum offered was subsequently increased to £850, as confirmed in the landlord’s stage one reply. Finally, the landlord wrote to the affected 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 clarified in its stage two reply that it had not used a formula to calculate the compensation but had instead focussed on the impact of the situation. It also pointed out that the issues within the block were unusual and did not fall within the usual parameters of its compensation policy. The landlord’s explanation about the calculation of the compensation was in line with its compensation policy, which states that compensation will be calculated on each individual case. The landlord’s method of calculation and the explanation given to the resident were therefore appropriate.
The resident requested clarification in her stage one and stage two complaints on whether the additional electricity used to run the air purifiers would be refunded to residents as part of the landlord’s compensation offer. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord directly addressed this question and therefore this was a shortcoming. However, the landlord’s stage one and stage two replies did make it clear that the amount offered was its final, overall offer. The landlord has subsequently confirmed to this Service that the compensation offer of £1,250 took into account and reflected any financial loss on the part of residents, which included the additional electricity costs.
In her stage one complaint, the resident said that the landlord had made reference at one of the virtual meetings to a tariff being used to calculate the compensation and therefore requested a copy of the ‘tariff’. The Ombudsman has received a copy of the landlord’s compensation procedure, which refers to the use of tariffs and therefore this may explain why the word ‘tariff’ was used at the virtual meeting referred to by the resident. However, the landlord wrote to the resident on 5 August 2021 to clarify that the compensation had not been calculated using a tariff. Also, the landlord stated in its stage two reply that the procedure was an internal document and the policy was a public document. The Ombudsman’s view is that this was reasonable as the policy sets out the guidelines for the landlord’s approach to compensation, whereas the procedure sets out the step by step instructions for its staff to follow. It is standard practice for landlords to publish policies but not procedures.
In her stage two complaint, the resident had argued that her rent should be reduced by 50% dating back to the first police visit to the neighbour’s property. She felt that this was reasonable as she felt that someone who had been forced to move out of their home would be entitled to a reduction of 80%, which she said was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. The landlord stated in its stage two reply that the room loss provisions in the compensation policy were for cases where, for example, a room becomes unusable due to repairs failures. It also stated that compensation would not usually be paid in instances where the landlord had offered reasonable alternative arrangements. The landlord’s compensation policy confirms both of these statements, ie that loss of room payments are only made where a room is unusable because of a repair and room loss payments are not made during decant periods. The landlord’s reasons for not using room loss as the basis for its compensation calculation were therefore appropriate.
The resident also questioned the adequacy of the landlord’s offer of £15 per day as a meal allowance in the event of moving to temporary accommodation. The landlord’s decant policy confirms that a daily food allowance of £15 may be offered to residents who are decanted into temporary accommodation where there are no cooking facilities, such as a hotel. The landlord’s offer was to place residents into hotel accommodation, which would not have individual cooking facilities, and therefore the landlord’s offer of £15 per day for meals was appropriate.
The landlord accepted in its stage two reply that some of its staff had been aware of the problem earlier in the year, however, as a result of miscommunication and staff changes there were undue delays in managing the issues in the neighbour’s flat. As stated earlier in this assessment, there was a 4-5 month delay in the landlord taking action and during this period the residents experienced the discomfort of living with the smells and flies within the block. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation to the resident. 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 she had to endure the discomfort of the smells and flies during this period. The Ombudsman has therefore considered the landlord’s offer of redress and has concluded that it was reasonable because:
1. The landlord acknowledged the miscommunication errors and apologised for the delay in managing the problem.
2. The landlord demonstrated appropriate learning from its mistakes by confirming in its stage two reply that it would ensure there was a proper handover when there are staff changes in the future.
3. 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.
4. The landlord offered to professionally clean the resident’s property once the source of the smells and flies had been cleared.
5. The landlord offered residents temporary accommodation while the problems with the smells and flies were ongoing and, in line with its policy, offered residents a daily meal allowance.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety

In her stage two complaint, the resident expressed her concerns about fire safety caused by the delays in fitting the new fire alarm in the neighbour’s property given the amount of belongings in the property. The landlord wrote to residents of the block on 1 July 2021 to confirm that the specification for the new fire alarm system had been finalised and work to upgrade the alarm system would begin during week commencing 12 July 2021. The landlord’s stage one reply stated that the alarm was installed in the neighbour’s flat on 21 September 2021. It is unknown when the installation had been scheduled to take place in the neighbour’s property, however, the landlord accepted in its stage one reply that there had been a delay in gaining access to carry out the work. The evidence shows that the landlord took the following measures to reduce the fire risks in relation to the neighbour’s property and more generally:
1. The landlord had obtained an injunction on 11 August 2021 prohibiting the neighbour from storing flammable liquids in the property and from behaving in any manner which caused a health, safety or fire risk to other residents.
2. The landlord had introduced waking watch patrols from 28 April 2021 and kept these in place until 24 September 2021 when all the fire alarms had been installed.
3. The landlord visited the property on various occasions to monitor whether the neighbour was making progress in removing items and cleaning the property.
4. The landlord removed carpets and some other items from the neighbour’s property on 22 September 2021.
5. The overall timescale for carrying out the installation of the fire alarms to the block was just over two months from start to finish, which was not an excessively long period.
The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord therefore took reasonable steps to complete the fire alarm installation within a reasonable time and took appropriate steps to mitigate the additional fire risks posed by the neighbour’s property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints regarding the smells and flies

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 21 August 2021, which the landlord acknowledged on 24 August 2021. However, the landlord did not reply until 24 September 2021, which was 24 working days after receiving the complaint. The time taken to reply was therefore meant that the resident had to write to the landlord on 9 and 22 September 2021 to request a reply to her complaint. This was therefore a shortcoming on the part of the landlord, however, the landlord apologised for the delay in replying and it did maintain contact with the affected residents during the period by sending progress updates on 26 August 2021, 6 September 2021 and 23 September 2021. The evidence also shows that the landlord was taking action during this period, for example serving the injunction on 27 August 2021 and cleaning the neighbour’s property on 22 September 2021.
The resident sent a stage two complaint to the landlord on 24 September 2021 and the landlord replied within an appropriate timescale on 19 October 2021.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning

The evidence seen by this Service shows that the resident wrote to the landlord on various occasions to report issues with the internal communal cleaning, particularly from January 2022 onwards. For example in the first quarter of the year, she wrote to the landlord on 20 January 2022, 1 March 2022, 3 March 2022, 9 March 2022 and 17 March 2022 to report cleaning issues. The resident also submitted a stage one complaint about the cleaning on 22 June 2022 and a stage two complaint on 25 August 2022. The landlord wrote to the resident on the following occasions to accept that the cleaning had not reached the required standards or had not been carried out:
1. On 20 January 2022, the landlord accepted that the cleaning had not been done to the required standard due to the theft of cleaning materials before Christmas;
2. On 4 July 2022, the landlord sent its stage one reply, in which it accepted that cleaning had not been carried out for a two week period in March/April 2022 due to staff absences;
3. On 19 October 2022, the landlord sent its stage two reply, in which it accepted that although it found no evidence of a total absence of cleaning throughout the period February 2021-August 2022, it accepted that the service had been inconsistent and there were gaps in its quality inspections. The landlord accepted that the impact on residents was exacerbated because of the issues regarding the smells and flies.
Having accepted there had been a failure to deliver the required level of cleaning, the landlord offered the following redress:
1. In its stage two reply, the landlord apologised for the lack of cleaning and acknowledged that the impact had been worse because of the problems with the smells and flies.
2. The landlord offered a full refund of the cleaning element of the service charges from February 2021 to August 2022 (a total refund of £593.08).
3. The landlord carried out deep cleaning of the block, for example, on 13 March 2022 and 14 April 2022 to bring standards up to a reasonable level.
4. The landlord confirmed in its stage one reply dated 4 July 2022 that it would carry out additional cleaning of the block every Tuesday until the issues regarding the neighbour were resolved.
5. The landlord stated that since August 2022 it had implemented thorough monthly inspections to ensure that any issues could be appropriately addressed.
The Ombudsman’s view is that in taking the above action, the landlord has offered reasonable redress because it acknowledged its failings and offered a full refund of the cleaning charges, even though there was evidence that some cleaning had been carried out during the period. When deciding on the level of redress, it was right that the landlord took into account that the lack of cleaning had a greater impact on residents due to the problems with the smells and flies within the block. The landlord also carried out deep cleaning at certain times in order to bring the communal areas back up to the required standards. Finally, the landlord demonstrated learning from complaints by implementing a thorough estate inspection regime from August 2022 to ensure that future problems would be identified and addressed.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about the cleaning

