One Housing Group Limited (202339238)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339238

One Housing Group Limited

29 January 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 the landlord’s response to:
1. the resident’s reports of ASB and odours affecting the property.
2. the resident’s request for assistance with moving to a new property.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. She has lived at the property since March 2021. The property is a 1 bedroom, second floor flat. The resident has mental health issues and her General Practitioner (GP) has confirmed a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 December 2022. She reported that someone was intentionally letting polluted air enter the building. She said the smell of this was affecting her sleep. She also reported that the building smelt of drugs.
The landlord opened an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case. It carried out a joint visit to the building with the police in early January 2023. It found no evidence to substantiate any drug use, pollution or unusual odours in the building. It advised the resident on 8 February 2023 that it was closing the ASB case.
The landlord reopened the ASB case on 31 May 2023 following further reports from the resident of odours in the building. She said there was battery acid in her property and that she could smell and taste it. The landlord inspected the property on the same day but found no evidence to substantiate her concerns.
Over the next 4 months, the resident continued to report concerns that there was pollution, fumes and smells in her property, including the smell of drugs. In June 2023 she reported concerns that someone was deliberately polluting the air in the whole borough. The landlord acknowledged and responded to each of the resident’s reports. It also carried out further property inspections but found no evidence to substantiate her concerns.
On 7 October 2023 the resident submitted a formal complaint. She said there had been “non-stop” ASB in the building, including drug use. She explained that this had negatively impacted her health and she wanted the landlord to act. She also asked it to advise her about how she could move to a different property.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 October 2023. It summarised all the contact it had with the resident since it opened the ASB case in December 2022. It detailed the action it had taken to investigate her reports of drug use and odours. It said:
1. it had consulted with local police who advised they had no evidence of drug use in the building.
2. the resident should continue to report any concerns about drug use to the police given it is criminal activity.
3. it would take action alongside the police if it found any of its tenants to be responsible for any criminal activity or ASB. However, without evidence “it would not be appropriate or proportionate” to take any tenancy enforcement action against other tenants.
4. alongside the police, it had “exhausted all viable options” for the smell of fumes and other odours the resident was experiencing.
5. it sent a letter to all residents in the building in September 2023 to ask if they had experienced any untoward odours, but to date had received no responses.
6. it was unable to control fumes experienced within the whole borough but if she remained concerned, she should contact the local authority environmental health team who may be able to investigate.
7. it had managed the ASB case in line with its policies and procedures, had kept in contact with the resident, as well as relevant support services.
8. for the above reasons, it did not uphold her complaint.
9. the resident could continue to report any further ASB concerns to its community safety team. It provided contact details for that team.
The landlord noted in the stage 1 response that the resident indicated she wished to move property. It set out her options for moving internally with the landlord, through the local authority, and through regional and national moving schemes. It provided contact details for its allocations team and advised the resident to contact that team if she wished to discuss any of these options further.
Over the next 3 months the landlord was in regular contact with the resident. She continued to raise concerns about odours in her property. It continued to investigate and respond to her.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 16 January 2024. She asked for a senior manager to review her case and for the landlord to take action against those taking drugs in the building.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 February 2024. It said it had reviewed the stage 1 response and agreed with the decision not to uphold the complaint. It explained that it had:
1. explored and investigated all possible options for the odours she was smelling.
2. kept the resident regularly updated and let her know what it could and could not investigate.
3. signposted her to appropriate agencies such as environmental health, the police and her GP.
4. worked with internal and external partner agencies to try and find a resolution, but it had “now exhausted all possible avenues of possible anti-social behaviour or crime”.
5. made a number of referrals to support agencies and her GP. It advised her to let it know if it could assist with any other support referrals.
6. provided her with information in the stage 1 response about her options for moving. It set the options out again within the stage 2 response and advised her to contact the allocations team if she wished to discuss these further.
The landlord concluded the stage 2 response by advising the resident to report any further ASB to its community safety team, or criminal behaviour to the police.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she wanted the landlord to compensate her for the stress and impact the odours were having on her physical and mental health. She complained that the landlord had not provided her with adequate accommodation and wanted it to support her to move to an alternative property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns about the impact of the landlord’s actions on her mental and physical health. The resident’s concerns are acknowledged. The Ombudsman can consider the likely distress and inconvenience any identified failings may have caused, but we cannot determine liability for personal injury. Any such claim would be more appropriately progressed as a claim through the landlord’s public liability insurance policy or as a civil action. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim, she should seek independent advice.

