Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202207309)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207309

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

1 April 2025

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:
1. The resident’s complaint about staff conduct.
2. The resident’s reports, and counter allegations of antisocial behaviour.
3. The resident’s request to keep his CCTV system.
4. Its concerns for the resident’s welfare.
5. The resident’s notice of seeking possession (NOSP).
6. The resident’s concerns about priority it has given to his property, as part of the planned works.
7. The resident’s reports that he did not receive a letter sent to other residents.
8. The resident’s subject access request.
9. The 6 month response delay to the resident’s email.
10. The resident’s complaint about having no hot water in his property in 2005.
This Service also investigated, the landlord’s handling of:
1. The gas safety check for the resident’s property.
2. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

The Scheme governs what the Ombudsman can and cannot consider, which is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. When a resident brings a complaint to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint.
Paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has raised several complaints with the landlord about its handling of the SAR he made since 2019. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s SAR is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident may wish to refer this element of the complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office at ico.org.uk.
Paragraph 42.b. of the Ombudsman’s Scheme outlines that this Service may only consider complaints which residents bring to us within 12 months of the landlord’s final response. The Ombudsman understands that in August 2021, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about the 6 month response delay to an email he sent. However, we also note that the landlord provided its final response to this element of his complaint on 1 June 2020 and did not respond to it further in its complaint response of October 2021.
Additionally, the resident brought this complaint to this Service in July 2022. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not consider the resident’s complaint about the delay in responding to his email as part of this investigation. This is because in the Ombudsman’s opinion the resident did not bring this element of his complaint to our attention within 12 months of the landlord’s final response.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 7 March 1994. The property is one bed first floor flat. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, but said the resident reported being partially deaf. At the resident’s request, the landlord only communicates with him by letter. The resident describes himself as vulnerable based on his age and not in relation to his health.
In February 2019, the resident made 2 reports of harassment from his neighbour. He said his neighbour was taking photos of him and posting photos of his car on you tube, which it found intimidating. He showed the landlord some stills from his CCTV of his neighbour taking photos him but refused to send a copy of those. The landlord said to the resident that his CCTV camera was not only pointing towards his car, but also filming members of the public, which he is not permitted to do. It asked the resident to remove his CCTV camera and advised him to ask for retrospective permission if he wanted it to remain.
On 25 March 2019, the resident informed the landlord that he had reported his neighbour to the police for harassment and provided a crime reference number. The neighbour made counter allegations of harassment and intimidation from the resident, who denied the allegations. The neighbour also reported the matter to the police, The landlord informed this Service that the neighbour declined mediation with the resident because of the nature of the anti-social behaviour (ASB) she experienced.
On 15 May 2019, the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s ASB report and advised him to contact it to discuss the issue. It did not note the nature of the ASB in its letter. In July 2019, the resident made a further report of the neighbour filming him but refused to share his evidence with the landlord. The landlord said it would discuss the matter with his neighbour.
In May 2019 and June 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident to meet and discuss the use of CCTV and storage of data. The landlord asked to visit the resident to review the area covered by his CCTV. It explained this was to ensure that the resident was compliant with the Information Commissioner’s Office guidance for domestic CCTV. It is unclear whether the resident provided access to the landlord but he informed this Service that it took 2 years for the landlord to authorise his CCTV, which he said it granted in 2019.
The resident informed the landlord that on 25 April 2020, his neighbour caused criminal damage to his RC helicopter and his car, he also shared a video of the incident. The neighbour alleged that the resident assaulted her during the incident. The landlord sent a letter to residents appealing for witnesses. The resident said he did not receive the letter and argued that it alleged that he assaulted the neighbour, which he disputed. The landlord said it did not send the letter to the resident at the time but later sent him a copy to reassure him that there was no mention of him in the letter.
The landlord issued its stage 3 response to the resident’s complaint on 1 June 2020. It acknowledged that the resident reported having no water in 2005 but explained that as this happened 15 years before “it could not do anything about it”. It also reminded the resident that he had agreed not to fly his drone in his local neighbourhood. Additionally, the landlord said that on 1 June 2020 and 12 June 2020, it also provided its final response to the resident’s complaint about a 6 month delay in responding to his email. The resident said he sent the email in October 2019 and the landlord responded in February 2020. Neither parties shared the resident’s original complaints or the previous stages responses with this Service. The evidence showed that the resident raised the issue of the delay in responding to his email again in August 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 July 2020 and informed him of its intention of issuing him with a NOSP. It noted that the resident’s behaviour towards other residents on the estate was a breach of his tenancy. Whilst the landlord did not say who the other residents were, the resident said that it had not discuss his neighbour’s allegations with him. The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 July 2020, to revoke the NOSP and issue him with a formal warning. It explained that because the CCTV footage showed him hitting out at his neighbour, it was issuing him with a warning about his behaviour.
On 19 August 2020, the landlord issued a written warning to the resident about his conduct towards its staff. It described an incident during which the resident verbally abused 2 members of staff and displayed threatening behaviour towards them. On the 4 September 2020, the landlord issued the resident with a NOSP for breaching his tenancy agreement on grounds 12 and 14 in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988. The landlord informed this Service that it did not go to court as the resident’s behaviour stopped.
On 29 October 2020, the resident made a complaint alleging that the landlord had provided false information about him to other residents as part of an ongoing ASB investigation into the issues between him and his neighbour.
The landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour on 30 October 2020, about her conduct towards the resident and the damage she caused to his car in April 2020.
The landlord issued it stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 11 November 2020. It explained that the ASB investigation was ongoing and it understood that the resident may want to make counterclaims about what happened. It urged the resident to engage with the investigation. It also confirmed that whilst it sent generic letters to residents as part of the investigation, those did not contain information about him. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
On 4 November 2020, the resident reported that his neighbour verbally abused him and took photos of him the previous day. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 November 2020. It asked the resident to provide logs of the incidents with his neighbour. It informed this service that it received no logs from the resident.
