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

Portsmouth City Council (202309777)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309777

Portsmouth City Council

29 August 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 concerns the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
    1.  His neighbour’s cannabis use.
    2. Antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour including the use of a tumble dryer in the communal area.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a 3-bedroom flat on the second floor of a block. The tenancy started in April 2022.
  2. The landlord told us it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  3. The landlord uses a third-party charitable organisation (assessment service) to assist it with investigating and resolving some ASB complaints.
  4. At some time prior to 4 January 2023, the landlord referred a dispute between the resident and his (downstairs) neighbour to the assessment service.
  5. On 4 January 2023, the assessment service contacted the resident regarding a complaint raised by his neighbour (a resident of the landlord) about his children being noisy. During this call the resident told them about his neighbour’s use of a tumble dryer in the communal area.
  6. On 5 January 2023, the landlord told the assessment service that it was dealing with the resident’s report regarding a tumble dryer in the communal area.
  7. On 9 February 2023, during a call with the landlord, the resident raised a formal complaint regarding its handling of the neighbour’s use of a tumble dryer in the communal area. The resident said it had been ongoing for 2 to 3 months and that he had been told by the landlord that the communal area must not be used for this purpose, but no action had been taken. The resident explained the cleaning products used in the tumble dryer made his young daughter poorly as she had asthma.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 10 February 2023 and told him it would provide a complaint response by 2 March 2023.
  9. During a call with the landlord on 22 February 2023, the resident acknowledged he had attended a mediation meeting with his neighbour on 20 February 2023 that had been organised by the assessment service regarding some issues. However, he said he believed the landlord was not taking his concern regarding his neighbour’s use of a tumble dryer in the communal area sufficiently seriously. The landlord told the resident the neighbour did not have permission to use the tumble dryer in this location and said that it would call them that today to request that this was removed.
  10. On 24 February 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. Within this, the landlord said it had discussed the resident’s reports with its Housing Officer (HO), reviewed its ASB database and spoken to the assessment service to understand what happened in the mediation meeting on 20 February 2023 and any progress made in addressing the ongoing issues. The landlord stated:
    1. It was aware of the neighbour’s use of a tumble dryer in the communal area. It had spoken to them and informed them that they did not have permission to do this.
    2. It had made it very clear to his neighbour that they could not use the tumble dryer in the communal area, and it would follow this up to ensure the neighbour removed the item.
    3. If the neighbour continued to use the tumble dryer and it was not removed, it would take action itself and arrange for the removal of the item.
    4. It had followed its process, including making a referral to the assessment service and telling the neighbour that they must remove the tumble dryer.
    5. It could understand the resident’s frustration about the length of time taken to get the tumble dryer moved, but it said that following the last conversation it had with his neighbour, it was hopeful that the tumble dryer would no longer be used and would be moved in due course.
  11. During a call with the resident’s neighbour on 27 March 2023, the landlord told them that they could not use the tumble dryer in the communal area and agreed to send them evidence from its surveyor which confirmed this was a breach of fire regulations. The landlord forwarded evidence from its surveyor to the neighbour on the same date when it also offered to assist them with finding a suitable location for the dryer within their property.
  12. On 28 March 2023, the resident asked to escalate his complaint. During a call with the landlord on 12 April 2023 the resident said nothing had changed as the tumble dryer was still in the same location in the communal area.
  13. On 12 May 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 final response. This stated that in relation to the resident’s complaint regarding the tumble dryer in the communal area, following its (stage 2) investigation, it was confident that this had now been removed from the storage cupboard in the communal area. The landlord acknowledged and apologised that this had taken longer than anticipated.
  14. In its response, the landlord also acknowledged the resident’s report that his laundry suffered damage whilst it was on the washing line in the communal drying area. It acknowledged that the resident suspected this was linked to his complaint and stated the following:
    1. An officer had contacted him to take details of this incident and provide support and advice to him.
    2. It recommended that he report this damage and any further incidents to the Police and to itself.
    3. At the present time it was not able to allow him to install closed circuit television (CCTV) in the communal clothes drying area, as this could be seen as an invasion of privacy to other residents. However, it said if there was on-going damage to his laundry, it may consider the use of temporary CCTV to identify the perpetrators.
    4. It appreciated this was a real cause of concern for him and his family, and it would ensure that it supported him and take enforcement action if it could identify the perpetrators and work collaboratively with the Police on any action they may be able to take.

