Trident Housing Association Limited — case 202504166

Decision Case ID 202504166 Decision type Investigation Landlord Trident Housing Association Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 18 December 2025 Background The resident’s tenancy began on 14 March 2025 and she raised concerns about the impact of the ventilation system on her shortly after this. The resident has multiple physical and mental health conditions, including asthma. The resident no longer lives in the property. What the complaint is about The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Concerns about the ventilation system.

The resident’s request to move. The associated complaint. Our decision (determination) We find service failure in the landlord’s handling of: Concerns about the ventilation system. The resident’s request to move. We find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord’s handling of concerns about the ventilation system The landlord should have checked the ventilation system was free from blockages during the void period.

It did however take action to address the resident’s concerns about the ventilation system. The lack of telephone records means the landlord has not been able to demonstrate it provided the resident with regular updates. The landlord also did not follow up on completing an air quality check. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move The landlord did not apply its allocations and lettings policy correctly when responding to the resident’s request to move. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s stage one acknowledgment was delayed by 1 working day. In our view, there was little detriment caused to the resident. Its stage one response, stage two acknowledgement and stage two response were all issued on time. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify.

The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 15 January 2026 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £150 made up as follows: £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of concerns about the ventilation system.

£50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request to move. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 15 January 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 11 April 2025 The resident complained to the landlord. She said: She stayed in the property for 2 nights before experiencing breathing difficulties and skin rashes.

A contractor visited on 1 April 2025 but did not check the main ventilation unit. An inspection on 4 April 2025 found the ventilation system switched off. She stayed one more night and became unwell, saying the property was unsafe. She stayed in a hotel to be available to attend a repair appointment on 7 April 2025, where the ventilation unit filters were found to be black with long-term build-up. She chased the landlord for updates but received no support. A staff member told her the property was unsuitable for her medical needs and offered to help her relocate.

The landlord later said she could remain in the property. 6 May 2025 The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: The property was confirmed as habitable, meeting the letting standard. The property was cleaned before letting. During a home visit, carpets were assessed as clean and in good condition. The property had been vacant for 1 month and needed airing. New filters were fitted to the ventilation unit on 1 May 2025. The ventilation system is deactivated when a property is vacant.

The system was not designed to eliminate airborne viruses or create sterile environments. It was not necessary to replace the system or relocate the resident. It had offered up to 5 nights in a hotel. The resident stayed with family, and the landlord provided 2 nights of hotel accommodation. A GP letter showed the resident had a common upper respiratory infection. It acknowledged her disabilities. It stated asthma was not a disability. It was not liable for hotel, travel, laundry costs, loss of income or a rent rebate.

8 May 2025 The resident escalated her complaint. She said: The handling of her health concerns was dismissive and lacked urgency. She said asthma can be a disability under the Equality Act. The ventilation system was not turned on, nor were the filters changed during the void period, which she said posed a health risk. The offer of a hotel stay came a month after she reported the issue. The landlord’s claim that the smell could be due to her possessions was inaccurate. There had been a lack of communication and support.

The landlord did not complete a balanced review of her financial losses. The stage 1 complaint response was delayed. The landlord’s language was inappropriate and offensive. 27 May 2025 The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: It did not accept that it dismissed the resident’s health concerns. It replaced the ventilation unit filter, visited the resident, and offered hotel accommodation despite no proven hazards. There was no indication the resident’s upper respiratory infection was caused or worsened by the property.

It acknowledged her distress but did not accept the property was uninhabitable or liability for her illness. Its intention was not to undermine the resident’s asthma. It was referring to how the condition was categorised during her housing assessment. It did not intend to be dismissive. It regretted any distress caused by its language and apologised. It reviewed the resident’s request for costs and found no evidence the expenses resulted from its failure to provide a habitable property.

It apologised if the resident felt unsupported and acknowledged possible delays or miscommunication. It provided its stage 1 complaint response within policy timeframes. Under the terms of her tenancy agreement, the property must be the resident’s principal home. If the resident wanted to move, she should engage with the housing service team. Referral to the Ombudsman In summary the resident felt that the landlord had not supported her. She said the landlord had promised to move her but did not follow up on this.

What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the ventilation system. Finding Service failure In contact with us and the landlord, the resident said the property affected her physical health.

While we understand the resident’s concerns about the impact on her, it would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. However we have considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about her health.

The resident told the landlord that she stayed in the property for 2 nights and became unwell. She reported experiencing breathing difficulties, skin rashes, and swollen eyes. The resident said she felt unable to remain in the property because of her health concerns and instead stayed with family members, in hotels, and in her car. The landlord’s voids management and letting standards does not comment specifically on ventilation units. It does state air vents would be clean and free from blockages The landlord completed a “ready to let” certificate for the property on 5 March 2025.

The ventilation system in the cupboard is not specified nor were pictures taken of it. It is unclear if the landlord checked this prior to the resident moving in. On 31 March 2025 after the resident’s tenancy had started, the landlord visited the property and noticed a strong odour. In an internal email, it said the smell became stronger when a hallway cupboard was opened, which contained a large vent and piping. The landlord noted the odour was not present when the resident signed the tenancy On 1 April 2025 the landlord inspected the property and recorded it was in good condition with all appliances working.