On 5 March 2021, the resident informed the landlord that the neighbour was convicted of criminal damage for the damage caused to his car. He said he would provide evidence of this to the landlord and declined giving consent for the landlord to approach the police. The landlord made a disclosure request to the police on 28 June 2021.
Between May 2021 and August 2021, the resident made further reports of damage to his car. He also reported his neighbour taking photos of him. The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 June 2021 and 19 August 2021, to ask the resident to provide logs of the incidents. The landlord informed this Service that the resident did not submit any logs and it found no evidence of harassment from the neighbour.
Between May 2021 and August 2021, the landlord and the resident had several communications about the gas safety inspection. On 3 June 2021, the landlord attended and issued a gas safety certificate, it noted that the certificate was faulty and had to be reissued. The resident said it did not inform him of this and he assumed that the letter to book another inspection on 14 June 2021, was an error and ignore the appointment. The landlord booked another appointment on 24 June 2021, which the resident cancelled as he was unwell. On 30 June 2021, the resident said to the landlord that he had booked the gas inspection for 30 July 2021, but the landlord said this was unlikely as the gas certificate would have expired by that date. The resident insisted and asked the landlord to confirm the appointment by letter. Neither party has provided evidence to show that the landlord confirmed the appointment.
On 5 July 2021, the landlord informed the resident of its intention to take legal action against him because he refused to agree to an appointment to undertake a gas safety inspection. The resident said that although an engineer attended as planned on 13 July 2021, he did not knock his door. On 15 July 2021, the resident said an engineer knocked his door aggressively, enquired about his whereabouts with his neighbours and took photos of his car. The landlord noted that it left several calling cards urging the resident to contact them. The landlord’s internal communications showed that it carried out some unannounced visits in July 2021, because the gas certificate was due to expire.
On 22 July 2021, the landlord attended the property unannounced to complete the gas safety check. The landlord’s records note that an engineer reported that they could not gain access to the property. Furthermore, the engineer reported that a neighbour reported that the resident had advised them not to allow access to the block to anyone approaching his property. The resident disputes the landlord’s version of events, the resident confirmed that he was not home when the engineer went to the property because he was not expecting a check on the day.
The landlord sent a warning letter to the resident on 22 July 2021, because the gas safety check at his property was overdue and the resident failed to provide access, which the resident disputed. The gas supplier capped the resident’s gas supply, it is unclear when this took place. The landlord noted that it completed the gas inspection on 13 August 2021.
On 23 July 2021, the landlord contacted the emergency services to carry out a welfare check on the resident. It said it had received reports about the resident’s conduct, which raised concerns for his wellbeing. It later said that it was also concerned that the resident did not provide access for a gas safety inspection which was overdue.
On 30 July 2021, the landlord acknowledged that the resident raised concerns about the service he had received. It said that it had previously addressed some of the elements of his complaint within the stage 1 response to the resident’s previous complaint in November 2020. It also explained that it would consider his recent complaint as an escalation request and asked the resident to confirm the details of his stage 2 complaint.
On 24 August 2021, the resident confirmed the details of his complaint. It was as follows:
1. The landlord’s handling of his reports of harassment and criminal damage by his neighbour. He said the landlord did not provide him with an outcome to its investigation into his ASB reports.
2. The landlord’s threats of eviction and the letter it sent to the resident about it. The resident said the landlord refused to provide him with the original letter with an affidavit, which he requested even though there was no ongoing legal case. It felt the letter was a defamation of his character.
3. The resident questioned why he was always the last resident to have items renewed in his property. He felt that the landlord treated him differently to other residents.
4. The landlord sent a letter to other residents and not to him. He questioned the account of a staff member who said they saw the postman delivering the letter to him.
5. The landlord made several appointments in July 2021, for the gas safety inspection when he already had an appointment booked for 30 July 2021. The resident was especially concerned about the conduct of a staff member who attended on 15 July 2021 to carry out the gas safety check. He described how the staff arrived unannounced, knocked on his door loudly, checked his whereabouts with his neighbour and took photos of his car. He said this caused him significant distress.
6. The landlord refused to investigate his complaint of having no hot water because it was too long ago.
7. The landlord contacting the emergency services because it was concerned for his welfare, which he said was unfounded.
The landlord issued a detailed stage 2 response to the resident’s complaints on 26 October 2021. It said:
1. Staff conduct:
  1. It acknowledged that during site visits in August 2020, its staff filmed the resident when he blocked their access and displayed threatening behaviour towards them. Staff filmed the incident as evidence of the resident’s unacceptable behaviour. The landlord concluded that after considering the context of the incident, it was satisfied that its staff did not harass the resident.
  2. It confirmed that its contractor asked his neighbours about the resident’s whereabouts. It explained that it discussed this with the contractor and lessons were learnt. It said it would only discuss further appointments with the resident and not his neighbour. it upheld this element of his complaint.
2. It explained that it contacted the police in July 2021 because it was concerned for the resident’s welfare.
3. ASB case:
  1. It explained that after inspecting the CCTV footage of another resident striking the resident’s car, it issued a warning later to his neighbour in October 2020. The landlord said that it had sent 3 letters to the resident requesting incidents logs to support his allegations but received none. It asked the resident to forward those if he wished for the investigation to continue.
  2. It acknowledged that the resident said his neighbour accused him of flying his helicopter/drone around her windows. The resident provided no dates or details about his neighbour making allegations against him. It reiterated its request for the resident not to fly his drone in the neighbourhood.
  3. It confirmed that whilst investigating allegations about a flying helicopter/drone, it visited residents to ask for witnesses but denied mentioning the resident’s name.
4. It confirmed that the resident could keep his CCTV in position outside the building providing it pointed down towards his vehicle.
5. NOSP:
  1. It confirmed that the NOSP was issued because of the resident’s conduct toward its staffs during an incident which occurred on 11 August 2020. The landlord confirmed that as the behaviour had stopped, it was no longer planning to take the resident to court.
  2. It explained that it had responded and sent the information the resident requested about a letter sent by the landlord in September 2020 about the NOSP. It clarified that it was under no obligation to send a further copy with an affidavit but attached a copy of the letter for his record.
6. It explained the process to survey properties prior to completing planned work. It confirmed that it found no evidence to suggest that it deliberately delayed its planned work response to his property. It did not uphold the complaint.
7. It said that in 2019 as part of an ASB investigation it sent letters to residents, including to the resident himself. It staff visited the site and saw the postman delivering the letters, which included the resident’s letter.
8. Conclusion: the landlord said it had previously investigated elements of the resident’s complaint as part of previous complaints and provided dates of its responses. It confirmed that it found no evidence of harassment by staff but identified a service failure in its handling of the gas safety inspection and upheld this element of the complaint.

