Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (202301851)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301851

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

25 June 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of the property smelling of cat urine.
2. The landlord’s handling of a report of gas leak in the property.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident held an assured tenancy for a property within a block. The resident’s tenancy ended on 24 July 2023. The resident says that she has a severe allergy to cats.
In December 2021 the resident had been in contact with the landlord about smells coming from the property next door. The landlord asked the resident to complete log sheets and return them accordingly. The case was subsequently closed in April 2022 due to the landlord not receiving any further information.
On 28 September 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident after receiving reports that cats were being fed at her window. It asked the resident to provide further details about the issue and said that once it had received it, then the case would be progressed.
On 6 March 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. The resident said that she had recently had a growth removed from her nose due to a cat allergy and wanted to know what the landlord was doing to monitor the issue of cats being fed daily. The resident further said that she had experienced issues with cats being fed for over 10 years and that she had a serious cat/dust allergy and could not open her windows. The resident wanted to know what action the landlord would take as it was affecting her health.
On 15 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said that:
1. It was aware that the resident had reported issues with the feeding of cats and that she had submitted numerous emails.
2. The neighbourhood officer had followed up on the reports and requested that the resident complete log sheets so that that it had further evidence to assist with investigations.
3. Although the resident had submitted photos, it had never received any log sheets, or evidence which supported her claims.
4. It had previously visited the estate and found no evidence that cat food had been left outside.
5. Following a new report in January 2023, it had tried to make contact with the resident, but this had been unsuccessful.
6. In order to try and resolve the issues, it asked the resident to complete the log sheets, as previously requested, and said that it would be in contact to discuss the matter.
On 11 April 2023 the resident contacted the landlord about the smell of cat urine from her neighbour and an issue with the smell of gas.
On 20 April 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. The resident said that she was unhappy with the outcome and the way the landlord handled her complaint. The resident said she felt like the landlord was not listening to her and was doing nothing to help her.
On 26 May 2023 the resident sent a new complaint, via email, to the local authority. The resident said that she had been complaining for a number of years about the smell of cat urine from the neighbour. She also said that she had been smelling gas since Oct 2022 and when an engineer came out and completed readings, they were at their highest where the smell was coming from. The resident said that she wanted to move property as soon as possible and be paid £8000 compensation.
On 29 May 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed that it had approved her request for a management transfer of accommodation and would be in contact when a vacant property had become available.
On 21 June 2023 the landlord visited the resident to discuss the issues she had raised and the complaint she escalated in April 2023.
On 4 July 2023 the resident emailed the local authority and chased a response to her stage 1 complaint made in May 2023. On the same day, the local authority forwarded the complaint and emails to the landlord. The resident also contacted the Ombudsman and said that she had not received a response to her complaint.
On 5 July 2023 the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response to the complaint made in March 2023. The landlord said that it had reviewed the stage 1 response and acknowledged that the property was having an effect on the resident. It confirmed that a number of works had been completed within the neighbour’s property and it had also completed a small repair within the resident’s property. The landlord further said that on the numerous visits to the estate, there was no evidence of multiple cats so would not be overturning the stage 1 decision. However, it had provided a statement of support in relation to the management transfer request and which had been approved.
On 11 July 2023 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and asked it to take further action in relation to the resident’s complaint that she made in May 2023. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident accordingly or forward a copy of its final response.
On 25 July 2023 the landlord visited the property, after the resident moved out. The landlord’s notes said that it did not identify any smells of urine.
On 28 July 2023 the landlord issued a further stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said:
1. In relation to the Anti Social Behaviour (ASB), about the cats:
  1. It had opened cases in 2021, but due to not receiving any completed log sheets, it had closed the cases. It further explained that it required engagement from complainants for it to be able to support a way forward
  2. It had visited the estate but had not observed any issues with stray cats or identified any smells associated with cat urine.
  3. It had not been able to corroborate allegations and therefore, was unable to progress the cases.
2. In relation to the reports of a gas leak:
  1. It did not have any records to show that a gas leak had been reported.
  2. It had contacted the main gas board to request further information but had not heard back.
  3. If a gas leak is reported, then normally it would attend to fix the faults identified but no repairs had been raised.
3. In relation to its complaint handling, it had responded to the resident’s March 2023 complaint and handled the complaint appropriately.
4. In conclusion:
  1. It did not identify any service failure; therefore, compensation was not applicable.
  2. Although the resident did not qualify for a manged move, it had supported her application and agreed to move her to a new property.
  3. If the resident had experienced any loss or illness that the landlord was legally liable for, she should submit a claim and it would be investigated by the appropriate team.
On 3 August 2023 the resident contracted the Ombudsman and confirmed that she had been experiencing issues with cats since 2014. She had not received any compensation and the landlord did not take into consideration the fact that she had surgery and had to leave her property. She was also dissatisfied that she had sent in numerous pictures, but the landlord had focused on her not completing log sheets. She wanted the landlord to compensate her for the impact it had on her health and finances.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s approach.