Post the landlord’s final response

  1. Over the next few months, the resident reported at least 2 further incidents of his laundered clothes being damaged due to the washing line being cut.
  2. In July 2023, the landlord established the tumble dryer had not been removed from the communal area. After further complaints from the resident and contact with the neighbour, the tumble dryer was removed and relocated within the neighbour’s flat, and the landlord closed the case in November 2023.

Assessment and findings

Outside of Jurisdiction

  1. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
  2. It is acknowledged that the resident reported his neighbour’s cannabis use to the landlord, and the effect of cannabis smoke on his daughter who suffered from asthma. However, there is no evidence to indicate this complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42. a this Service is unable to consider this complaint. The resident has been made aware of this and confirmed to us he would consider raising a separate complaint about this issue if required.

Scope of this investigation

  1. Evidence of the parties’ communications seen by this Service indicates that the resident continued to report ASB from his neighbour after the date of the landlord’s final response, including in relation to new issues. We are unable to consider events since the landlord’s stage 2 final response in this investigation and therefore the resident may wish to consider raising a formal complaint with the landlord regarding these more recent issues if they remain unresolved.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

  1. The tenancy agreement states residents must not do anything which may cause nuisance or harassment to other people and residents must also keep communal areas clear of personal belongings and rubbish. This is echoed in the landlord’s ASB policy.
  2. The resident’s reports concerned his neighbour’s use of a tumble dryer in the communal area and he also thought his neighbour had cut his washing line which caused damage to his laundry. The neighbour made a counter allegation regarding the resident’s children being noisy.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy says that on receiving a complaint, it will take down details and either:
    1. The HO will deal with the complaint
    2. The case will be referred to the assessment service to explore the options available to restore the situation back to an acceptable one
    3. If the complaint is very serious or there is an immediate threat to the complainant’s health and/or well-being, an action plan will be agreed with any emergency measures needed taken immediately
  4. In around December 2022, the landlord referred the resident’s dispute with his neighbour to its assessor to investigate. Its ASB policy makes clear the purpose of the restorative process is to encourage the parties to suggest and develop their own solution to issues. In the circumstances the landlord’s referral was appropriate and it led to the resident and his neighbour attending a mediation meeting on 2 February 2023.
  5. It is acknowledged that enabling the parties to agree a resolution can stop such disputes escalating. However, while both parties signed the restorative agreement which stated amongst other things they felt comfortable approaching each another if there were further issues, the issue of the neighbour’s use of a tumble dryer in the communal area was not included. It is evident that when the assessment service contacted the landlord on 5 January 2023, the landlord confirmed it was already aware of the resident’s complaint and that the matter had been allocated to its HO to deal with.
  6. The landlord’s records show it had checked with its senior building surveyor about use of a tumble dryer in the communal area who confirmed the dryer was in an unsuitable location as it represented a fire hazard. By seeking clarification from its surveyor, the landlord acted appropriately. However, as its surveyor had highlighted the dryer was located on the route of escape from the building, contrary to fire safety legislation, it was important that the landlord took decisive action to eradicate this risk, as per its obligation.
  7. As the tumble dryer was still in the same location 5 weeks later, the resident raised a formal complaint regarding its handling of the issue. During its call to the resident nearly 2 weeks later on 22 February 2023, the landlord told him that it would call the neighbour that day to request they remove the tumble dryer into his property as they did not have permission to operate it in the communal area. However, notes seen by this service indicate the landlord did not attempt to contact the neighbour until 9 March 2023.
  8. Bearing in mind the fire risk posed, as identified by its surveyor, the landlord’s delay in taking any action or contacting the neighbour at the time it told the resident it would, was inappropriate. Although on 9 March 2023 the landlord sent a message to the neighbour asking them to call it by 4 pm the following day, the landlord did not attempt to call the neighbour again after they failed to respond, until more than 2 weeks later, on 27 March 2023. This further delay by the landlord in expediting the issue was unreasonable. At this time however, the landlord requested that the neighbour remove the dryer from the communal area and forwarded them fire regulations which explained the breach. The landlord also offered to assist them with finding and moving it to a suitable location within his flat. Its action here was reasonable.
  9. While the landlord’s records show it attempted to follow this up with the neighbour on 1 occasion on 11 April 2023, this attempt was unsuccessful. There are no notes to indicate the landlord had any further contact with the neighbour over the next few weeks or prior to the date of the final response (4 May 2023). However, in its response the landlord stated that it understood the tumble dryer had been removed from the communal area. This information was incorrect as it is clear that the tumble dryer had not been removed at this time. Bearing in mind its surveyor had identified that the location of the item was a fire hazard by at least January 2023 and that it had told the resident in February 2023 that this item would be removed, the lack of action taken to address the issue was unacceptable.