Post complaints process

In August 2024, the landlord carried out a review of its responses to the resident’s complaints. It explained that whilst this was not part of its complaint process, it wanted to ensure it did not have any outstanding complaints from the resident that it had not answered as part of its complaint process. It provided a detailed response to the resident on 25 September 2024, in which it reiterated its findings in its October 2021 stage 2 response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident informed this Service in August 2022, that he had experienced further issues with his landlord’s handling of his SAR and ASB reports. However, given that considerable time has passed since the landlord issued its final response to his complaint, this Service cannot consider this as part of the investigation. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaints. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process can be addressed directly with the landlord in the first instance through its complaints process.
It is also important to highlight that the Ombudsman is an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. Where there are conflicting accounts, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord or require it to take action to put right this failure. However, in some circumstances, the Ombudsman may draw an adverse inference due to the lack of documentary evidence.

The resident’s complaint about staff conduct

The resident informed this Service that his complaint about harassment did not relate to staff, instead it related to the harassment from his neighbour. However, the landlord addressed the issue of harassment by staff in its stage 2 response. Therefore, it is reasonable for the Ombudsman to consider the issue. Additionally, the evidence shows that whilst interacting with the landlord the resident often said that he felt harassed by its actions.
Feeling harassed and treated differently can erode residents’ trust and faith in their landlord, causing a relationship breakdown. Whilst the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the resident was harassed by the landlord, we can consider whether the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and responded appropriately. When a landlord receives a report about staff conduct, it must carry out an investigation of the matter and provide its findings to the resident in a timely manner.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that landlords are sometimes subject to unwarranted and unpleasant verbal abuse, or even threats, from residents, which is difficult to respond to and manage. In this case, the landlord investigated an incident which involved the resident and 2 of its staff. It described an incident in March 2021, during which its staff filmed the resident who displayed behaviour which felt threatening to them. The landlord investigated the matter, reviewed the evidence and concluded that in the circumstances, the staff’s conduct did not amount to harassment. It explained that the staff felt they had to keep a record of the incident. This was reasonable from the landlord, it fully investigated the incident and provided an explanation for its findings.
The landlord also explained in its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint that it could not corroborate the additional allegations about its staff filming the resident. Whilst the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord’s staff had taken additional videos of the resident or harassed him, we would expect the landlord to thoroughly investigate such matters. For example, the landlord could have asked the resident for more details of the incidents or if he had evidence to support his claims. Especially as it was aware the resident had a CCTV system. In this case, the landlord did not demonstrate that it discussed the matter with the resident to understand what happened. This was unreasonable from the landlord and contributed to the resident’s feelings that the landlord did not seek to understand his account of the events.
In conclusion, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the staff’s conduct amounted to misconduct or harassment. We recognise that the landlord investigated one of the incidents reported by the resident, however it did not demonstrate that it thoroughly investigated the other 5 incidents of staff filming the resident. In such cases, we expect landlords to investigate, take statements, seek and review evidence. In this case the landlord failed to thoroughly investigate and respond to the resident’s complaint. Whilst this does not mean that there was harassment of the resident by the landlord’s staff, the landlord did not show that it interviewed the resident about the incidents and considered whether he had evidence available.
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord’s failings caused some distress to the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman determines that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about staff conduct. In accordance with the Ombudsman remedies guidance, which are published on our website, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £75 to the resident to reflect the failings identified and their impact on the resident.