The resident’s reports of ASB and odours affecting the property

The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will tackle ASB in a “responsive, victim‐centred, proportionate and robust manner”. When it receives a report of ASB, it must contact the complainant within 3 working days. It should consider the seriousness of the ASB, including the impact it is having on the complainant. It must complete a risk assessment and action plan, and it should then investigate. It may close the case for a number of reasons, including where it is unable to gather sufficient evidence in order to take any action.
The policy recognises that the landlord might not always be the appropriate authority to deal with the reported issue. However, it states that the landlord will work in partnership with other agencies to help resolve cases. The policy highlights the landlord’s duty of care towards all parties involved and cross-references its safeguarding policies.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 December 2022. She reported that someone in the building was intentionally letting polluted air enter the building, and that the smell of this was affecting her sleep. She also reported that the building smelt of drugs.
In compliance with its ASB policy, the landlord completed a risk assessment and opened an ASB case file on the same day. It was reasonable to categorise the reports as potential ASB given the resident reported someone was intentionally allowing substances into the building, and also that there was drug use. This enabled the landlord to respond to the reports in a managed way. However, the landlord did not limit its investigation to uncovering if there was ASB. It appropriately considered potential criminality by liaising with the police, and it also investigated the reports from a buildings perspective in line with its neighbourhood management policy.
Upon receiving the resident’s reports, the landlord noted that it had not identified any unusual odours during a home visit 3 weeks previously on 18 November 2022. However, it contacted the resident and sought further information about her concerns. She advised she had also reported her concerns to the police. The landlord appropriately liaised with the police and together they carried out a joint inspection of the building in early January 2023.
The police and landlord found no evidence of drug use during the inspection, nor did they notice any other unusual smell in the building. In line with its policy, the landlord kept the resident informed of its findings.
The landlord had previously contacted the local authority adult social care team in November 2022 to enquire if the resident was known to them. The local authority confirmed she was and that it had provided her with support for her mental health. Upon receiving the resident’s reports of ASB and odours in December 2022, the landlord asked her if she had spoken to her GP about this. This was appropriate as she told the landlord the odours were impacting on her health.
The resident did not immediately respond to this query, but the landlord reasonably persisted in asking her if she was receiving medical support. It then asked her in January 2023 if she gave permission for it to contact her GP. The resident agreed. The landlord then contacted the GP to enquire what support she was receiving. In line with its safeguarding policy, it also made a referral to the local authority. This was proportionate and reasonable based on the evidence.
The resident continued to contact the landlord and report odours in the building. On 18 January 2023, she reported there was a “garbage smell”. In response to this the landlord arranged for the bin room in the building to be thoroughly cleaned. It advised the resident to report any further concerns regarding waste to the property manager for the building. This was a reasonable response. It demonstrated that the landlord was considering each new report on its own merits, rather than dismissing it on the basis of its previous inspection of the building.
On 8 February 2023 the landlord advised the resident it was closing her ASB case. It explained that it had not established evidence of any ASB but advised her to get in touch again should she have any further concerns. The decision to close the case was in accordance with its policy.
The evidence provided to the Ombudsman by the landlord demonstrates that there was appropriate managerial oversight of the ASB case. Between 7 December 2022 and 8 February 2023, 4 supervisor reviews were conducted. During these reviews the supervisor checked that the risk assessment and action plan were up to date, and that there was regular contact with the resident. The proposed next steps were also reviewed, including the proposal to close the case. The case was also subject to a managerial case review and an internal audit of the risk assessment.
The landlord reopened the ASB case file on 31 May 2023 following further reports from the resident of smells in the building. She said there was battery acid in her property and that she could smell and taste it. She explained this had caused her physical injuries. The landlord attended her property the same day to inspect but found no evidence of smells or fumes. It appropriately asked if she had received medical attention for any injuries. It also contacted her GP again to report its concerns about her mental health and enquire what support she was receiving.
The resident continued to report concerns that there was pollution, fumes and odours in her property, including the smell of drugs. In June 2023 she reported concerns that someone was deliberately polluting the air in the whole borough. She told the landlord that there was “machinery being used on the ground floor [of the building] to target her” and that she believed this was “a national issue targeting women.”
The landlord reasonably advised the resident that the local authority environmental health team would be the correct authority to investigate issues of air pollution in the borough. It had not heard back from her GP, so it contacted him again and asked for an urgent response. It also made another safeguarding referral to the local authority. NHS mental health services responded and confirmed to the landlord that they were now supporting the resident.
The landlord’s holistic approach and persistence in following up with healthcare professionals in this case is commendable. Although it contacted the GP and made a safeguarding referral shortly after opening the ASB case in early 2023, it recognised that risk and vulnerability are dynamic. It kept its risk assessment under regular review and where circumstances presented in June 2023, it appropriately made further referrals in line with its safeguarding policy.
Over the next 4 months, the landlord was in regular contact with the resident. She continued to report the smell of fumes and other odours in her property which she believed were coming from various sources. The landlord carried out a number of further visits to the building but found no evidence of the odours reported. It continued to liaise with the NHS mental health services throughout this time, and also with the police who had also received further reports from the resident. The police told the landlord that they had identified no evidence to substantiate any of the resident’s concerns about drug use in the building or pollution in the air.
Following a manager’s case review on 11 October 2023, the landlord decided to close the ASB case. In line with its policy, this was on the grounds that it had not found evidence of any ASB. It notified the resident of its intentions before closing the file. It advised her that if there were any further issues, she should get in touch and it would reopen the case. This was reasonable advice that signalled the landlord would continue to take her concerns seriously and would respond to each report on its own merits.
In its stage 1 complaint response issued on 13 October 2023, the landlord provided a detailed account of its contact with the resident. It dated this back to December 2022 when she reported her concerns about ASB and odours. It outlined the action it had taken to investigate and said that, alongside the police, it had “exhausted all viable options” for the smell of fumes and other odours the resident was experiencing.
The landlord said it was satisfied it had managed the case in line with its policies and procedures, had kept in regular contact with the resident, and had appropriately liaised with relevant support services. It therefore advised that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint about its response to her reports of ASB and odours. It endorsed this finding in its stage 2 response.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord provided a reasonable response to the resident’s complaint and fairly determined it should not be upheld.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB and odours affecting the property. It responded to her reports promptly and in line with its ASB, neighbourhood management and safeguarding policies. It appropriately liaised with the police, signposted the resident to relevant authorities, and with her consent made referrals to health services. It provided a holistic response and frequently asked the resident whether she was receiving support and whether she wished it to make any referrals for her.
Despite a lack of corroborating evidence, the landlord appropriately investigated each report when received and reasonably tried to find solutions, for example, by cleaning the bin store. When its investigations revealed no evidence of odours, it took the additional step of writing to other residents to ask if they had any concerns about drug use or odours in the building. It has since knocked on doors and spoken to other residents as the resident continued to raise concerns after the stage 2 response was issued.
It is evident that the issues the resident has reported are having a significant impact on her. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that in line with our dispute resolution principles, the landlord has treated the resident fairly, followed fair processes and reasonably tried to find a resolution to her concerns.

