A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202122223)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122223

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

22 April 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Decisions to issue the resident with tenancy warnings.
3. Handling of his associated complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant at the property, a 2 bedroom house, from 1995. The landlord is a housing association which owns and manages the property.
The evidence shows that the resident had told the landlord he has mental health conditions and that communicating with other people is difficult for him.
The resident made 3 ASB reports to the landlord in August 2020. He reported that a neighbour’s son was trying to get him evicted and that a confrontation had taken place between him and the son. He also reported that his car had been damaged.
On 30 April 2021, the resident complained about the landlord not returning his calls about the ASB he had reported.
On 1 July 2021, the resident reported that another confrontation had taken place between him and the neighbour’s son. He later told the landlord that the son had alleged that the resident had broken his mobile phone and damaged his car.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 13 July 2021. It apologised for not returning his calls and offered £50 compensation. The resident was not satisfied and asked for his complaint to be escalated.
The landlord sent another stage 1 response on 31 August 2021 saying it would contact him to discuss his ASB reports.
On 4 September 2021 the landlord gave its stage 2 response which said that it:
1. Had upheld his complaint at stage 1 and offered £50 compensation for the delay in responding to his complaint and because it had not returned his calls reporting ASB.
2. Understood that he was unsatisfied with its response because the neighbour’s son was taking civil court action against him. It could not uphold this as it had not been part of his original complaint.
3. Acknowledged that there had been delays in dealing with his enquiries and offered an additional £25 compensation.
4. Had arranged for an ASB case to be opened and an officer would contact him by 10 September 2021.
The landlord invited the resident to a meeting via zoom on 8 September 2021. The resident declined the meeting explaining that his mental health issues made it difficult for him to deal with other people.
On 16 September 2021 the landlord received allegations that the resident had damaged the neighbour’s son’s mobile phone and car.
The landlord emailed the resident on 26 October 2021 saying it was investigating a potential breach of his tenancy conditions. It also told him that his behaviour towards its staff had been unacceptable. It attached an acceptable behaviour contract for him to sign and return. The resident disputed that he had been aggressive with the landlord’s staff and asked how he could challenge the landlord’s decision.
On 20 June 2022 the resident reported that the neighbour and her friend had told police that he had threatened them. He said their allegation was not true. He also reported that the neighbour’s sons had attacked other residents.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 29 June 2022 saying the landlord had not dealt with his ASB reports and would not accept his complaints. He said the landlord was threatening to take action against him and it was affecting his mental health. We asked the landlord for a copy of its final complaint response letter on 6 July 2022 but it did not respond.
Between 15 July 2022 and 3 November 2022, the resident continued to email the landlord asking it to deal with his ASB reports, saying he felt it was treating him unfairly and expressing his dissatisfaction.
On 16 November 2022 the landlord requested information from the police about the incident in June 2022. The police replied on 23 November 2022 stating that no crimes had been identified.
Between 19 November 2022 and 25 December 2022, the resident continued to email the landlord saying it should have investigated his ASB reports.
On 10 January 2023 the landlord sent the resident a tenancy warning letter which said:
1. It had received reports of him damaging another person’s property, physical assault and aggressive behaviour.
2. It acknowledged that he had denied the allegations.
3. It had seen video evidence of him “displaying aggressive behaviour” which “suggested” the allegations made against him “may be true”. It acknowledged the video showed no evidence of a physical assault.
4. It understood the civil claim for damages against him had been granted.
5. The evidence suggested that an incident had taken place that had resulted in the damage of another person’s property.
6. The letter was a formal warning about his behaviour.
7. He should not approach his neighbour or her son or have any contact with them.
The resident disputed the landlord’s account of events and asked to see the evidence it had referred to. On 13 January 2023, he sent the landlord 3 emails giving his account of events, a video and photographs, and copies of court letters. The landlord responded on 17 January 2023 saying it was satisfied there had been no further incidents and that “the case” would be reviewed and closed. It said it would not enter into further communications with him about it.
The resident made another complaint on 6 February 2023 about the landlord’s handling of the incidents between him and his neighbour’s son.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 14 February 2023 in which it said it:
1. Had received reports of the incident between the resident and the neighbour’s son on 16 September 2021 but had not known the outcome of court action until November 2022.
2. Had contacted the resident and he had denied the allegations.
3. Understood the outcome of the court hearing had been that the resident had to pay for damaging the neighbour’s son’s mobile phone.
4. Had considered evidence it had received from the police and his neighbour. It had decided he had breached his tenancy agreement by behaving in a way likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to others.
5. Was satisfied that its decision to issue a tenancy warning had been a proportionate response to the tenancy breach.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint saying the landlord had not investigated the incident at the time and had not asked him for his account of it.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 16 March 2023 in which it said:
1. It had tried to discuss his complaint with him on 6 March 2023 but he had ended the call.
2. He had reported issues about the neighbour’s son from August 2020 and the son had made counter allegations against him. It had not been able to discuss the counter allegations with him as he had become “agitated”.
3. He had reported other matters including concerns that the son was trying to get him evicted and concerns of other neighbours. The landlord had not logged these as ASB and had told him the neighbours should report any concerns directly to the landlord.
4. It had not been able to consider taking action following the incident “in September 2021” until the outcome of the police investigation and court case was known.
5. It had correctly followed its procedures in investigating all the incidents reported. Its warning letter was a proportionate response to the incident “in September”.
6. It did not uphold his complaint and he should contact the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.