The resident’s reports, and counter allegations of antisocial behaviour

The resident made several ASB reports to the landlord since February 2019. It is evident that the situation has been distressing for him. He reported that the issues caused him distress and made him feel intimidated. The Ombudsman acknowledges that his neighbour made counter allegations of ASB against the resident. It may assist to first explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide whether ASB occurred, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports reasonably and in accordance with its policies and procedures.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it considers verbal abuse, harassment, intimidation and threatening behaviour as ASB. It states that it will assess the ASB reports to determine the case priority, response times, frequency of contact and will ask more information to understand the issue. The policy also states that it expects resident to work collaboratively with it to resolve the matter by reporting incidents, providing witness statement, gathering and sharing evidence they may have.
The Ombudsman recognises that the level engagement from the resident with the investigation and the fact that the landlord could only contact the resident by letter, made it difficult to investigate the issues raised. Nevertheless, we would expect the landlord to investigate the ASB reports in line with its policy and its obligations as a landlord.
In February 2019, the resident reported that his neighbour was taking photos of him and his car. He said he felt harassed and intimidated by his neighbour’s actions. The evidence shows that the landlord discussed the reports with the resident, who showed photos of the alleged incidents but refused to provide copies for the investigation. Additionally, the evidence shows that after the resident made additional reports, the landlord asked him to keep logs of any incidents on 3 occasions between November 2020 and August 2021. It said that the resident did not complete or return any logs. This was unfortunate as this made it difficult for the landlord to investigate the resident’s claims that ASB took place.
When investigating reports of ASB, it is customary practice for landlords to ask residents to gather or share evidence to support their claim. This is because without evidence of an alleged incident, the landlord cannot assess what happened or take actions against an alleged perpetrator. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident for more information, it did not show that it explained what it expected from the resident. Additionally, it did not demonstrate that it discussed the purpose of gathering evidence with him or the limited actions it could take without evidence to support the resident’s claim. This was unreasonable from the landlord, it should have provided him with appropriate advice and guidance in keeping with its policy. This would have also been helpful to manage the resident’s expectations and enable him to make an informed choice on whether he was willing to share the evidence he had.
Effective communication, actions plans and their reviews are useful tools in managing ASB cases. They help manage resident’s expectations, clarify roles and responsibilities and monitor progress. In this case, the evidence shows that the resident believed the landlord was investigating its ASB reports. However, the landlord did demonstrate that it informed the resident whether it had opened a case or when it closed it. Furthermore, the landlord did not show that it agreed an action plan with the resident, provided updates on its actions or monitored progress. This was unreasonable from the landlord. Communication is crucial in maintaining a positive resident and landlord relationship. The lack of communication caused the resident to feel ignored, creating a sense of neglect and disregard.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will carry out a risk matrix assessment throughout the investigation. The purpose of such assessment is to understand the resident’s vulnerability and assess the impact the ASB may have. Based on the assessment, the landlord should then offer to put suitable measures in place to support the resident and mitigate the risks, if needed.
In this case, the landlord said to this Service that it was unable to complete risk matrix assessments as the resident only communicated by letter. However, the evidence shows that while the resident did not want to share his phone number with the landlord, he honed and visited its office. The landlord did not show that it made reasonable attempt to complete the risk matrix assessment with the resident, which was unreasonable. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to assess the specific risks in this case and consider whether the resident required further support. This would have also reassured the resident it was considering his welfare.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it is committed to work in partnership with other agencies to resolve ASB in its communities. The evidence shows that in March 2019, the resident provided a crime number to the landlord after he made a report of harassment from his neighbour. The landlord did not show that it contacted the police about the report. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to do this to understand the nature of the issue. This would have also reassured the resident that the landlord had investigated his reports.
In April 2020, the resident reported that his neighbour damaged his car. He provided video footage of the incident, which he said he reported to the police. The Ombudsman understands that the neighbour made counter allegations and said that the resident assaulted her during the incident. Whilst the evidence shows that the landlord investigated the incident and appealed for witnesses, we identified several failings in the landlord’s handling of the ASB case.
The evidence shows that in July 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and informed him that it was planning to issue him with a NOSP because of his conduct towards residents on the estate. Three weeks later, the landlord said that after it reviewed the footage provided by the resident in April 2020, it issued the resident with warning letter instead of a NOSP. The landlord did not explain the delay of 2 months to review the evidence provided by the resident. It did not explain its reasons for planning to take legal action against the resident prior to review the evidence he had provided . Furthermore, it did not show that it discussed the incident with the resident prior to taking actions against him. This was unreasonable from the landlord and contributed to the resident’s feeling that the landlord treated him unfairly.