The resident’s request for assistance with moving to a new property

The landlord’s records indicate that the resident spoke to its allocations team on 16 November 2022. That team assisted her with completing a transfer application form. When the resident contacted the landlord about the ASB and odours the following month, she indicated that she wanted to move. She confirmed on 21 December 2022 that she had spoken with the allocations team about this.
The community safety officer dealing with her ASB case proactively followed this up with the resident. He asked her in an email on 16 January 2023 if she had started bidding on any other properties. She advised she was waiting on the allocations team to contact her. On 27 January 2023, the allocations manager emailed the resident to advise that she had been trying to contact her. She asked the resident to contact her if she still wished to discuss a potential move. This demonstrated that the landlord had made reasonable attempts to assist the resident with her transfer application.
During a phone call with the landlord on 1 June 2023 about her ASB case, the resident indicated she wanted to move into emergency accommodation. The landlord appropriately advised her that she should contact the local authority as it was responsible for providing such accommodation.
On 12 July 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it intended to close her ASB case as it had not found any evidence of odours or drug use. Within the email, it provided her with a list of moving options, along with contact details for the relevant teams, authorities and schemes. This further demonstrated reasonable attempts by the landlord to provide the resident with advice about moving.
When submitting her complaint about the ASB and odours, the resident asked the landlord to let her know what more she needed to do to “leave the apartment and find somewhere safer”. She referred to the local authority having previously refused her application for a discretionary housing payment. Although this was not framed as a complaint about any action taken, or not taken, by the landlord previously, it reasonably provided her with advice about her options for moving in both complaint responses. It provided her with contact details for its allocations team and advised her to contact that team if she wished to discuss any of these options further.
Within the stage 1 response, the landlord noted that the resident had previously referred to concerns about finance. It therefore provided her with advice about a grant scheme she could potentially apply to. As with its response to the complaint about ASB and odours, this was a holistic response. It demonstrated that the landlord was looking beyond the surface of the complaint and was attempting to address underlying issues that may have been contributing to the resident’s concerns.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for assistance with moving to a new property. The resident’s reasons for wanting to move are understood. However, there is no evidence that the landlord acted unfairly or inappropriately in response to the resident’s request. It provided her with appropriate advice about moving options before she submitted her formal complaint. It provided further advice in both complaint responses and signposted her to the relevant teams, authorities and schemes that could offer further assistance. This was a reasonable response to her request for assistance with moving.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB and odours affecting the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for assistance with moving to a new property.