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right, and
3. Learn from outcomes.

Scope of investigation.

The purpose of the complaint process is to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity. Residents are encouraged to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues and reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As issues become historic, it becomes increasingly difficult to unpick the events that took place and how matters were handled.
In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about matters which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
In this case, the records show a formal complaint was raised with the landlord in September 2021 and a stage 1 response was sent, however there is no evidence that it was escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. Furthermore, if the complaint had been escalated and exhausted the internal complaint process, it had not been referred to the Ombudsman at the time. Consequently, this investigation will focus on matters which occurred on or after September 2022 when the resident made her most recent reports of cat urine to the landlord, which went on to exhaust the landlord’s complaints process. However, we may consider the wider implication of historic reports in the context of the handling of more recent issues.
Furthermore, as part of her complaint, the resident has said that her health was affected by the smell of cat urine and allergies. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident reported this to the landlord and this situation would have been distressing for her. However, it is outside the Service’s remit to establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s specific health issues. Matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to a court or liability insurance process to determine. This is in line with 42f of the Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

The landlord’s handling of reports of the property smelling of cat urine.

The landlord’s pet policy states that it will deal with complaints of pet or animal nuisance in line with its anti-social behaviour policy and in most cases it will aim to resolve the situation informally. However, if this cannot be achieved it will take necessary action to enforce the terms of tenancy or lease.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it categorises ASB as either very serious, serious or minor. Animal nuisance is classed as minor and when a report is received the landlord will make contact with the resident within 3 days to agree an action plan, it will then take action within 10 working days.
The ASB policy also states that it is important that all complainants understand the importance of working with the landlord to resolve issues of ASB. This includes responding to calls and /or letters, and providing information required. It further states that failure to work with the landlord may lead to the case being closed due to a lack of contact with the complainant.
It further states that the landlord will try to minimise the burden on complainants to collect evidence, however it is important that if it asks for diary sheets to be completed, that they are filled in and returned to the landlord. Furthermore, it will not move a resident due to ASB issues and would look to resolve the issues unless there are exceptional circumstances.
It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether someone has committed ASB but rather we will assess the landlord’s handling of a resident’s ASB reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own internal policies and industry best practice.
Based on the landlord’s records, it is clear that the resident has been reporting issues regarding cats for a long period of time. The landlord said that it asked the resident to provide further details and complete log sheets in order for it to investigate further and there is evidence to confirm it did this. It was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to complete log sheets, as they can be used as evidence to support future court action if appropriate. It would not be appropriate for the landlord to take action against tenants for ASB without evidence to support the allegations.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident responded to the landlord and stated that she had already submitted photographs, but there is no evidence to show that she sent any completed log sheets. While completing log sheets can be time consuming, they play a vital part in assisting a landlord address ASB issues. It was, therefore, reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident that it would close the ASB cases.
Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint the landlord carried out an estate inspection, this included visiting the resident’s property and her neighbour. This is a positive step from the landlord as it shows it was trying to assist with gathering further evidence and forming a plan of action.
While ongoing investigations were continuing, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that the landlord was communicating with the resident. There are copies of internal communications that say the landlord and resident had been in continuous communication via email and text messages, however it had not been recorded on the landlord’s internal systems.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission’’, and without the full copies of communication it is difficult for the Ombudsman to fully determine whether the landlord acted reasonably.
In this case, despite the landlord not having extensive evidence of the alleged ASB, it did acknowledge the effect it was having on the resident. In order to try to put things right for her, it approved a managed move and offered the resident a new property on 7 June 2023. These actions were above and beyond what would be expected of the landlord, as managed moves are normally only for exceptional circumstances such as where the police confirm there is in an immediate risk to a resident’s safety due to severe ASB.
As well as addressing the resident’s request to move, the landlord also correctly signposted the resident to its public liability insurers, should she wish to make a claim in relation to the effects on her health. It is appropriate for landlords to refer residents to liability insurers as insurers are best placed to assess such claims.
The Service acknowledges that the alleged ASB would have caused the resident distress, especially given her allergy to cats. However, based on the evidence available, the landlord took appropriate steps when receiving reports from the resident, it took prompt action by asking the resident to provide further evidence in the form of log sheets, and visited the estate accordingly.
Furthermore, its decision to approve the resident’s management move request, was fair and reasonable, and showed that the landlord was trying to put things right for her.