Furthermore, the landlord acknowledged that in April 2020, there was an altercation between the resident and his neighbour. It was also aware that the police were investigating the neighbour for allegedly damaging the resident’s property during the incident. The evidence shows that the landlord issued both parties with warning letters because of their conduct during the incident. However, it issued a warning letter to the neighbour 6 months after the incident and 3 months after issuing a warning letter to the resident for the same incident. Whilst this may have been due to an omission, it was unreasonable from the landlord. In the interests of fairness, a warning to both residents at the same time would have been reasonable and showed that it was being impartial.
Additionally, the evidence shows that in June 2021, the landlord contacted the police about the incident. This was after the resident informed the landlord that his neighbour was convicted of criminal damage following the incident in April 2020. The landlord said that between March 2021 and June 2021, the resident refused to give consent for the landlord to make a disclosure request to the police. However, it did not require the resident’s consent to make the request as stated in its ASB policy. It policy states that partner agencies, such as itself and the police, may share personal information without the consent of the person concerned. Additionally, it did not explain its reasons for the 14 months delay in contacting the police about the alleged crimes. This was unreasonable from the landlord, contacting the police should have been a priority as both residents reported a crime and the outcome of the police investigation would have provided the landlord with directions on the actions it could take.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that it can be difficult to investigate ASB reports when there are counter allegations and both residents may be victims and perpetrators of ASB. Nevertheless, we expect landlords to carry out fair and impartial investigations in keeping with their obligations and policies. In this case, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor, it did not explain its role in dealing with the ASB, the actions it took or made clear what it expected from the resident. It failed to show that it carried out an impartial investigation, worked in partnership with agencies, agreed actions plans with the resident, provided regular updates or timely reviewed the evidence provided. The evidence seen did not show that it worked in keeping with its policy. Those failings caused him some distress and inconvenience.
Additionally, the resident made a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports. The resident complained that the landlord refused to provide him with the original letter with an affidavit of the letter it sent in July 2020 informing him of its intention of issuing him with a NOSP. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that it had already sent the letter to the resident and was under no obligation to issue an affidavit with the letter. Whilst this was reasonable from the landlord, it failed to identify its failings in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports and its failings to work in line with its ASB policy. Furthermore, it did not fully recognise the impact on the resident. The landlord should have recognised its failings, their impact and considered compensation as a result. An offer of compensation would have showed that the landlord recognised the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
After considering the evidence provided, the Ombudsman determines that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidelines, which are published on the website, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £450 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This also to reflects that the landlord’s failings contributed to the resident feeling unheard and the impact this had on the resident landlord relationship.
The Ombudsman recognises that as part of a separate investigation about the landlord’s handling of ASB reports during the same period as this complaint, we ordered the landlord to provide training to its relevant teams on how to assess whether behaviour reported to it by residents falls within the definition of ASB set out in its policy. The landlord provided evidence in May 2024, that it had complied with this order and provided its teams with training which addressed the failings identified in this report. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made no additional order in relation to the failings identified in this report.

The resident’s CCTV cameras

The ICO regulates and enforces the General data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Data protection Act 2018 (DPA). It states that if a resident’s CCTV system captures people outside of the boundary of their private property, then the GDPR and DPA would apply to them and it is their responsibility to ensure their use of CCTV complies with this laws.
The evidence shows that in February 2019, the landlord raised concerns with the resident that his CCTV system captured members of the public. The evidence shows that the landlord wrote to the resident twice in 2019 and explained his responsibility in relation to having CCTV and being compliant with the relevant legislations. This was reasonable from the landlord, it was ensuring that the resident was not breaking the law and opening himself to potential actions from the ICO or individuals.
Additionally, the landlord advised the resident to ask for permission if he wanted his CCTV to remain. It is normal practice for landlords to ask residents to seek authorisation before installing CCTV. This is to enable the landlord to assess whether the area covered by the CCTV would not be in breach of legislation. Therefore, the landlord’s actions were reasonable.
The resident informed this service that it took over 2 years to resolve the issues of his CCTV. However, no evidence was seen that the resident had sought authorisation prior to February 2019. The landlord made reasonable attempts to engage with the resident on the matter prior to granting authorisation 3 months after it asked him to request authorisation. This was reasonable from the landlord and in keeping with what is expected in such case.
After considering the evidence of the case, the Ombudsman determines there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to keep his CCTV system.

