Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Brunelcare (202230790)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230790

Brunelcare

31 October 2024


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of its decision to remove wall mounted air fresheners from communal areas in the property, and its refusal to reinstate them.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives in a one bedroom first floor flat in a sheltered housing block. Most residents in the development have physical and/or mental health vulnerabilities. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. On 19 January 2023, the resident reported that the communal wall mounted air fresheners in the hallways had not been re-filled. The landlord advised him that it would do this when next on site.
  3. On 30 January 2023, he contacted the landlord again, to say that the landlord’s staff had not refilled the air fresheners during their visit and told him that they could not do so as they could not find a ladder. The resident offered to refill the air fresheners himself and to replace the stock. He said he did not need a ladder. The landlord refused and told him it may need to remove the air fresheners, as the “communication and expectations” in respect of this were not something it could meet.
  4. On 23 February 2023, the landlord met with the resident. It confirmed that it would be removing the air fresheners. It followed this up with an email on 27 February 2023, where it stated that it would be removing all air fresheners in the development on 7 March 2023.
  5. On 1 March 2023, the resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. He complained about its decision to remove air fresheners from the communal areas. He said the lingering smells in the communal area affected him and that this was a “health and safety issue.” He wanted the landlord to reverse its decision or to be allowed to keep one or two air fresheners which were outside his flat.
  6. On the same day, he also spoke to one of the landlord’s staff on the telephone. The landlord advised him that air fresheners contributed to increased air pollutants and could have an adverse effect on respiratory/breathing conditions. It told the resident that cooking smells are not anti-social behaviour (ASB) and advised him to open the windows in his flat to allow fresh air in.
  7. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 9 March 2023. It said it had removed the air fresheners for the following reasons:
    1. Some residents did not want them.
    2. They were mounted high up and needed to be refilled using a ladder.
    3. There were no air fresheners at other landlord sites.
    4. The issue of air fresheners had taken up a disproportionate amount of time.
    5. As a compromise, the resident could keep 1 air freshener in the corridor, right outside his own flat. He would have to refill this himself at his own expense if at a height that did not pose a health and safety risk to the resident.
  8. On 10 March 2023, the resident submitted a stage 2 complaint. He said the following:
    1. He had 2 of his own air fresheners outside his flat but the landlord had only agreed to him keeping 1 of these.
    2. His life would be dramatically affected by the removal of his air fresheners.
    3. The air fresheners had been on the walls since he moved into the building in 2019. The previous director had given him permission to keep them, and the director had then ordered two extra air fresheners for the communal lounge and the toilet wall next to the office.
    4. He asked it to reverse its decision and reinstate the air fresheners.
  9. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 3 April 2023. It said the following:
    1. Not all residents had chosen to have air fresheners across the site, and it needed to ensure that all residents’ views were considered.
    2. Some residents may have allergies or other reasons for not wanting air fresheners.
    3. It upheld its decision for the resident to have 1 air freshener in the area just outside his flat.

Post Internal Complaints Procedure

  1. The resident approached this Service in May 2023. He said he was uncomfortable living in the property, due to the smells in the communal area. He said the smells made him uncomfortable due to his faith and were affecting his health. As an outcome to the complaint, the resident would like the air fresheners to be reinstalled.

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has advised that the handling of this matter by the landlord has led to a deterioration in his health. Whilst we empathise, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Assessment and findings

  1. When the resident asked the landlord to refill the air fresheners in communal areas in January 2023, it was not reasonable that the landlord initially agreed to refill them, but then told the resident it would be removing them. This conflicting information confused the resident, failed to manage his expectations, and caused him frustration. It also caused him time and trouble in trying to have the issue resolved.
  2. The landlord’s environmental and waste management policy focuses on reducing carbon emissions and reducing the impacts of pollution.
  3. Although it was reasonable that during the telephone conversation on 2 March 2023, the landlord advised the resident that air fresheners contribute to increased air pollutants, the landlord had not mentioned this in its complaint response. This confused the resident and caused him frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
  4. Additionally, the landlord said that it was removing the air fresheners, due to concerns about pollutants and allergies, so it is unclear why in its stage 1 response it said that it was not removing them all, as 1 would be left outside the residents door. This conflicting information confused the resident and caused him frustration.
  5. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has said that as a resolution, he wants the landlord to reinstall the air fresheners in the scheme. The provision of air fresheners is not a requirement on the landlord within the terms of the tenancy agreement. As such, the landlord is entitled to make changes to how it manages its housing stock. While the Ombudsman understands that the landlord’s decision to remove the air fresheners has impacted on the resident, it would not be proportionate for this Service to order that the landlord reinstalls air fresheners.
  6. Taking into consideration, that although the landlord did give some conflicting information, it did take steps to discuss the decision with the resident. This included phone calls, letters and giving a date for the removal of the air fresheners. It also met with the resident to discuss this. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to remove air fresheners from the communal areas.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its decision to remove wall mounted air fresheners from communal areas in the property and its refusal to reinstate them.