Later that day, the resident contacted the landlord, upset that the large vent had not been checked. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to inspect the ventilation unit during this visit, given its findings from the previous day. On 4 April 2025 the landlord attended the property and found the ventilation unit turned off. It switched the unit back on. The resident stayed in the property for 1 night after this visit and reported becoming unwell. On 7 April 2025 the landlord cleaned the existing filters on the ventilation unit as they were blocked.

In an email dated 25 April 2025 the landlord acknowledged the ventilation system had not been properly maintained between tenancies. The landlord replaced the filters to the ventilation unit on 30 April 2025. It completed works to the ventilation unit within its 28 working day commitment set out in its responsive repairs policy. On 25 April 2025 internal emails show the landlord stated that “a comprehensive review of the wider plant is advisable.” On the same day the landlord agreed several actions with the resident, including completing an air quality check.

This was a reasonable step given the resident’s health concerns. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord carried out this commitment. If it decided not to proceed, it should have informed the resident and explained why. By failing to do so, the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations. The resident has told us that there was a lack of communication from the landlord and she did not feel supported. We have seen a call log showing that the resident contacted the landlord on a regular basis.

We asked the landlord for contact notes for these calls and it was unable to provide them. The landlord should have records of all discussions with the resident. By failing to do so, it has not been able to demonstrate it provided appropriate support to the resident. The resident provided the landlord with a medical letter stating she had an upper respiratory tract infection and sore throat. The letter said it could not confirm any direct or environmental link between her symptoms and the home environment.

It noted that inadequate ventilation can exacerbate underlying respiratory conditions, including asthma. The landlord responded to the resident’s medical letter within its complaint replies. It explained the purpose of the ventilation system and the actions it had taken to address issue. It stated it had acted appropriately and responsibly regarding the resident’s health concerns. The landlord’s response shows it took the resident’s concerns seriously, investigated, and provided a response.

The landlord addressed the resident’s request for reimbursement for financial losses in its complaint response. The landlord’s position was that the expenses did not occur due to a failure to provide a habitable property. The landlord said it provided a hotel stay for 2 nights and offered use of a guest bedroom. The landlord’s response evidenced it considered the resident’s request. We have made a finding of service failure. The landlord should have checked the ventilation system was free from blockages when the property was void.

The landlord took action to address the resident’s concerns about the ventilation system. However, the lack of telephone records means it cannot demonstrate that it provided regular updates and support. The landlord also did not complete the agreed air quality test. We have seen no justification as to why it did not follow through on its commitment to the resident. Complaint The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move. Finding Service failure The resident asked the landlord for a transfer to another property.

The resident has told us that the landlord agreed to move her but changed its mind. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy states that residents may apply for a transfer if they do not hold a probationary tenancy and have not breached their tenancy agreement. We have seen evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s rehousing options. In a text message, the landlord told the resident that her rent arrears would need to be cleared before a property could be offered.

The evidence shows the resident sought to reach an agreement with the landlord about the arrears. The landlord’s advice regarding a transfer was consistent with its policy, as non-payment of rent was a breach of the resident’s tenancy agreement. Internal records show the landlord also said the resident could not move during the first year because she was on a starter tenancy. The landlord gave this advice to the resident on 27 May 2025. The landlord recorded the resident’s tenancy as a “starter” tenancy on their system.

However, the tenancy agreement signed by the resident is not a probationary tenancy and does not contain additional clauses preventing a move within the first year. We acknowledge the resident’s rent arrears may have prevented a transfer however the landlord did not apply its policy correctly when giving this advice. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding No maladministration The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days.

It aims to issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The landlord provided its stage 1 acknowledgment in 6 working days, slightly outside the timescale outlined in its policy. In our view the minor delay caused little detriment to the resident. Its stage 1 response, stage 2 acknowledgement and stage 2 response were all issued on time. Learning We identified some areas in this investigation where the landlord should consider what learning it can take from our findings.

In particular, we have commented on record keeping and its overall communication with the resident. Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord did not keep records of telephone conversations with the resident. As a result, it could not demonstrate all its actions during our investigation. Communication The landlord’s tone and use of language in some parts of its complaint response was not sensitive. Some examples are: The landlord commented that the resident’s personal property could have caused odours in the property.

This was unfair as the landlord’s own investigation identified there was a strong smell coming from the cupboard in the property. When informing the resident it was checking whether it had followed its policy when allocating the property, the landlord said it would not cause detriment to her unless foul play or fraud was discovered. This comment caused unnecessary upset to the resident. It told the resident asthma was not a disability. It is not the landlord’s role to define a disability.

This made the resident feel that her health condition was being dismissed. The tone of the landlord’s communication should be professional and respectful. This helps residents feel heard and valued, which helps rebuild trust when things go wrong. We acknowledge the landlord did apologise for its use of language in its stage 2 response. This was a positive step in terms of putting matters right. The landlord may find it helpful to review our Spotlight report ‘Attitudes, respect and rights’ published in January 2024 and available on our website.

This report includes a set of recommendations for landlords to consider which may be useful when considering how communication can be improved.