Concerns for the resident’s welfare

In July 2021, the landlord said it became concerned for the resident’s welfare and contacted the police for a welfare check. The Ombudsman agrees with the resident that the landlord is not qualified to determine whether he suffers from an illness. However, we also recognise that the landlord received reports which raised concerns for the resident wellbeing. We also understand that the landlord was unable to phone the resident to check on his welfare as he requested that all communications were by letters.
Additionally, landlords cannot enter a resident’s property without consent, even when there are concerns for a resident’s safety. In such cases, landlords must contact the emergency services to carry out a welfare check. In this case, the landlord received reports that the resident had attempted to glue the front door and was not answering his door. Additionally, the landlord had not been able to get access to carry out a gas safety check. This caused the landlord to become concerned for the resident wellbeing. The Ombudsman understands that the resident was well and was unhappy that the landlord requested a welfare check (particularly as the resident disputes the fact that he attempted to glue the front door). However, in the circumstances the landlord acted appropriately by contacting the emergency services once it became concerned for his welfare.
After considering the evidence of the case, the Ombudsman determines that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its concerns regarding the resident’s welfare. The landlord’s actions show that it was acting in the resident’s best interests and had good intentions when it contacted the police.

The resident’s notice of seeking possession

The resident’s tenancy states that the landlord may seek to recover possession of the property under ground 12 if the resident has broken, or failed to perform, any of the condition of the tenancy. It may also seek to recover possession under ground 14 if the tenant has caused serious or persistent nuisance or annoyance.
In this case, in August 2020, the landlord issued a warning to the resident about his conduct towards its staff. It shared that on 11 August 2020, the resident using offensive language and drove his vehicle head on at its staff vehicle. Following this incident, the landlord issued a NOSP to the resident underground 12 and 14 of the schedule 2 to the housing Act 1988. The Ombudsman understands that this was distressing to the resident and he would have been concerned that he could lose his home. However, in the circumstances, the landlord’s actions were reasonable, proportionate and in keeping with the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The Ombudsman determines that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s NOSP.

The resident’s concerns about priority it has given to his property, as part of the planned works

The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord in August 2021. He said that he was always the last one to have items renewed in his property, such as his boiler the kitchen and the bathroom.
The landlord’s planned investment policy covers the planned and cyclical works to the homes owned and managed by the landlord. It states that its planned investment programme includes the replacement of kitchens, boilers and bathrooms. It states it check it stock periodically and maintains a database of the components in all properties, detailing dates on which they were last renewed and projected dates for renewal.
The Ombudsman cannot determine when the landlord should replace any of the components of the resident’s property or when it replaced other residents items. However, we can consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the matter.
In this case, the landlord demonstrated that it investigated the issue and spoke to the relevant team to understand the process for managing the planned and cyclical works. In its stage 2 response it explained the process for completing the works, how it staggered the work and the reasons for this. Whilst it did not find any indication that it had delayed the planned works to the resident’s property, it provided a reasonable explanation as to why it might have appeared so to the resident. It concluded that following its investigation it found no evidence that it purposely delayed its planned works response to the resident’s property. This was reasonable from the landlord, it showed that it investigated the issue.
After considering the evidence of the case, the Ombudsman determines that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about priority it has given to his property, as part of the planned works.

The resident’s reports that he did not receive a letter sent to other residents

The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident said he had not received a letter the landlord sent to other residents whilst it investigated some ASB reports in 2019. The landlord investigated the issue when the resident raised a complaint about it and concluded that it had sent the letter to the resident. It also explained that whilst visiting the estate the following day, it saw the postman delivering the letters, including to the resident. The resident disputed the landlord’s version of events.
At this point, it is important to highlight that the Ombudsman is an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. In this case, we have seen no evidence to confirm or disprove the account of either party. Where there are conflicting accounts, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord or require it to take action to put right this failure.
In this case, while the Ombudsman understands that the resident disputes the landlord’s account, it investigated the issue, reviewed the evidence and provided a reasonable explanation to the resident for the conclusion it reached. Therefore, after considering the evidence of the case, the Ombudsman determines that there was no service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that he did not receive a letter sent to all residents.

