Optivo (202000740)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000740

Optivo

28 May 2021

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 the residents reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) including drug use and drug dealing at the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property and the resident is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the agreement. The landlord is a registered social housing provider.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, the policy requires that complainants are kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord is to acknowledge within two working days and formally respond within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a formal review of the decision and this would be acknowledged within two working days and a response provided within 10 working days.
The landlord’s ASB policy outlines that it works in partnership with other agencies such as the police, and can use ‘a range of preventative measures, early intervention and legal action to tackle ASB’. It would deal with reports of ASB that affects its residents and would record anonymous reports and take action where it finds evidence of ASB. It would not take action where there is insufficient evidence but it will support other agencies in taking action where they have the prime responsibility and powers to do so.
Under the landlord’s ASB procedures drug dealing is considered a high-level category of ASB and the landlord will work with the resident to stop ASB occurring. The landlord will agree to an action plan with the resident that will outline the steps it will take to address the ASB issue.
Under the landlord’s compensation policy it may choose to make a discretionary payment of up to £250 (in exceptional cases). This recognises the resident’s distress, time, trouble or inconvenience but is not an admission of liability.

Summary of events

On 22 August 2019, the resident informed the landlord there was a strong smell of cannabis coming from a neighbouring property and there were people constantly coming and going from the residence. She stated that someone was leaving the front and back door of the building open so people could come and go. The landlord advised the resident that they should contact police about any illegal behaviour. The resident contacted the police that day in relation to the suspected drug use and dealing at the property.
On 25 September 2019, the landlord organised for the resident to come to its office to discuss the ASB that she was experiencing however the resident cancelled as she had to work.
On 14 November 2019, the landlord issued a letter to all residents in the block that they were not to leave the communal door open as it was a health and safety breach and a risk to all residents.
On 19 November 2019, the resident called the landlord and made further complaints about her neighbour and alleged that he was selling drugs out of the property. The landlord’s conversation notes show that it asked what evidence she had and she advised that ‘there was a large amount of traffic coming and going from the property’.
On 18 December 2019, the landlord wrote to the alleged perpetrator of the ASB at the property. It asked that the below behaviour cease any ASB that might be effecting other residents. It highlighted that the tenancy agreement does not allow or permit the use or sale of drugs and it would continue to monitor the situation and take necessary steps to stop nuisance including legal action. It outlined that it had received allegations which included:
1. Use of cannabis and other illegal drugs.
2. Dealing of drugs from the property.
3. Unusual traffic of people to the property.
4. Frequent noisy altercations from people visiting the property.
On 6 February 2020, the neighbour was issued with an ASB fine by police due to a constant stream of people coming and going from the property, loud music and cannabis use.
On 10 February 2020, the landlord organised a meeting to discuss the issues of ASB at the property with the resident. The resident raised that she felt the situation had been mishandled and that she had not been kept up to date around what actions the landlord had taken. She also highlighted the health concerns caused by the neighbour’s actions. The landlord provided a summary of what was discussed and that it agreed to perform the following:
1. To provide an update of its actions.
2. To contact police to get more information regarding their proposed actions.
3. Provide the resident with an update within 10 days.
On 17 February 2020, the landlord contacted the police with an information request in relation to the resident’s neighbour.
On 20 February 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and informed her that police were going to be taking action in relation to the resident’s complaint of ASB at the property. The police asked the landlord to wait to install CCTV at the property as it might arouse suspicion and cause the neighbours to alter their behaviour.
On 29 February 2020, police executed a warrant at the neighbour’s property due to multiple reports of drug dealing and the smell of cannabis emitting from the address.
On 13 March 2020, the landlord made a disclosure request to find out the outcome of the police raid on 29 February 2020 and awaited results. It assured the resident that it was taking the necessary steps with its legal department regarding the neighbour’s tenancy. It was confirmed that an amount of cannabis was located at the property and the resident received a small fine for possession.
On 31 March 2020, the resident contacted the landlord by phone to make a formal complaint regarding the ASB issues that she was experiencing at the property. The landlord clarified the issues with the resident which included:
1. She reported ASB from a neighbouring property in August 2019 which was still ongoing.
2. She was not happy with the time taken for her concerns to be dealt with.
3. There had been a lack of updates and communication from the landlord.
4. She felt that there had been a lack of action to deal with the issues she had raised.
5. That there was a raid on the neighbour’s property and it failed to take proper enforcement action.