Events after the landlord’s complaint process

On 27 March 2023, the resident reported that his car had been damaged again. The landlord advised him to report it to the police but said there was no action it could take. It invited him to a meeting at its office which the resident declined.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman again on 5 May 2023 and later asked us to investigate his complaint. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports and complaints, and its decision to send him a tenancy warning.
From 5 May 2023, the resident continued to challenge the landlord’s decision to give him a tenancy warning. He gave his account of events, sent video evidence of the incident and letters from the court. The landlord maintained its position that the tenancy warning still applied and that it could not get involved in the civil court case.
We spoke to the resident on 19 March 2024 and he explained that he tries to avoid coming into contact with the neighbour and her son. He does not use his front door or the communal garden and does not park in the residents’ car park. He said that his car had been damaged a few times but he could not prove who had done it. He felt it had been quieter over the last year but said he still felt “on edge” that something else might happen.

Scope of investigation

In August 2021 the resident asked the landlord for copies of its records of the ASB reports he had made. The landlord handled this as a subject access request under data protection regulations. The resident later complained to the landlord about its handling of his subject access request.
We have not assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s subject access request in this investigation. This is because the resident did not include this matter when he brought his complaint to us. In any event, matters relating to data protection regulations are within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner. The resident can make a complaint to the information commissioner’s office (ICO) if he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his subject access request.
However, we have referred to events relating to the resident’s subject access request where necessary for context and when they are relevant to this investigation.

Assessment and findings

In May 2023, the Ombudsman published a spotlight report on knowledge and information management. We highlighted how inadequate approaches contributed to the service failures we saw in our casework. Although the events in this case took place before we published our report, the landlord’s records were a contributing factor to our determination. The landlord should assess its approach against the recommendations in our spotlight report if it has not already done so.
We identified a common theme of inadequate knowledge and information management throughout our investigation of this case. We have given specific examples below where they are relevant to our assessments but the common issues, we found were that the landlord’s records were either missing or were unclear or inaccurate.
During the course of our investigation, the resident sent us 65 emails dated between 17 July 2021 and 30 May 2023. The emails were exchanged between him and the landlord and related to the matters being investigated. We would have expected them to have been included in the landlord’s evidence submission to us but they were not. This could suggest a systemic issue in the landlord’s provision of information to us and/or its knowledge and information management.
In its evidence submission, the landlord told us that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, the evidence showed that the landlord had been aware that the resident has mental health issues from at least 21 August 2020. The landlord should update its records.

Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Under the Regulator of Social Housing’s neighbourhood and community standard 2012, social housing landlords were required to work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle ASB. Landlords were specifically expected to take appropriate action to deal with ASB before it escalated, and tailor preventative measures towards the needs of tenants.
We have reviewed the landlord’s ASB policies that were in effect between October 2019 and March 2024. The policies define ASB as behaviour capable of causing nuisance or annoyance, or causing harassment, alarm or distress. The policies say that the landlord:
1. Will not tolerate ASB and will work to prevent and tackle all forms of it.
2. Will investigate reports of ASB from the perspective of the person being affected by it.
3. May complete a risk assessment to decide what action to take.
4. Will consider and arrange support where appropriate and possible.
5. Will work with other agencies to prevent and respond to ASB.
The landlord’s ASB procedure explains its risk scoring matrix and gives a list of actions the landlord may consider depending on the risk score. The procedure gives guidance on actions that should be considered under each risk category. For example, it says that a case with a medium risk score will have high risk factors that should be followed up, and an action plan and referral to the multi-agency problem solving group should be considered. It also says that the landlord “must” offer a face to face meeting where an incident is scored as high risk.
The landlord’s ASB records show that the resident’s initial reports in August 2020 were about concerns that the neighbour’s son was trying to get him evicted, his car being damaged and a confrontation that had taken place. Although the landlord’s records suggest that risk assessments had been done for 2 of the 3 reports made, we have only seen evidence of one of those.
A risk assessment was done on 21 August 2020 after the resident reported the neighbour’s son was bullying him. The report was scored as medium risk and as having high risk factors including that the resident’s mental and physical health was being affected. According to its ASB procedure, the landlord should have considered referring the report to the multi-agency problem solving group and developing an action plan with the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered a face to face meeting with the resident to gather more information.
However, the landlord’s ASB records show that it did not call the resident until 14 October 2020. This was almost 2 months after the resident had made the report on 20 August 2020 and significantly outside of the 48 hour timescale stated in the landlord’s ASB policies. The landlord’s failure to respond sooner caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident who had to chase for a response.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident before 14 October 2020 to gather further details of the incident or agree an action plan with him. Nor have we seen any evidence that the landlord considered referring to the multi-agency problem solving group. As such, the evidence suggests that the landlord did not follow its policy or procedure when responding to the report that it had risk assessed on 21 August 2020.
The landlord’s ASB records suggest that, during the call on 14 October 2020, the landlord had established that no further incidents had taken place since 20 August 2020. At some point, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise it was closing the ASB case. However, the letter was not dated and there was no reference to it being sent in the landlord’s ASB records. As such it is not clear when the landlord sent it to the resident. The landlord’s failure to record the date of the case closure is an example of inadequate record keeping.
Similarly, the landlord’s record of the call to the resident on 14 October 2020 said it told him that it had spoken to the alleged perpetrator and asked him to be more considerate. However, there is no reference to contact being made with the neighbour or her son in the landlord’s ASB records so it is not clear exactly when contact took place. This is another example of inadequate record keeping.
On 1 July 2021, the resident reported that there had been an incident between him and the neighbour’s son the previous day. The record made by the landlord at the time did not give details of what had happened but referred to the resident having mental health issues and that the police had been involved in the past. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have gathered more information. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded or took any action following the resident’s report.
Similarly, we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded or took any action when the resident reported the incident again on 15 July 2021. This time the landlord’s records show it understood that the incident related to an argument during which the neighbour’s son alleged that the resident had damaged his mobile phone and his car. Its records also show that it understood that the resident wanted to give an account of what had happened but did not want the landlord to take any action.
Although the resident was not asking the landlord to take action against the neighbour’s son, the landlord should have considered its obligations to prevent ASB from escalating. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have gathered further information about the incident given the previous reports made by the resident and counter allegations made by the neighbour’s son. It should also have considered carrying out a risk assessment.
The resident gave further details of the incident when he escalated his first formal complaint on 17 July 2021. In his escalation request, he told the landlord that he was being “constantly harassed” and said that the neighbour’s son was provoking him by filming him against his wishes. He referred to showing the police a video of the incident and told the landlord the neighbour’s son was claiming for the alleged damages in court. He also told the landlord that there had been other witnesses to the incident.
Again, this should have caused the landlord to consider its obligations to prevent ASB from escalating. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have investigated the incident that had taken place and to have spoken to witnesses. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have made enquiries with the police about the incident and to have considered making a referral to the multi agency problem solving group. This was also another missed opportunity to do a risk assessment.
The landlord’s failure to investigate at this stage meant it missed the opportunity to gain an accurate understanding of what had happened. It also meant that the landlord failed to consider the actions it could take to prevent further incidents.
Following its stage 2 complaint response, on 8 September 2021 the landlord invited the resident to attend a meeting via zoom to discuss his ASB reports. The resident declined the invitation and, on 15 September 2021, explained that he found it difficult to communicate with other people. He told the landlord his mental health issues caused him to get upset and other people thought he was being rude. He asked if it would be possible to deal with 1 person in future.
The landlord has obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments to remove, or reduce as far as possible, disadvantages faced by people with a protected characteristic. Protected characteristics are specified in the act and include disability. Disability is defined as conditions that have a substantial, and long term, negative impact on a person’s ability to do normal daily activities.
The landlord knew that the resident had mental health issues and should have considered whether they could be a disability under the act. It should have considered whether the resident’s request for a single point of contact was a reasonable adjustment that it could make. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s request for a single point of contact. Further, its response suggests that it had ignored the request as it told the resident that another officer would contact him to arrange a meeting.
The resident made another request for a single point of contact on 16 September 2021 and also asked for an independent person to support him at any meetings. The landlord’s response again failed to address the resident’s requests for adjustments. Instead, the landlord said it was struggling to understand the issues he was raising in his emails and would not respond to any further emails until it had met with him. This was an inappropriate response, given the landlord had not considered the resident’s requests for adjustments which may have enabled it to understand the issues the resident was trying to raise.
The landlord emailed the resident on 26 October 2021 responding to various issues he had raised including its handling of his ASB reports. It said that it had tried to speak with him because it could not understand what he wanted from his emails. However, he had declined to meet with the landlord because of previous “bad” experiences and did not want to have to keep telling new people the same things. This was another missed opportunity for the landlord to consider how it could effectively communicate with the resident.
The resident reported 2 further incidents on 20 June 2022. The first was about the neighbour reporting him to the police for threatening her, which the resident denied he had done. The second was that the neighbour’s son had attacked other residents. An ASB record made by the landlord on the day stated that the resident “is the perpetrator in this case” and referred to allegations it had received about him threatening the neighbour.
However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident following his reports or that it had spoken to any witnesses or the police. As such is not clear how the landlord had decided that he was the perpetrator.
By this time the landlord should have been concerned about the ASB reports being made by the resident about incidents that involved him or other residents. It should have been taking proactive steps to understand the various incidents, involve other agencies and to stop the ASB from escalating.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it followed its ASB policies when the resident made ASB reports from August 2020. Its failings amount to maladministration in its handling of his ASB reports.

