Silva Homes Limited (202300360)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300360

Silva Homes Limited

15 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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to reports of disrepair including damp, mould and asbestos at property A, and the resident’s associated request for compensation.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues in property B.
3. The landlord’s proposal to permanently move the resident to property C.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 15 October 2018 for property A – a 1-bedroom bungalow. The resident lives with her husband, who is vulnerable with several medical conditions.
The landlord is aware the resident is also vulnerable with several medical conditions, including but not limited to post traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder and cellulitis.
In 2021, the resident complained about several issues relating to disrepair in property A.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 13 August 2021. On 18 August 2021, the landlord’s solicitor made a settlement offer to the resident which included £11,500 compensation. The resident rejected this. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 16 November 2021.
In April 2022, the court issued an injunction for the resident to temporarily vacate property A so the landlord could complete extensive repair work.
After refusing a several options of temporary accommodation, the resident moved into a guest room within one of the landlord’s independent living schemes. The guest room is referred to as property B within this determination.
In September 2022, the landlord told the resident it no longer intended to return the resident to property A as it needed significant repairs. It said it was looking for an appropriate permanent property and would work with occupational therapy (“OT”) to ensure the next property was suitable.
The resident contacted the landlord several times throughout May and June 2023. She said:
1. Other residents in the independent living scheme were smoking in public areas and blowing smoke through windows. This made it difficult for the resident and her husband to breathe.
2. Other residents harassed and abused her, including banging on her door.
3. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response to reports of abuse in property B. As such, she was pursuing harassment charges against other guests and the landlord’s staff.
This Service contacted the landlord in August 2023 and asked it to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns about the issues which occurred in property B.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 September 2023. It said:
1. There was a problem with heating and hot water in December 2022. It attended within 24 hours and resolved the issue.
2. It asked other residents not to smoke outside of property B. When they continued to do so, the landlord cordoned the area off. However, another resident removed this.
3. The landlord had identified the individual responsible and cordoned the area off again. The tape since remained in place.
4. An altercation occurred in the early hours of the morning between the resident’s husband and other occupant of the independent living scheme. It established the incident occurred when the resident was using the laundry at unsociable hours, keeping others awake.
5. Both parties accepted this happened but the account of events which followed were different. There was limited evidence available. It encouraged the resident to report any further incidents to the scheme manager.
6. It investigated the resident’s reports of theft of food but found no evidence of this. Nonetheless, it had changed the lock to the area where it stored food and the only person with access was the scheme manager.
7. The resident accused staff of entering her room and stealing but did not provide the requested information to allow it to fully investigate. It said would investigate if the resident provided further information.
8. It offered the resident a permanent move to property C. While it understood she was concerned over the suitability of property C, the landlord had completed all adaptations recommended by an OT.
9. Any further adaptations requested by the resident needed to be confirmed by an OT.
10. It would fit a new toilet seat, shower head and shower chair in property C before the resident moved in.
There was further email correspondence between the landlord and resident throughout September 2023, in which the resident made further allegations about anti-social behaviour at property B.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 October 2023. It said:
1. It appreciated the resident meeting the landlord face-to-face on 4 October 2023 to discuss her concerns.
2. It was sorry to hear smoking had continued outside of property B. It removed the ash tray and cordoned off the area. It reminded residents and scheme managers of the appropriate areas to smoke.
3. To prevent disturbing residents in the evening and early hours of the morning, washing machines were on timers.
4. The landlord inspected property C, and it was ready to move into. It sent photos of the additional work completed to the resident.
5. In view of the resident’s concern about showering in the event of a boiler breakdown, it agreed to install a new electric shower in property C on 20 October 2023. It would also replace a damaged fence panel on the same date.
6. It would not make any further changes to property C without instruction from an OT.
7. The resident informed the landlord that she would not accept compensation of less than £158 million. It explained this was far beyond its means and unreasonable.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaint procedure