The resident having no hot water in his property in 2005

The Ombudsman understands that since 2020, the resident has made 2 complaints to the landlord about not having water in 2005, one of which was about the landlord refusing to investigate the matter. It is understandable that having no hot water for a significant period would have been distressing and caused inconvenience to the resident. We also acknowledge that the landlord provided its final response to this element in June 2020. However, it further elaborated on its reasons for not investigating this element of the resident’s complaint in 2020 when it issued its stage 2 response in 2021. Therefore, it is reasonable for the Ombudsman to consider this element of the complaint.
The Ombudsman expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords within a reasonable timeframe, usually within 12 months of an issue first occurring. Where there had been a significant delay in a resident raising a complaint, it is possible that contemporaneous evidence may not be available given the time that has elapsed. This is because landlords are not expected to keep records indefinitely. As a rule, the Limitation Act of 1980 sets a six year time length after an event has occurred for keeping documents. Therefore, it would have been unlikely that the landlord would have had access to information about an event from 2005 to carry out a fair and throughout investigation of the issue. Therefore, the landlord’s conclusion that it could not respond to this element of the resident’s complaint as too much time has passed since the issue occurred was reasonable.
The Ombudsman determines that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about having no hot water in 2005.

Gas inspection

Under regulation 36 of the Gas Safety Installation and Use Regulations 1998, landlords must carry out annual safety checks on gas appliances and flues. The landlord’s guide to repair responsibilities states that it will attempt to provide reasonable notice when it needs to conduct any safety checks in their property. It states the residents must provide access or reschedule within a reasonable time frame. It also states that refusal to provide access for any reason is a breach of their tenancy agreement and, if not resolved, could lead to legal actions against residents.
The evidence shows that between June 2021 and August 2021, the landlord made several attempts to complete the gas safety checks at the resident’s property and wrote several letters to the resident confirming appointments. This was reasonable from the landlord and in keeping with its obligations.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord completed the gas safety check on 3 June 2021 and had to book another inspection because the certificate was faulty and rejected. While the landlord issued a new appointment, the resident said that it did not explain the reason for the second inspection. Therefore, it was understandable that the resident assumed the landlord made a mistake and ignored the letter and the second appointment. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to promptly rebook the inspection, it should have explained to the resident why it had to carry out another inspection. It should have also acknowledged the error it made and apologised for the inconvenience the returning visit may cause to the resident.
As mentioned above, landlords have a duty to carry out annual gas safety checks in their properties. However, landlords also require residents co-operation to carry out those activities by allowing access to their property.
In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord made several other attempts to access the property and informed the resident in writing that the gas safety check was due. Whilst the resident disputes that he received letters confirming all the appointments, it provided evidence that it had received written confirmations for 4 appointments. He also showed that he made several telephone calls to the landlord about the gas safety check. Additionally, he provided evidence that in July 2021, the landlord sent him 2 letters warning him that the gas safety check was due. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the resident was aware of the landlord’s attempts to gain access to his property to carry out the inspection. It is fair to recognise that the landlord took reasonable steps to inform the resident that the gas safety check was due.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident disputes that the landlord left calling cards, had knocked his door or that he refused to provide access. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord left calling cards or the resident failed to provide access. Our decisions are based on evidence and where there are conflicting accounts, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged that it carried out some unannounced visits because it was concerned that the gas certificate was due to expire and could not get access. Whilst the landlord has obligations to complete the gas safety checks annually, it also has a duty of care to all the residents on the estate. Its guide to repair responsibilities in residents’ homes states that it will attempt to provide reasonable notice to carry safety checks, acknowledging that in some circumstances this may not be possible. Therefore, in the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to make unannounced visit to complete the gas safety check and ensure the gas appliances were safe and did not present a risk to the resident and others.
The Ombudsman recognises that on 30 June 2021, the resident told the landlord that he had booked the appointment for gas safety check on 30 July 2021. The Ombudsman does not dispute that the resident requested an appointment for that date. The evidence shows that during a telephone conversation with the resident, the landlord explained that it would not have agreed to an appointment which was after the gas safety check due date. It agreed to check and confirm with the resident by letter, but the landlord did not show that it followed up on this. This was unreasonable from the landlord. It should have written to the resident and confirmed whether the 30 July 2021 appointment would go ahead. Its failing to do this caused the resident to become frustrated at the landlord’s attempts to carry out the gas inspection prior to that date.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident was phoning both the contractor and the landlord about the gas safety check appointments. The evidence shows that this created some confusion on who agreed what and when.
However, it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that it communicates effectively with residents. In this case, the landlord knew that it could only communicate with the resident by letter or speak to him when he phoned or attended the office. To mitigate this, the landlord could have provided the resident with a single point of contact to coordinate the appointment for the gas safety check. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider adapting its approach to meet the resident’s needs. Its failing to do this caused confusion, inconvenience to the resident and delayed the safety check completion. This was unreasonable from the landlord. Additionally, as the gas certificate had expired, the gas supplier capped the resident’s gas supply for up to 3 weeks, which caused inconvenience to the resident.
The Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which set the requirements for landlords to operate effective complaint handling, states that landlords must respond to each element of a resident’s complaint. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord in August 2021, about its handling of the gas inspection. Whilst the landlord responded to some elements of his complaint and acknowledged its staff’s conduct fell short of what it expected, it did not respond to staff arriving unannounced and taking photos of his car. This was unreasonable from the landlord and not in keeping with the Code, especially as it was clear from the resident’s communications that those were keys issues of his complaint. This further impacted on the landlord resident relationship and was a missed opportunity to rebuild trust with the resident.
Additionally, the landlord’s internal communications show that in addition to approaching the resident’s neighbours about his whereabouts, it also asked one neighbour to confirm appointments and advise the resident of its intention of taking legal action against him. It was inappropriate from the landlord to delegate its responsibilities to other residents in the block. Its actions showed little consideration for the resident’s privacy and caused him some distress.
In conclusion, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord was clearly concerned with completing the gas safety check within the deadline to ensure the resident’s safety. The evidence shows that the landlord made several attempts to gain the resident’s cooperation and complete the gas safety check in keeping with its obligations. The Ombudsman also acknowledges the resident’s responsibility to cooperate and provide access. In this case we recognise that his cooperation was limited and impacted on the landlord’s ability to complete the safety check. Nevertheless, the evidence shows several failings by the landlord in its handling of the gas safety check. It failed to respect the resident’s privacy, communicate effectively with the resident and thoroughly respond to his complaint. The landlord’s failings caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Therefore, the Ombudsman determines that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the gas safety inspection. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which are published on our website, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £200 to the resident to reflect the failings identified and their impact on the resident.