  10. Furthermore, the resident had been clear throughout that the cleaning products used in the tumble dryer were adversely affecting his young daughter’s asthma. While the landlord had asked the neighbour to stop using the tumble dryer while waiting for him to comply with its request, there is no evidence of the landlord monitoring this or checking with the resident if it was still being used. Therefore, this indicates a failure by the landlord to consider the resident’s circumstances.
  11. While the Ombudsman is unable to consider events since the landlord’s stage 2 final response in this investigation, we expect the landlord to demonstrate it followed through with any actions it promised during the complaints process. It is evident that the tumble dryer was not removed from the communal area until around 6 months later in November 2023 indicating overall it took the landlord at least 10 months to address this complaint. This ongoing failure to take appropriate action was a significant failing.
  12. It is recognised that the landlord did experience some difficulty in getting the neighbour to agree to remove the dryer and to accept its offer of help in relocating it within his flat. However, as mentioned in its stage 1 complaint response the landlord did have the option of removing the tumble dryer itself, but it did not do this despite the health and safety risk identified. There is also no evidence of the landlord carrying out any assessment of the fire risk on the tumble dryer itself while it remained in situ within the communal area. This is further evidence of the landlord not taking this issue significantly seriously.
  13. In regard to the resident’s report (at stage 2 of the complaint’s process) of his laundry being damaged as a result of the washing line in the communal area being cut, in its final response the landlord explained it was unable to take any action until the perpetrator had been identified. The landlord said however that it would work collaboratively with the Police to identify the perpetrator and resolve the issue should the resident experience any further incidents. This was in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy which requires it to work with other agencies to tackle ASB where possible. The landlord told the resident it would also consider using temporary CCTV in the clothes drying area to identify the perpetrator.
  14. This Service recognises this incident would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and his family. However, bearing in mind there had only been one ASB report of this nature at this stage and there was no evidence linking it to the neighbour, the landlord’s approach taken here was reasonable in the circumstances. It is evident however that the resident reported further similar incidents following the landlord’s final response although the landlord’s response to these later reports is unclear from the available evidence. Therefore, in the circumstances, it is reasonable to include an order below for the landlord to contact the resident to check if he is still experiencing such incidents and if necessary, agree an action plan to tackle this.
  15. In summary, the landlord acted appropriately when in the first instance it referred the resident’s dispute with his neighbour to its assessment service for mediation. However, it failed to take appropriate steps to get the neighbour’s tumble dryer removed within a reasonable timeframe after its surveyor had highlighted the fire risk. Its inaction also indicates a failure to take seriously the resident’s point regarding the impact of the cleaning products on his daughter. The landlord also gave incorrect information regarding the status of this complaint in its final response. This would have caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience.
  16. Although the landlord apologised for the length of time taken to remove the tumble dryer (up to the date of the final response), it did not offer the resident any compensation in recognition of this delay which it acknowledged was a failure in service delivery. This would have been appropriate in the circumstances. Furthermore, the landlord did not show that it had considered what learning it could take from the resident’s complaint to look to avoid a similar situation occurring in the future.
  17. Given the failures identified in this investigation which the landlord has not offered sufficient redress to put right, a finding of maladministration has been made with respect to this complaint. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £450 in compensation for the for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused. The landlord has not provided its compensation policy however, this amount is proportionate to the failings found and falls within the range recommended for maladministration in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the neighbour’s cannabis use is outside of our jurisdiction to consider.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s report of the ASB from the neighbour including his use of a tumble dryer in the communal area.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within 4 weeks to:
    1. Provide an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £450.
    3. Review the failings identified in this investigation including its response to the fire risk highlighted. The landlord should also consider if its staff need further training on its fire safety policy.
    4. Contact the resident to check if he is still experiencing incidents whereby his clothes are being damaged whilst in the communal area and agree an action plan to tackle this issue if he is.
    5. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman.