Clarion Housing Association Limited (202128101)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128101

Clarion Housing Association Limited

18 January 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 the landlord’s handling of reports from the resident of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling in this case.

Background and summary of events

Scope of Investigation

The resident referred to two alleged perpetrators in reports to the landlord made in June 2020. However, as the complaint evolved, the extent of the complaint was about one alleged perpetrator. Therefore, this report will deal with the resident’s complaint concerning ASB from one alleged perpetrator who will be referred to as Person A throughout this report.
The resident complained to the landlord about ASB in mid-September 2021. The resident included details of ASB from 2018 in her complaint but she was told by the landlord that under its complaints policy, it was only permissible to consider reports extending back 6 months from the date of the complaint. The landlord’s complaint investigation started from the resident’s reports of ASB in 2020 onwards. This investigation covers the same period.

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom bungalow on an assured tenancy that began in 2017.
The landlord has not recorded any vulnerabilities relating to the resident. However, the resident told the landlord her mental health was affected by the complaint and alleged ASB.
The landlord and tenant obligations are set out within the tenancy agreement. Expectations on the tenant in relation to ASB and harassment state the resident or anyone living or visiting the property, must not behave in a manner that may be considered antisocial.
The landlord’s ASB policy commits to take ASB seriously and it aims to balance enforcement action and intervention with prevention. It states it will “adopt a supportive approach when dealing with victims, witnesses and alleged perpetrators, and will be flexible in its approach to managing incidents, working in partnership with both internal and external partners to tackle the issues”. It categorises ASB complaints into the following:
1. Crime (category 1) – It commits to work with the police to tackle criminal activity in the neighbourhood. Where appropriate, it will explore options of taking its own legal action such as injunctions.
2. Noise (category 2) – It will investigate cases within 5 working days and work with local council environmental health service.
3. Other forms of ASB (category 3) – It will investigate other cases of ASB within 5 working days when its threshold is met.
The landlord says it does not conduct a full investigation into every report of ASB as “often the incident may be a one-off event which it would expect the resident to try and resolve the problem themselves first by speaking to their neighbour”.
The landlord’s threshold for category 3 ASB is:
1. Three separate incidents reported in the last 7 days by the same person or member of the same household.
2. Five separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by the same person or member of the same household.
3. Two separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by two or more people from different households.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy and although it does not specify its timeframe for responses, it is expected to comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code of responding to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Summary of events

