PSOW Individual Decisions

Miss P complained that since moving into her property over 10 years previously, she had experienced issues with intrusive smells coming from other flats. She said she had been reporting it since 2015 but that the Housing Association had failed to fully resolve the problem. In February 2023 work was undertaken which resolved the problem in her bathroom, but she complained that the same issue remained in her kitchen. She said that she did not believe that the Housing Association’s offer to remove some units and review the pipe seals would resolve the problem, and that more extensive works were necessary. She also complained that the complaint response did not consider the length of time that she had been complaining and that it overlooked informal communications about the problems and disregarded other evidence she held. She said that some of the comments made by the investigating officer were patronising and snide. The Ombudsman was concerned that the Housing Association had failed to request relevant information from Miss P when carrying out its investigation. Although the Ombudsman considered that the Housing Association’s offer to re-inspect pipework in Miss P’s kitchen represented a reasonable response, it was understandable why Miss P felt that her concerns had not been adequately addressed and was reluctant to accept the resolution offered. In order to settle the complaint, the Housing Association agreed to apologise to Miss P for failing to request all the relevant evidence she had regarding the complaint, to consider as part of its investigation. It also agreed, provided that Miss P consented, to inspect the pipe seals with a view to carrying out any further works necessary to provide a long term solution.

Miss C complained about the fact that Coastal Housing Group Ltd (“CHG”) attended at her property on 3 occasions to assess the damp and mould, but that the inspections were not independent, and did not assess the outside of the property, where there was evidence of mould. Miss C said she had been left in a property which put her mental and physical health at risk. The Ombudsman found that the inspections carried out by CHG were not independent, and concluded that the case of the moisture was due to a lack of ventilation in Miss C’s property. There was no evidence that an external inspection had been undertaken. The Ombudsman sought and gained CHG’s agreement to, within 28 days, undertake a full independent inspection of Miss C’s property, to record moisture readings, with a view to identifying the cause of the damp. It further agreed to provide Miss C, within 10 working days of the inspection, with the findings of the inspection, together with a proposed plan of works to address the cause of the damp, as required.

Mr A complained that his landlord Coastal Housing Group Ltd (“the Association”) had not acted and/or failed to keep him informed about his complaints of Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) was carried out by his neighbour, also an Association tenant. This included Mr A having been assaulted so he wanted the Association to evict his neighbour. Mr A also complained that he had requested a transfer and felt that the Association has wrongly denied him a management transfer under its Lettings Policy (“the Policy”). The Ombudsman’s powers are limited in housing matters, in that he cannot direct a landlord to evict someone and neither can he direct that someone be transferred immediately. Having considered the complaint, it became clear that the Association was still actively investigating the ASB and moving to take legal action. It said Mr A did not meet the criteria for a management transfer under the Policy (a discretionary decision), however, the Ombudsman felt the reasons for that had not been properly explained to Mr A. Therefore, as an alternative to investigation, the Association agreed to undertake the following in settlement of the complaint (within 1 month): (a)Apologise in writing to Mr A for the communication failure and to provide him with a meaningful update on the ASB investigation. (b)To provide him with further updates on a monthly basis so long as the matter remains ongoing. (c)To provide Mr A with a meaningful written explanation as to why you have decided he does not meet the threshold for a management transfer.