The landlord advised that a formal response would be issued within 10 working days.

On 1 April 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and informed her that the government had brought in emergency legislation around possession hearings and that all actions that cause homelessness, no matter what stage of the process was at, had been frozen until at least 25 June 2020, with the provision in place to extend to 30 October 2020. This was brought in as part of the government’s response to halt the spread of Covid-19.
On 3 April 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and inquired about its inaction after the police attended on 29 February 2020. She raised that it had the opportunity to end the situation before the COVID-19 epidemic but now it had to wait for another three months. The resident raised that the ‘fumes or chemicals’ from the neighbouring property made her ill with her underlying health conditions.
On the 8 April 2020, the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident. It addressed the following issues:
1. It acknowledged that the resident had spoken with the landlord before and after the raid on 29 February 2020 and apologised that it failed to meet the residents’ expectations. It advised that the complaint was now with the ASB team and the resident had been receiving fortnightly updates.
2. It stated that it performed a disclosure request about the raid and intended to use the evidence as part of the action it intended to take against her neighbour.
3. It advised that due to the current Covid-19 situation it had been instructed to stop all evictions in line with government directions and when it had received further information it would proceed in line with policies and procedures.
4. It apologised that the situation impacted on the resident’s health but informed the resident it could not investigate illness under its complaints process.
On 14 April 2020, the resident stated her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one response. The landlord advised the resident of its review process and attached a review request form. It asked that the resident submit the review request by 29 April 2020.
On the 23 April 2020, the resident submitted a review request form and raised the following issues:
1. That the resident complaint was not fully answered and she wanted an explanation as to why there was a one month delay in progressing the problem after the first police raid.
2. The resident wanted an honest explanation as to the landlord’s missed opportunities and a reason for the lack of communication, along with an apology.
On 1 May 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to make another formal complaint about the ASB experienced in relation to the alleged drug dealing by her neighbour. The resident raised that she spoke with a member of the landlord staff on 28 March 2020 who stated that she would email the resident to clarify the present situation but had not received an email or phone call.
On 4 May 2020, this Service was contacted by the resident in relation to her complaint regarding ASB. This service encouraged the landlord to provide the resident with an update in regard to her complaint within 15 working days.
On 5 May 2020, the landlord contacted the resident in regard to her complaint and discussed the issue of ASB. The resident agreed not to progress the complaint at this point and the landlord agreed to provide an update by 11 May 2020.
On 11 May 2020, the landlord contacted the resident in relation to ASB at the property. It thanked the resident that she decided not to request a review of the original response from 8 April 2020. It agreed to action the following:
1. Take action against the neighbour in relation to the ASB.
2. Review the matter and provide the resident with any updates.
3. Contact the resident on a fortnightly basis and support the resident through her ASB complaint and continue to work with the safe neighbourhood team.
4. It advised that due to the current Covid-19 situation it had been instructed to stop all evictions in line with government directions.
On 13 May 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and stated that the legal proceedings against her neighbour had been escalated. It informed the resident that another neighbour had come forward with complaints in regard to the perpetrators behaviour and would be providing evidence. It thanked the resident for her patience and stated that it would attempt to get an injunction against the neighbour.
On 19 May 2020, the landlord supplied evidence to this Service of possession proceedings against the alleged perpetrator of the ASB at the property. It set a date for the resident to leave and threatened legal action if the neighbour did not comply.
On 11 June 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and apologised if she felt that she had been misled by the injunction action. It informed the resident that it was not able to proceed with the injunction process without further witness statements.
On 14 June 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and expressed her dissatisfaction regarding the whole injunction process and felt that she had been misled. She advised that she did not want it to stop providing updates about the ongoing ASB issues.
On 19 June 2020, the neighbourhood safety team contacted the resident and highlighted options to safeguard the residents. These included:
1. Special schemes – All calls from the resident would be treated as an emergency response.
2. Panic alarms – That they were extremely loud and draw a lot of public attention.
3. Random patrols of the communal area – it already had a copy of the key from the landlord which could lead to a reduction in ASB.
On 7 July 2020, the neighbourhood safety team provided an update to the resident and confirmed that it would be patrolling the area and that the officer had a key and would be able to provide a statement to the landlord if it smelt anything. It told the resident to contact it if she smelt a strong ‘chemical smell’.
On 13 July 2020, the landlord informed the resident that in order for it to consider her review request it required her to explain briefly why she wished to take her case to review stage and the outcome she wanted. It advised her to complete a review request form by 28th July 2020.
On 14 July 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and provided an update in regard to the steps it would take to resolve the issues of ASB at the property. It advised that it had rejected the neighbour’s tenancy application and was in the process of evicting him from the property however the current Covid-19 situation had slowed this process. It agreed to perform the following:
1. CCTV to be installed in the communal area as well as signage.
2. A surveyor had been arranged to carry out an inspection to seal any vents to mitigate the smells entering the property.
3. Police agreed to place the families on a ‘special scheme’ meaning that all calls from the address would be treated as urgent.
4. Police offered the use of panic alarms to help the resident feel safe.
5. An ASB officer was to maintain regular contact with both households.
On 20 July 2020, the landlord contacted the resident about the review request form and stated that it would extend the date for her to return it until 7 August 2020.
On 27 August 2020, the resident reported the communal door being left open and people coming and going from the neighbour’s flat.
On 29 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and provided a police CAD reference number.
On 30 October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and made a further complaint in relation to the case. She said that she suffered from a heart condition and was once again inhaling fumes from the drugs. She wanted to know:
1. What the landlord had done so far?
2. If there was a court date?
3. How was it was going to protect her?
4. Could it move her somewhere safe until it was over.