The resident’s complaint is about a neighbour allegedly causing ASB. The neighbour referred to as person A lived in a block of flats within close proximity to the resident’s bungalow. The flat has a communal entrance door and other residents within that building also made reports to the landlord about alleged incidents from person A.
The landlord received reports about incidents of ASB and sent a letter to all resident’s in the area on 7 May 2020. It said it had been informed there were a number of issues ongoing in the area. It referred to allegations of drug use and reminded residents it was an illegal activity and a breach of the tenancy agreement. It also reminded residents to close the communal door to the block of flats to keep the building secure. The landlord asked residents to report criminal activity to the police and also to the landlord if it involved someone in one of its properties.
On 26 May 2020, the landlord’s records showed the resident completed a landlord incident form. The resident said person A had been aggressive towards her and she reported a smell of cannabis from him. The resident referred to another neighbour who she said had also been affected by A’s’ behaviour. Around the same time, the landlord received diary sheets from other resident’s about ‘A’s’ behaviour.
The resident and 4 other neighbours sent a joint letter to the landlord dated 24 June 2020. This related to ASB incidents, drug use, harassment and intimidation on the street that they said was “greatly affecting their daily lives and they were suffering mental health issues that were exacerbated by the landlord, council and police reluctance to acknowledge the issues”.
The landlord has not provided evidence of when or if it responded to the resident’s letter. However, its records showed that it conducted an inspection of the area on 24 June 2020 and liaised with the police. It also arranged an appointment to see person A.
The landlord’s records showed on 1 July 2020 the police carried out observations in the area and at that time, there was not enough evidence to issue a community protection warning to person A.
The landlord recorded an incident from the resident about person A that involved “shouting” on 10 July 2020. The landlord sent the resident a closure letter on 20 July 2020. It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether the closure letter was related to the incident of 10 July 2020. The letter said it was unable to take any further action on the ASB case.
On 30 August 2020, the landlord recorded an incident from the resident about a “serious threat of violence” marked “urgent”. The landlord’s records showed it interviewed person A on 1 September 2020 and then carried out observations in the area on 8 September 2020. It did not note any issues or a smell of cannabis on that occasion.
On 11 September 2020, the landlord sent an internal email requesting a “category 1 should be raised against person A”. It does not give details of the incident and so it is unclear if this record related to the incident of 30 August 2020. It asked for an officer to contact the resident.
The landlord’s records showed it liaised with the police and the police carried out a visit on 16 September 2020 and noted “no nuisance or smell of cannabis”.
On 6 October 2020, the landlord requested a meeting with A’s friend (his nominated contact) to discuss the case. The following day, A’s friend responded to explain that she was helping him sort out correspondence only and could not comment about the alleged ASB incidents.
On 12 October 2020, the landlord sent person A a letter about allegations of ASB, that involved his conduct during August 2020 and included allegations of offensive and threatening gestures, videoing neighbour’s property and using drugs. It said it would like to offer person A support through its tenancy sustainment service. It also offered person A mediation and it asked him to contact the landlord.
The landlord sent the resident an acknowledgement and action plan letter on 26 October 2020. It then sent a closure letter to the resident on the same day. Its notes state “none of the incident had been witnessed personally by the resident and the allegations were to support her friends case but there was no new evidence. The police were not taking or supporting landlord action and the case would be closed.” The landlord noted another action to be “encourage completion of accurate and up to date diary sheets. Meet with partners again to discuss new reports and multi-agency investigation (completed September 2020.)”
The landlord sent another letter to person A on 26 October 2020 in response to an allegation of recording neighbour properties. It asked person A to stop doing this. The landlord also referred to reports of drug use within the building. It said if this affected person A then he should report it so the landlord could work in partnership with the police to investigate and tackle the issue.
Between 7 December 2020 and 23 February 2021, the landlord’s records showed reports of approximately 13 alleged incidents involving person A. It is unclear from the landlord’s records who reported these incidents and details of the allegations have not been provided to this Service.
On 21 December 2020, the landlord liaised with the police as part of its evidence gathering. On 25 January 2021, the landlord held an internal case strategy discussion and then closed the case and sent a closure letter. It is unclear from the landlord’s records if the letter was sent to the resident or if it involved other residents.
The resident and her carer continued to report around 4 incidents to the landlord between March 2021 and July 2021. This was about ‘A’s’ alleged offensive behaviour, verbal abuse and “smoking cannabis”. During this time, the landlord continued to liaise with the police about the alleged ASB.
Communications continued between the resident and landlord between 18 June 2021 and 14 July 2021 to clarify information the landlord required on the diary incident forms. The landlord sent a letter to the resident 21 June 2021 to say it was investigating the ASB reports. It enclosed diary sheets for her to record any further details of incidents.
The landlord has provided a letter to this Service from the community safety partnership dated July 2021 and addressed to “residents”. The community safety partnership comprises of the council, constabulary, fire service, probation service and the police and crime commissioner. The community safety partnership meets on a regular basis to agree action on local community safety priorities for the area it serves. The letter referred to an increase in reports of ASB, it encouraged residents to report incidents and it said it would work with other agencies to look at the most appropriate action.
On 11 July 2021, the resident and her carer completed separate incident records. They referred to stones being thrown from the garden of ‘A’s home. The resident described how she was in constant fear and frightened to sit in her garden. Further incidents were then reported on 18 and 19 July 2021 and 3 incident records were completed by the resident’s carer. They referred to the carer being sat in the garden with the resident when person A became verbally abusive towards them. The landlord has not provided information to this Service to show the action it took to investigate this incident.
The resident sent diary records to the landlord dated 6 August 2021. Incident records from 3 other residents were also sent in by the resident. The landlord confirmed receipt of these in its letter of 10 August 2021. The landlord sent a letter to the resident and her carer on the same day to say it was not taking any further action and the case would be closed. The resident replied to the landlord the following day asking for its assistance as she said person A was becoming increasingly volatile in the neighbourhood.
The same day, the landlord’s records showed it sent a letter to person A in which it said it had conducted a case review and based on the most recent reports, there was insufficient evidence to progress formal action. The records show the details of the non-enforcement actions the landlord attempted with person A. It asked person A to consider a referral to independent specialist mediation. It also offered him conflict coaching.