The landlord’s handling of a report of gas leak in the property.

While the resident did not raise the issue of a gas leak within her initial stage 1 complaint in March 2023 or her stage 2 escalation, she did raise it within her further complaint communication in May 2023. The landlord addressed this point in July 2023; therefore, the Ombudsman will consider its handling of this issue as the landlord has had the opportunity to consider it through its complaints process.
The landlord’s tenant handbook tells residents to call the national grid if they smell gas. It then says to call the landlord and it will send out its contractor within 2 hours.
In May 2023, the resident said that she had smelt gas within her property in March 2023. She said that she had a high reading of gas in every room, that was coming from next door and it was coming from the same place as the urine. She said the leak could have resulted in serious damage to the block or serious harm.
As part of the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it did not have any records of a reported gas leak. It further said that it had contacted the main gas supply company to gather further information but it had not heard back. The landlord has provided a copy of an email trail which states that the national gas contractor had attended the property and located a gas leak within the neighbour’s property.
It is unclear why the landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that it did not have any records of a gas leak, as it also informed the Ombudsman that the resident reported a gas leak in April 2023 and that it contacted the national gas supply contractor on her behalf. The landlord said that the contractor responded and said that it had attended the resident’s property 3 days prior on 8 and 11 April 2023, but did not find any signs of a gas leak inside her property or in the surrounding areas.
While the landlord’s response to a gas leak may have been appropriate in the circumstances, it is of concern that the landlord’s records to do not reflect these events. Furthermore, it is concerning that the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response and response to the Ombudsman is contradictory. It is vital that a landlord’s records are kept accurate and up to date to enable it to keep a clear audit trail of what has happened.
Based on the evidence available, there is no evidence to show that there was any service failure in relation to the handling of a gas leak, however recommendations have been made in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it operates a 2-stage complaint process. Stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 3 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days.
When the resident raised a stage 1 complaint in March 2023, the evidence shows that the landlord took appropriate steps to contact the resident and discuss the complaint in more detail. It also provided a stage 1 complaint response within its published timescales.
Following the resident’s complaint escalation, it took the landlord a total of 77 working days to provide a stage 2 complaint response, on 5 July 2023. The Ombudsman has seen evidence which shows that the landlord acknowledged it took it longer to issue the response due to the work entailed with the management move request and that it remained in contact with the resident within this time. Whilst it is positive that the landlord kept the resident updated, it was an unreasonable amount of time to elapse and significantly outside of the landlord’s policy.
The landlord should have issued the stage 2 complaint response and informed the resident of the steps it was taking, namely that it was submitting an application for a manged move. The landlord should have then provided the resident with the outcome when it was available. It was not necessary to wait until the managed move had been completed before issuing a complaint response. This was a failing by the landlord and it caused the resident unnecessary delay.
In relation to the stage 2 complaint response that was issued, there are some issues with regards to the contents. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which can be found on our website, states that a complaint response must confirm the complaint stage, provide the Ombudsman’s contact details and inform resident’s of their right to escalate if they remain dissatisfied with the response. The landlord’s final complaint did not include these details, which was a failing and may have left the resident feeling confused about whether she had exhausted the landlord’s complaint process.
The resident also raised a further complaint via the local authority in May 2023. It should be noted that the issues raised included the existing issue of cat urine and new issue relating to the handling of a gas leak.
Following the resident’s contact with the Ombudsman, the Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint. However, we were unaware that the resident had raised an initial complaint in March 2023 and that a stage 2 complaint response had been issued.
The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to identify that it had already issued a stage 2 complaint response regarding the handling of reports of cat urine. It should also have identified that the handling of a gas leak was a new issue, which had not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process and raised a new stage 1 complaint. This did not happen and the landlord issued an additional stage 2 complaint response instead, including both the cat urine and gas leak issues. This was a failing and caused unnecessary confusion.
The complaints process should be easy to navigate and it is a landlord’s responsibility to ensure that it has comprehensive records so that it can identify what issues have exhausted its internal complaints process and respond accordingly.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider what the landlord should do to put things right. 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 our own guidance on remedies (published on our website).
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where there have been failures which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made no attempt to put things right, payments of over £100 are appropriate. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay £150 to the resident for distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation the landlord’s handling of the property smelling of cat urine.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a gas leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 for failures identified with its complaint handling within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review its record keeping practices in relation to complaint handling and records, including in light of the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
2. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to record keeping, complaint handling and remedies, including in light of the findings of this report, the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and our remedies guidance.