The resident submitted a stage one complaint about the cleaning service on 22 June 2022 and the landlord replied on 4 July 2022, which was eight days after receiving the complaint. The landlord therefore replied to the stage one complaint within the ten working day timescale stipulated in its complaints policy.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 August 2022 to ask for her complaint to be escalated to stage two. The landlord replied to the resident on 19 October 2022, which was 38 working days after receiving the request to escalate the complaint. The time taken to respond was inappropriate as it was longer than the 20 working day target set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. Furthermore, there is evidence that the landlord should have escalated the complaint at an earlier stage when the resident contacted the landlord on 4 July 2022. The resident’s email clearly expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one reply and therefore as per its complaints policy, which defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction”, the complaint should have been escalated. The landlord’s failure to escalate the complaint led the resident to comment in her email dated 25 August 2022 that she had already sent many requests for a stage two complaint about the cleaning. The landlord’s failure to correctly escalate the resident’s complaint was inappropriate because it delayed the resolution of her complaint and meant that she had to submit additional emails complaining about the same issue before she received a formal response.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint handling failures in its stage two reply and apologised for the impact the delays had on the resident. It also confirmed that it would use the complaint as a learning point for the team going forwards. Finally, the landlord offered £100 by way of an apology for its case handling. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests payments up to £100 are appropriate where there has been a service failure and the landlord needs to recognise inconvenience, time and trouble, and delays in getting matters resolved. The Ombudsman’s view is therefore that the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress to acknowledge its complaint handling failures in relation to communal cleaning.

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 its response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints regarding the smells and flies.
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 response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of communal cleaning.
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 the resident’s complaints about the cleaning.

Reasons

The landlord accepted there had been an initial delay in dealing with the smells and flies and therefore apologised for this, offered financial redress, offered to professionally clean the resident’s home after the problem was resolved and offered the resident temporary accommodation. The landlord demonstrated learning from its mistakes by confirming it would arrange appropriate handovers when staff are leaving. After the initial delay in managing the problem, the landlord maintained good communications with residents, visited the neighbour a number of times to check progress, took steps to reduce the impact of the smells and flies by supplying fly bags and air purifiers, offered the neighbour support and took appropriate enforcement action to address the problem.
The landlord took appropriate steps to manage the increased fire safety risks by obtaining an injunction in relation to the neighbour, retaining the waking watch patrols until all of the alarms had been installed, visiting the neighbour on various occasions, removing carpets and other items from the neighbour’s property and installing new fire alarms within a reasonable timeframe.
Although there was a delay in replying to the resident’s stage one complaint, the landlord apologised for the delay, maintained contact with the resident during the period and took action to clean the neighbour’s property and progress the legal action in the intervening period.
The landlord acknowledged that there had been gaps and inconsistencies in the cleaning and offered a full refund of the cleaning element of the service charges. The landlord also carried out deep cleaning of the block at different times, increased the level of cleaning and introduced monthly inspections of the block from August 2022.
The landlord acknowledged the delays and failure to escalate the resident’s complaints about the cleaning and offered suitable financial redress. The landlord also indicated it would learn from the complaint handling failings.