The landlord offered the resident mediation and on 14 August 2021, she refused the offer. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the case and requested a face-to-face meeting. The landlord has not provided the evidence to show how or if it responded to the resident’s request.
Between 15 August 2021 and 17 August 2021, the landlord’s records showed communication between the police and landlord. It discussed the reports of ASB and counter allegations from the resident and person A. The landlord noted there were no independent witnesses.
The landlord sent an email to the police on 18 August 2021 and asked the police if it could facilitate the installation of CCTV that covered the communal area at the rear of the block of flats.
On 19 August 2021, the landlord received a report from person A that outlined counter allegations of incidents of ASB from residents. Person A explained to the landlord the adverse impact the incidents were having on him.
The landlord’s records showed it was liaising with the police on 25 August 2021 in relation to evidence gathering. The landlord’s case was open at that point for monitoring purposes.
The landlord sent a letter to person A on 8 September 2021. It explained that no further action would be taken in relation to the ASB reports.
On 10 September 2021, the resident submitted an online complaint to the landlord about “various, mainly female residents in the area who had been deliberately harassed by person A”. She said that despite contacting the landlord for updates, no information had been given and no-one got back to her. On the same day, the resident’s support service contacted the landlord on her behalf. They said the resident had been trying to contact the landlord to find out what was happening with her complaints for the past 3 months and she had not heard anything.
The landlord’s records showed on 16 September 2021 it had carried out a ‘peer senior management review’ of the case. It said there was a lack of independent evidence to progress action and it was now looking at installing CCTV cameras. It suggested involving an independent company of professional witnesses and mediators and it was going to engage with the appropriate support service regarding ‘A’.
On 16 September 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to update her on the case. It said the case remained open and there was ongoing liaison with partners. It said it was considering hiring professional witnesses to assist in evidence collection.
On 19 September 2021, the resident replied to the landlord. The resident was unhappy as she had provided diary sheets of incidents involving person A and the landlord had said there was insufficient evidence to progress action.
On 20 September 2021 the resident sent the landlord an email in response to an email sent by the landlord on 10 September 2021. The email of 10 September 2021 has not been provided to this Service. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and she said the case had gone past the point of mediation. She was also concerned that despite requesting information from the landlord on numerous occasions, it failed to respond.
The landlord’s records show that between 27 September 2021 and 1 October 2021 it employed the use of a professional witness as part of its ASB investigation. No ASB was observed and on 4 October 2021, the landlord confirmed in writing to the resident it could not take further action and it would close the case.
The landlord’s records showed it noted an incoming email from the resident on 7 October 2021 who chased the landlord for an update and requested information about the complaint procedure. The landlord acknowledged this the same day and said it had referred the matter onto its tenancy specialist team to contact her.
The resident submitted a complaint online on 10 October 2021. She said she had already lodged a complaint and requested an acknowledgement from the landlord. The landlord responded to the resident on 15 October 2021 to acknowledge the complaint of 10 October 2021.
On 13 October 2021, the landlord’s records showed the resident reported a verbal abuse incident from person A. The landlord responded to the resident the same day to say that it had referred the matter to its tenancy specialist team who would contact her directly.
On 20 October 2021, the landlord’s records showed it sent a letter to the resident to say it was not taking action on the most recent incident reported as there was no evidence of alleged ASB.
On the same day, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It stated the following:
1. It believed it had handled the complaint in line with its policy and procedures.
2. It was aware of the ASB incidents the resident had reported; it could not comment on other resident reports due to data protection . It confirmed there was an open case being investigated and it had extensive involvement from multiple agencies including the police, council and the landlord.
3. It had carried out independent visits of the communal areas, completed estate walkabouts and reviewed evidence from incident records and it was satisfied that it was handling the case correctly.
4. It recognised the complaint handling delays and offered £50 compensation that it said would be credited to the resident’s rent account.
The landlord recorded the resident made contact the same day to express her dissatisfaction with the overall lack of content of the stage 1 complaint response. She said it had not taken her mental health into consideration. The resident believed there had been inconsistencies with landlord information about the case closure. The resident said she wanted action taken against person A. She was also dissatisfied with the amount of compensation the landlord had offered her and the fact it was going to be added to her rent account.
The landlord’s records showed on 26 October 2021, an internal email said both the landlord and police had tried to engage with residents in the area on a number of occasions and they did not want to be involved.
On 3 November 2021, the landlord recorded discussions with the police and it was confirmed there was no criminal offence. It also reported environmental health was involved in relation to an alleged noise nuisance from person A.
The landlord issued its stage 2 ‘peer review’ complaint response to the resident on 27 January 2022. It apologised for the delay in sending the response and summarised the following:
1. It offered the resident a referral to its tenancy sustainment service to consider ongoing support.
2. It explained the purpose of its partnership meetings were to explore options to resolve the case.
3. The landlord apologised that it had wrongly advised the resident the case was open when it was closed.
4. The landlord explained its actions which comprised of liaison with the police, it had employed of a professional witness – nothing of significance had been observed. It had investigated reports from other neighbours but at the time, it was not in a position to explore legal options as it did not have enough evidence of ASB. It advised the resident to continue to report incidents to the landlord and police if appropriate.
5. It was confident it had complied with its policy by contacting the resident within 5 working days of reports being received to clarify the nature of the incident and agree next steps.
6. It was satisfied it had followed its policy and procedure and there was no failure. However, it recognised the incorrect information it had provided the resident in its complaint response about the ASB case status and it offered the resident £50 compensation.
7. In total, the landlord had now offered the resident £100 compensation (£50 for its delay in responding to the complaint and £50 for incorrect information on the status of the complaint) It said that if there were any arrears on the rent account, it would offset the compensation against the arrears.