She acknowledged that so far all the landlord had done was install CCTV. She advised that she would take legal action to bring the matter to a conclusion.

On the 11 November 2020, the landlord contacted the police with an information request in relation to the neighbour.
On 12 November 2020, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s email on 30 October 2020, it stated that it would provide a complaint response following an interdepartmental meeting. It provided an update to the resident and stated the following:
1. All relevant documents had been served to the neighbour.
2. All new Covid-19 legal processes had been adhered to and the paperwork was with its legal team. Further enquiries were being made of other parties, but it anticipated the papers would be served on the courts within the next 10 working days.
3. The courts have informed all local authorities and landlords that there was a serious backlog of cases and so it is most unlikely any possession cases submitted since the courts reopened in late September 2020, would be heard this year.
4. It would continue to work with the police to see if it could take additional action to address the ASB, pending its claim for possession such as applying for an injunction and/or an exclusion order.
On 19 November 2020, the landlord provided the resident a complaint response to their email on 30 October 2020 and also an update from an interdepartmental meeting about the ASB issues at her property at which it discussed the following:
1. Its handling of the anti-social behaviour (ASB) problem at the property.
2. It explored what else could be done to help the resident and other residents while it took action.
3. It considered what would be a satisfactory outcome for the resident including temporary accommodation and suspension of rent charges until the matter was resolved.