The associated complaint

The landlord has a 2 stage complaint policy. It states that it will acknowledge a complaint with 5 working days, respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. If it requires longer, it will agree a new date with the resident. The landlord’s complaint policy is in keeping with the Code.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 29 October 2020, the landlord issued its stage 1 response 9 days later. This was reasonable from the landlord, this was in keeping with its complaint policy and the Code.
In July 2021, the resident informed the landlord that he was dissatisfied with the service it had received, the landlord acknowledged the complaint within 4 working days. It said that whilst the resident raised current issues, he also raised matters to which it had responded to in its stage 1 response in November 2020. It explained that it would consider the resident’s complaint as an escalation and investigate his complaint at stage 2. This was reasonable and in keeping with its policy to accept an escalation request within 12 months of its stage 1 response.
Additionally, on receipt of the resident’s complaint, the landlord asked him to clarify which issues he remained dissatisfied with and the outcome he sought. This was reasonable from the landlord, it showed that it was committed to understand the nature of the resident’s complaint to carry out a full and fair investigation. This was also in keeping with the Code to ask residents for clarification if any aspect of the complaint is unclear. On 24 August 2021, the resident confirmed the details of his complaint with the landlord.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 26 October 2021. This was 45 working days after the resident confirmed the details of his complaint and 25 working days outside the landlord’s published timeframe to respond to a stage 2 complaint. The landlord did not demonstrate that it discussed the delay in responding or agreed a new date with the resident. This was unreasonable from the landlord, as it failed to handle the complaint in keeping with its policy and the Code. Its failings also caused some inconvenience for the resident, who had to wait longer for a response to his complaint.
Additionally, the landlord did not apologise for the delay or offer compensation to the resident to reflect the inconvenience this may have caused him. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to do this. It would have shown that it recognised its failings and considered the impact on the resident.
Overall, the landlord handled the resident’s complaint in keeping with its complaint policy and the Code at stage 1. However, it failed to respond in accordance with its policy at stage 2. It did not respond to the resident’s complaint within its published timeframe, identify or apologise for its failing. Therefore, the Ombudsman determines there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidance, which are published on our website, The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation to reflect the impact of its failings on the resident.
The Ombudsman understands that this Service recently found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of resident complaints following a separate investigation. This led to the issue by this Service of a wider order in accordance with paragraph 54.f. of the Scheme as it was identified that the landlord’s practices may give rise to further complaints. The landlord was required to review its complaint handling practices and produce a report setting its findings and learning with an action plan for preventing similar further failings. This Service requested evidence of compliance by 31 October 2024, therefore the Ombudsman will not make additional orders.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports, and counter allegations of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to keep his CCTV system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of its concerns for the resident’s welfare.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s notice of seeking possession.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about priority it has given to his property, as part of the planned works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports that he did not receive a letter sent to other residents.
In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s subject access request is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the 6 month response delay to the residents’ email is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint about having no hot water in his property in 2005.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the gas safety check for the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £825 directly to the resident, this is made up of:
1. £75 to reflect the landlord’s failings in its handling of concerns about staff conduct and the impact this had on the resident.
2. £450 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failing identified in this report about its handling of his ASB reports.
3. £200 to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings in its handling of the resident’s gas safety check.
4. £100 to reflect the landlord’s delay in responding to the resident stage 2 complaint and the inconvenience caused to the resident.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to review its handling of the resident’s gas safety check. It is to consider the failings identified in this report and provide an action plan demonstrating the measures it will implement to prevent the issue from reoccurring. It is to provide a copy of its action plan within 6 weeks of the date of this report.