The resident moved into property C and expressed further dissatisfaction over the landlord’s communication, issues with the property, and problems with her new neighbours. It is not clear from the evidence available whether the landlord considered these matters through its internal complaint procedure.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (“the Scheme”). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
In accordance with paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.
The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident’s complaint about disrepair in property A and her request for compensation on 16 November 2021. From the evidence available, the resident initially referred the complaint to this Service on 3 April 2023, via our online complaint form.
As the resident referred her complaint about property A and the associated compensation to this Service more than 12 months after the landlord issued its final complaint response, it is outside of our jurisdiction, and we will not consider it.
In accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
On 4 May 2023, a Notice to Quit was served on the resident. The Notice expired on 4 June 2023. The landlord subsequently issued possession proceedings. The claim documents presented to court states the landlord gave the residents the option of moving back to property A as it had completed all remedial works. Alternatively, it offered the resident a permanent move to property C, which the OT team at the local authority deemed as suitable.
On 29 January 2024, the court granted possession of property B to the landlord.
After considering the evidence available, the Ombudsman finds the resident had an opportunity to have her complaint about the landlord’s proposal to permanently move her to property C raised as part of legal proceedings. As such, the Ombudsman determines that this aspect of the complaint is outside of our jurisdiction.

Scope of investigation

The resident said the landlord’s actions impacted her health. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, as this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on the health of a resident. Nor can we calculate or award damages. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or a personal injury claim.
The resident expressed further dissatisfaction over several different things that happened after the landlord issued its final complaint response on 18 October 2023.
We cannot consider these recent developments as part of this complaint. The landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond within its complaint procedure.
The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise another complaint if she is dissatisfied with the way the landlord handles the problem.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues in property B

Reports of anti-social behaviour (“ASB”)

It is clear from the resident’s submissions that she has been distressed by the situation and she believes this distress has been exacerbated by the lack of strong action by the landlord to tackle the problems. The resident’s feelings are duly acknowledged, and it is not disputed that dealing with the incidents would have been stressful for the resident.
The Ombudsman’s role in such situations is not to investigate the alleged ASB itself, but to look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and her concerns. It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate the severity of the incidents or to assess the credibility of the resident’s reports. Our role is to consider the landlord’s response to the reports it received and consider whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances, in accordance with its policies and any relevant legislation.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as a perpetrator acting in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as the perpetrator.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it expects a reasonable level of tolerance to exist between people and consider that most disputes should be resolved by the people involved based upon mutual understanding and without its intervention. These incidents are likely to involve:
1. People going about their everyday activities.
2. Differences in lifestyles.
3. Incidents which are insufficiently serious to warrant investigation or enforcement action, often involving thoughtless or inconsiderate acts.
4. One-off or infrequent actions.
The landlord evidenced that it took the resident’s reports of other residents smoking outside of her window and in communal areas seriously. It spoke to the residents involved, updated its staff, removed an ash tray, checked CCTV, and cordoned off the area outside of the resident’s window on at least 2 occasions. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s actions were proportionate and fair.
The landlord demonstrated that it investigated the resident’s allegation of harassment following an incident in the laundry room. It acted appropriately by speaking with the parties involved and explaining to the resident why the washing machine was on a timer. Without sufficient evidence to prove what happened during the incident, the landlord was limited in the actions it could take. Nonetheless, it advised the resident to contact its staff it any further problems occurred, so it could take appropriate action. This was reasonable in the circumstances.

A lack of hot water and heating

The landlord’s repair policy sets out that it will attend emergency repairs to make them safe. A total loss of heating or hot water in the winter season is deemed an emergency.
The landlord evidenced that following the resident’s report of a lack of hot water and heating in property B on 14 December 2022, it attended within 24 hours and resolved the matter. Based on the information available, the Ombudsman finds the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its policy.

Problems storing food

Following reports of the resident’s food getting stolen from the storage area, the landlord took decisive action by changing the lock to the area and reassuring the resident that only the scheme manager had access.
Additionally, the landlord demonstrated that it purchased a fridge freezer for the residents to use in their guest room, as opposed to the fridge freezer in the communal kitchen. This demonstrates the landlord acted pragmatically and was solutions focused to reduce the impact on the resident while living in temporary accommodation.
The Ombudsman is minded the landlord took the resident’s concern seriously and took appropriate action to resolve the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to reports of disrepair including damp, mould and asbestos at property A, and the resident’s associated request for compensation is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues in property B.
In accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s proposal to permanently move the resident to property C is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.