What actions can be taken:

It cannot lawfully stop those involved from living at the neighbour’s property without a court order, the resident had been informed of the timeline involved in getting possession.
It had the power in extreme circumstances to apply for a court order to exclude someone from where they are living. It understood that the resident was not willing to provide a witness statement due to fears of reprisals. The police had taken a number of actions at the property and had not provided sufficient information for them or the landlord to take decisive action. Due to these constraints, it had insufficient evidence to apply for an injunction.
It advised that it would contact the resident by 27 November 2020 about using expert witnesses to visit the property and provide witness statements to support court action for an exclusion order.
It advised that if it cannot obtain sufficient evidence to take further action it would need to close the ASB case. It said a new case would be opened if sufficient evidence was obtained. It said possession action would continue if there were an open ASB case or not and it would continue regular contact with the resident.

It apologised for the amount of time that it had taken it to get possession of the neighbour’s property due to the restrictions that were imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It informed the resident that the situation did not give rise to a claim against it for a rent refund or suspension or any other compensation from a liability standpoint. It however acknowledged it was not happy with the speed that it had dealt with the matter and offered a discretionary payment in recognition of its failure to meet its service standards. It advised that it would not be able to grant a move as it is expected to deal with anti-social behaviour with residents remaining in their own home.

On 22 November 2020, the resident responded to the landlord’s complaint response above. She reraised the points from her stage one complaint in paragraph 18 above and said that she awaits the discretionary offer and would communicate with the landlord if she wished to escalate her complaint to the review panel.
On 2 December 2020, the resident asked for a review of her complaint on 30 October, the landlord sent her the review request forms to complete by 17 December 2020.
On 4 December 2020, the landlord followed up with the resident in regard to its communication on 19 November 2020. It offered a £250 discretionary payment and highlighted that this was the maximum payment it could make through this procedure. It informed the resident that two air purifiers would be delivered to the address on 11 December 2020 and in line with its gifts policy the resident would not need to cover any ‘maintenance / replacement or other costs associated with the air purifiers’.
On 4 December 2020, the resident responded to the landlord’s email above and asked how it arrived at the figure and if it was for both residents. She asked if the CCTV was being viewed and by whom and if the alleged perpetrators of ASB had been given a tenancy. She asked if it had lodged papers with the court and on what date and a conclusion of how it had dealt with the matter. She refused the landlord’s £250 discretionary payment and stated that after the air purifier arrived she would have no further communication with the landlord.
On 11 December 2020, the landlord provided a response to the resident’s email from 4 December 2020 above. It advised to the following:
1. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns of reprisal and that she did not wish to make a witness statement. It communicated with the head of the legal department who reconfirmed that the evidence it had received from the police was not enough to take legal action. It had arranged for expert witnesses to visit the common areas of the building next week and if it witnessed ASB it would take approprate action.
2. It had asked its community safety partners to see if there was equipment capable of evidencing fumes from illegal substances or if they had suggestions to help gather further evidence.
3. That the CCTV was installed to capture evidence if an incident occurred, it advised the resident that if an incident occurred to provide it with the time and date and it would arrange to collect the footage and take approprate action.
4. Due to data protection constraints it cannot disclose personal information of a third party without their consent. It confirmed that it had applied to regain possession of the property.
5. It again advised that if it cannot obtain sufficient evidence to take further action it would need to close the ASB case. It said a new case would be opened if sufficient evidence was obtained. It said possession action would continue if there were an open ASB case or not and it would continue regular contact with the resident.
On 20 December 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and provided an update in relation to her case. It advised that it had appointed professional witnesses to try and gather evidence to enable it to take civil action against the neighbour. There would be three, six-hour sessions and a report would be provided to the landlord.
On 22 December 2020, the resident contacted the police in relation to the suspected drug use dealing at the property. A CAD number was provided to this Service.
On 5 January 2021, the landlord provided the resident with a review request rejection letter. It advised that it had decided not to escalate the resident’s complaint to review for the reasons below:
1. It cannot lawfully stop those involved from living in the property without a court order. It did not have sufficient evidence to apply for an injunction.
2. It apologised for the delay in its response on 19 November 2020. Since that time it had stayed in contact with the resident and had taken a number of measures to improve the situation. It purchased air purifiers for the resident and arranged for an expert witness to visit the communal areas to help gather evidence. It advised that further action would be taken to obtain more evidence.
3. It would continue to keep in contact with the resident fortnightly in regard to the ASB case. It advised that it would update the resident when it had significant information to share about the possession action of the neighbouring property. It reviewed the discretionary offer of £250 and felt it was appropriate.
4. It informed the resident that the case was closed in line with its complaints policy and informed her of her further escalation options.
On 24 January 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and raised that the issues were ongoing at the property. The resident reported further occasion of the communal door being left open. It highlighted that the air purifiers supplied by the landlord were ‘rubbish’ and did not work and it should be replaced by the landlord. She raised her frustration with the landlord attempting to close the ASB investigation when the issue was still ongoing. She said that she wanted the landlord to stop using Covid-19 as an excuse to not evict the perpetrators of the ASB as the courts now operated as normal.
On 1 February 2021, the landlord contacted the resident in relation to her email on 24 January 2021 above. It advised the following:
1. That the rent charges were considered in its response on 19 November 2020, and it had outlined the options available to the her as she remained dissatisfied although she had completed its complaints process.
2. In relation to possession action against the neighbour it had been waiting to hear from the courts and would provide an update to the resident when it had heard back.
3. It stated that it would respond to her queries regarding the expert witnesses and reviewing the CCTV footage.
On 4 March 2021, the landlord agreed as part of mediation proceedings with this service to increase the offer of compensation to £500 to recognise the distress the situation had caused the resident as well as the time and trouble in chasing this up for the period of Summer 2019 to present but the resident declined.