Assessment and findings

The resident has described how the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB has impacted her mental health and she referred to being fearful to sit and enjoy her garden. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s handling of reports from the resident of antisocial behaviour.

The landlord received reports of incidents of ASB in the area and it responded by sending a letter to all the residents in the vicinity in early May 2020. The letter stated drug use by residents was an illegal activity and a breach of tenancy. The landlord asked residents to report incidents and gave them details of how to do this. In regard to an initial response to reports of drug misuse in its properties, this was an appropriate response, both in regard to serving as a warning to perpetrators regarding unacceptable behaviour, and also as an appeal for witnesses to ASB.
The resident sent the landlord evidence of an incident involving person A at the end of May 2020 about alleged aggression and that she detected a smell of cannabis from him. The landlord has not provided evidence of how it responded to the resident’s report.
The nature of the ASB comprises of a series of incidents on more than one occasion. As such, it was a reasonable expectation on the part of the resident that the landlord would record and be able to recount the details specific to each of the resident’s reports and its subsequent actions as part of its strategic reports of ASB concerning person A.
In June 2020, the resident and 4 other neighbours sent a joint letter to the landlord about ASB incidents and described the adverse impact the ASB was having on their daily lives. It is unclear if the landlord responded to the residents’ letter as evidence of this has not been provided to this Service. It did, however, demonstrate that it was working with the police and also carried out an inspection of the area on the same day as the letter from the residents was received. It also arranged a visit to person A.
The landlord continued to take a multi-agency approach to the reports of ASB by working with the police. At the beginning of July 2020, the police carried out observations in the area but at that point, there was insufficient evidence for the police to take further action, such as using a community protection warning against A.
The resident continued to report incidents that involved person A in July 2020. The landlord acknowledged and closed the incidents with the resident within a reasonable timescale, stating it was unable to take any further action.
At the end of August 2020, the landlord recorded the resident reported a “serious threat” incident that involved person A. The landlord interviewed person A within 2 days and continued to conduct observations in the area in the following week. The landlord followed this up mid-September 2020 and asked for an officer to make contact with the resident, however, the landlord’s records do not show whether it followed through and contacted the resident.
The landlord arranged contact with person A promptly at the beginning of September 2020 and interviewed him to discuss the incident. However, it appears there was a delay in the landlord confirming its action in writing to person A and the resident as the letter is dated the end of October 2020. Although the landlord’s ASB policy does not specifically stipulate timeframes to communicate actions and updates to the reporter and alleged perpetrator, timely communications are a key part of effective ASB case management.
The landlord’s letter to person A (mid-August 2020) said it could offer him support and external mediation. While it is unclear if this was offered when it interviewed person A previously in August 2020, it was a positive step forward that demonstrated the landlord was managing the reports of ASB in accordance with its ASB policy of providing appropriate support and a tailored response to the perpetrator.
The landlord sent person A a letter at the end of October 2020 to remind him of his tenancy conditions. At this point, the landlord had noted an action to meet with its partners again to discuss a multi-agency approach to tackling the reports of ASB.
Incidents continued to be reported to the landlord between early December 2020 and late July 2021 and the landlord evidenced it actioned the reports, liaised with the police and held an internal case meeting to discuss its approach and potential action it could take against person A. This was an appropriate response by the landlord that demonstrated it acted in accordance with its ASB policy of taking a collaborative approach to tackling the ASB.
The landlord’s records are limited in some instances throughout its ASB case management and do not always show a summary of its actions. It is important that landlords keep robust records of ASB cases to ensure it considers appropriate actions are taken that are proportionate to the evidence in the case, and while managing the expectations of residents.
In July 2021, the landlord and partner agencies continued to monitor the situation. The community safety partnership sent a letter to residents in the area to say there had been an increase in reports of ASB and it encouraged residents to report incidents.
The resident and her carer continued to report incidents in early August 2021 involving person A, who they said was abusive towards them. It was clear the situation was impacting the resident as she described being fearful to sit in her own garden. She reported person A was becoming increasingly volatile. There is evidence that other residents were also affected by A’s behaviour. In August 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and her carer to say it was not taking any further action and it closed the case. However, it is unclear what investigations it had taken into these incidents, but the landlord also responded to person A around the same time to confirm it had insufficient evidence to progress formal action.
The landlord had therefore responded to all parties to acknowledge reports of an incident taking place; however, it could not progress its investigation further due to the lack of evidence. The landlord then offered non enforcement methods to bring about a change of behaviour by person A. It offered him support, coaching and mediation. This approach is consistent with the landlord taking a proactive approach to deal with ASB reports in a situation where there was insufficient evidence to undertake any formal action against a party.
It is unclear if the Person A engaged with the landlord’s support offer or accepted its mediation offer. The mediation offer did not go ahead as the resident had refused the landlord’s offer as she thought the case was past that type of intervention. It is reasonable to assume the inability to resolve a dispute through an alternative means such as mediation, led the landlord to look at other options in an attempt to gain evidence to progress matters. The landlord made enquiries with the police to install CCTV and then it employed a professional witness in an attempt to gather evidence. During the timeline, the landlord also investigated counter allegations from person A which demonstrated an even-handed approach.
Mid-September 2021, the landlord carried out its internal ‘peer senior management review’ of the case and concluded there was a lack of independent evidence to progress action. It talked about its actions to consider the installation of CCTV, the involvement of a professional witness and the involvement of support services for person A. The landlord therefore demonstrated it was still considering all options in its attempts to gather evidence while balancing its obligations of providing the necessary support to person A.
The resident complained to the landlord mid-September 2021 as she said the landlord had not been updating her on the case. In October 2021 the landlord sent the resident a letter to say it could not take any further action and it would close the case.
Towards the end of October 2021, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It said that it had handled the ASB case in accordance with its policy and it explained its actions included estate visits and the review of the evidence it had on file.
During October 2021, the resident reported another incident to the landlord involving allegations of verbal abuse from person A. The landlord closed the case 1 week later as it said it had insufficient evidence to progress further. While it was right for the landlord to swiftly decide whether or not it could progress the case, the landlord has not evidenced what, if any investigations it took in relation to the incident.
At the end of October 2021, the landlord’s records suggest it was still working with the police to try and obtain evidence of ASB from residents in the area. In early November 2021, the police had confirmed there was no evidence of criminal activity. The landlord also recorded that environmental health were involved regarding an alleged noise nuisance from person A.
When the landlord responded to the resident as part of stage 2 of its complaints process at the end of January 2022, it acknowledged it had wrongly advised the resident about the complaint status. It said it was satisfied it had complied with its policy by contacting the resident within 5 working days of receiving her reports of ASB.
The landlord acknowledged the impact the incidents had on the resident’s mental health and offered her support through its own tenancy sustainment service. In regard to attempting to gather evidence to substantiate her reports, it explained it had been working with the police and had organised a professional witness to gather evidence. The landlord stated it continued to investigate complaints from neighbours within close proximity of person A. It offered the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the incorrect information it provided about the status of the case.
In summary, overall, the landlord has demonstrated it acted in accordance with its ASB policy in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB by contacting her and the alleged perpetrator to investigate the incidents. It has also taken a collaborative multi agency approach and offered non enforcement interventions such as support and mediation to both parties. There was a lack of evidence for the landlord to take enforcement action against person A and therefore the landlord explored wider options of CCTV and the employment of a professional witness in an attempt to gain the evidence it required.
The landlord’s record keeping is limited on occasions in relation to the action it took to investigate some of the ASB incidents and it was unclear on occasions when or if it responded to the resident’s contact and correspondence.
Further, the status of the landlord’s ASB was not always correct. It advised the resident the case was open in its complaint response to the resident; however, the case had been closed. The landlord did recognise its mistake and offered her £50 compensation for this element of failure. The Ombudsman considers this to be a reasonable offer of compensation to reflect the situation had caused some confusion to the resident.
While the landlord’s ASB policy does not provide guidance on the level of communication with the reporter and alleged perpetrator of ASB, a key part of effective ASB case management is to keep all parties updated on its actions in a timely manner. The landlord did not always do this and there is evidence the resident and her support worker had to chase the landlord for a response on a number of occasions.
The landlord has not demonstrated how it ‘risk assessed’ the case in relation to the impact the ASB was having on the resident’s mental health. Although it finally offered the resident support within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord took longer than was necessary in its offer to the resident. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to provide reassurance and confidence to the resident that it was aware of her individual needs and how it could respond under its service provision. The risk assessment and appropriate support should have been in place within a reasonable timeframe from the start of the case and updated at key events throughout the lifecycle of the residents reports.
In recognition that the landlord’s communications with the resident were not always proactive or timely and its failure to demonstrate it had risk assessed the case, the landlord should pay the resident compensation of £300. This is aligned to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance that reflects the situation had negatively impacted the resident causing her distress, time and trouble of chasing up the landlord for its response.

Complaint Handling

The resident raised a complaint to the landlord mid-September 2021. It appears the landlord did not acknowledge her complaint until mid-October 2021 (1 month later) after the resident had to chase up the landlord for a response. The landlord unreasonably delayed in acknowledging the resident’s complaint and this resulted in inconvenience, time and trouble in the resident having to chase up the landlord for its response.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident at the end of October 2021. Although the landlord does not stipulate timeframes for complaint responses within its complaints policy, it is expected to comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code of providing a response within 10 working days. If it was unable to provide the response, it should have updated the resident of the reasons for this and agree a new target for response. The landlord did, however, recognise and apologise for this delay and offered £50 compensation to the resident.
The same day, the resident contacted the landlord to raise her dissatisfaction. It is unclear when or if the landlord acknowledged the complaint. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident at the end of January 2022; 3 months later and outside of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 20 working day timeframe. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord kept the resident informed throughout this period. The landlord did not reassess the complaint handling failure and the compensation remained at £50.
Given the delayed acknowledgement and response at stage 1, the lack of acknowledgement at stage 2 and further delayed response of 3 months at stage 2; the £50 compensation the landlord offered the resident falls short of what the Ombudsman considers to be an appropriate amount of compensation. The landlord failed in its handling of the complaint and did not keep the resident updated. Therefore, it is more appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident £150 compensation to reflect its failures, the inconvenience caused to the resident for the delays and her time and trouble of having to chase the landlord for its response. This amount of compensation is aligned to the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles for failures which have caused impact to the resident over a 4-month period.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports from the resident of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

Overall, the landlord demonstrated compliance with its ASB policy, however, its record keeping did not always show whether or not it had investigated some of the incidents and what actions if any it had taken. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s communications on occasions and it did not evidence it had carried out a risk assessment in relation to any vulnerabilities of the resident.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. It delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint over a total of 4 months at stage 1 and stage 2 and it did not keep the resident updated throughout this period.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified within this report.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £450 (including the £100 it had already offered the resident if it has not already done so) as follows:
1. £300 for the service failures in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. £150 for the service failures identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.

This should be paid direct to the resident and not onto her rent account.

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should provide the resident and this Service with an update on the case. This should include its intentions in relation to the installation of CCTV. The landlord should include its action plan and communication plan (if relevant) to tackle any ongoing ASB involving person A.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.