Assessment and findings

It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.
There is substantial evidence that the resident made many and regular reports of ASB to the landlord regarding the use and dealing of drugs from a neighbour at the property. This began in August 2019 and continued regularly until February 2021 when it came into remit of this Service.
In response to the resident’s reports of ASB the landlord took various action including:
1. Organising a meeting to discuss the issue with the resident (paragraph 8 and 13).
2. Issuing a letter to all residents in the block (paragraph 9)
3. Wrote to the alleged perpetrator of the ASB at the property (paragraph 11).
4. Contacted the police regarding disclosure requests (paragraph 14,17,40)
5. Updated the resident about the emergency Covid-19 legislation stopping evictions (paragraph 19)
6. Began legal proceeding against the neighbour (paragraph 28 and 29)
7. Communicated with the police neighbourhood safety team (paragraph 32 and 34)
8. Installed CCTV at the property and had a survey inspect and seal any vents (paragraph 35)
9. Provided the resident with two air purifiers (paragraph 47)
The evidence suggests that the resident first contacted the landlord about issues at the property in August 2019, the landlord asked the resident to contact the police in relation to the illegal activity in line with its ASB policy and organised for her to attend its office on 25 September 2019, the resident however was unable to attend. There was a period of inactivity until the 14 November 2019 when the landlord issued a letter reminding residents not to leave the communal door open at the property. Due to the seriousness of the allegations the landlord should have taken a resolution focused approach, contacted the resident and informed her of the actions it planned to take prevent further instances of ASB. The resident made further complaints to the landlord regarding instances of drug use and dealing at the property on 19 November 2019. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 December 2019 and asked the neighbour to cease all illegal activity. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord updated the resident in relation to its actions in line with its ASB policy, this was a failure on the landlord’s behalf.
On 10 February 2020, the resident made a further complaint that the case had been mishandled and that it had failed to keep the resident informed. Due to the severity of the complaint, it would have been reasonable to expect that the landlord did not wait a month before it issued the neighbour with a written warning. There was also no evidence that demonstrates that the landlord was taking proactive action between December 2019 to February 2020 to gather further evidence about the complaint. The landlord however acknowledged in its stage one complaint response that it had failed to meet the resident’s expectations and advised that going forward the resident would receive fortnightly updates. Overall, the landlord did not act in line with its ASB policies and procedures in dealing with the ASB reports up to this point which caused the resident distress and inconvenience, however the landlord appropriately acknowledged this and agreed to reasonable actions going forward.
In February 2020, the landlord appropriately communicated with police about the issues at the property and delayed installing CCTV upon request to help with the investigation. The landlord made two disclosure requests to gather information around the outcome of police activity including a raid at the property on 29 February 2020. The landlord attended interagency meetings about the issues at the property with a resolution focus in addressing the ASB. From the evidence provided by the landlord and partner services the landlord took reasonable and approprate steps to work with other services inline with its ASB policy.
The resident made a formal stage one complaint to the landlord about the issues of ASB at the property on 31 March 2020. The landlord appropriately apologised for the resident’s experience and highlighted that due to current Covid-19 situation it had been instructed to stop all evictions in line with government directions and that once able to proceed it would take the approprate steps to evict the resident in line with its policies and procedures. The resident requested a review and highlighted that if it weren’t for the landlord’s inaction she would not be in this situation. It is clear from the evidence that COVID-19 caused significant delays in the resolution of this case however it is not possible to conclude that the landlord’s early delays make it responsible for the ongoing ASB at the property. The landlord acted appropriately and in line with government guidelines at the time and communicated the potential timelines to the resident, this included the delays in court proceedings.
The resident raised the issue of the smell of drugs entering her apartment and having a negative effect on her health on 1 April 2020. This service is not able to look at the health aspect of the complaint as discussed below in paragraph 64. However, from the evidence provided by both parties there was a three-month delay in the landlord addressing the issue and getting a surveyor to assess the seals and ventilation at the property. The issues persisted and it was not until the 11 December 2020 that the landlord provided air purifiers to address the problem. It was not reasonable that there was such a significant delay considering that the resident informed the landlord that it was having negative health effects. The landlord should have taken a resolution focused approach and addressed the issues much sooner than it did.
The evidence suggests that early in the complaints process there were complaint handling failures and delays by the landlord in not following up on the resident’s complaints and not providing updates about actions taken. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for these failures and the complaint handling improved. It is evident that there was a communication and expectation breakdown between the two parties in relation to injunction action and the landlord should have communicated more effectively and updated the resident about the ongoing matter.
The resident continued to raise complaints about the ASB at the property and it is clear from the evidence provided in paragraph 57 above that the landlord took various actions in order to address the issues at the property. The landlord acknowledged the distress and inconvenience that the matter had caused the resident and appropriately offered her £250 which was the maximum amount payable for a discretionary payment under the landlord compensation policy, this amount was raised to £500 during mediation discussion with this Service but declined by the resident.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as in line with our own guidance on remedies.
Furthermore, we do not seek to punish landlords for something having gone wrong. We also do not award damages in the way that a court may. The Ombudsman cannot order compensation for any poor health that a resident claims they have experienced because we are not qualified to establish a causal link between the health effects that the resident says were linked to the landlord’s failures. What we do consider when looking at compensation amounts is any distress, inconvenience or time and trouble experienced by the complainant as a result of any failures identified or in pursuing the complaint.
In this case, given the impact on the resident, the compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate. From the evidence provided it is clear that these failures caused the resident significant distress and incontinence, however the £500 compensation offered during mediation was sufficient put right the identified failures

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress to the resident in relation to the residents reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) including drug use and drug dealing at the property.

Reasons

While the landlord took a range of appropriate actions in response to the reports of ASB, there was delay in the early stages of the complaint and the landlord failed to update the resident about actions taken. There was also a delay in the landlord responding to the residents reports of smoke inhalation and negative effects. The landlord however apologised and offered £500 to recognise the distress the situation had caused the resident as well as the time and trouble in chasing this up for the period of Summer 2019 to present. This was sufficient redress to put right its failures.

Recommendation

That the landlord reoffers the resident the £500 offered during the mediation process. This should be paid within four weeks of this investigation report.