Decisions to issue the resident with tenancy warnings.

The resident’s tenancy agreement says that he must not cause nuisance or annoyance to others including visitors to neighbouring homes and the landlord’s staff members.
As set out above, the landlord has obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. Its ASB policies from May 2021 say that the landlord recognises that people with mental health issues may need help to avoid breaching their tenancy obligations. Its ASB procedure says it is essential that officers take account of any vulnerabilities of alleged perpetrators and offer support.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities or offered support at any point during its handling of allegations that were made against him.
The landlord’s ASB records show that, when it spoke to the resident on 14 October 2020, it told him that the neighbour’s son had made counter allegations about his behaviour. The allegations related to the resident playing loud music whilst washing his car in the car park. Telling the resident about the allegations received was in line with the landlord’s ASB procedure which says that, where a report cannot be verified, the landlord will “warn” the alleged perpetrator.
The procedure also says that the landlord should tell the alleged perpetrator that no further action will be taken. The landlord’s records show that it decided to take no further action after informing the resident of the allegations it had received. However, we have seen no evidence that it told the resident that it would not be taking further action.
The evidence shows that the landlord received an allegation that the resident had damaged his neighbour’s son’s mobile phone on 16 September 2021. This was 11 weeks after the resident had reported the same incident to the landlord during which time, the landlord had taken no steps to investigate the resident’s reports of it. We have seen no evidence of action taken by the landlord immediately after receiving the report on 16 September 2021.
When the landlord emailed the resident on 26 October 2021, it explained that it was investigating allegations of him being threatening and aggressive toward a neighbour. It said it would consider taking action depending on the outcome of the court case. The landlord had acknowledged in this email that the court proceedings were a civil matter. It is not clear why the landlord felt it needed to wait for the outcome of the civil damages claim to decide whether it should take action for a breach of tenancy. It could have spoken to witnesses and viewed the video evidence to decide if there had been a tenancy breach.
The landlord also gave the resident its first tenancy warning in its email of 26 October 2021. It told the resident that his behaviour towards its staff had been unacceptable. It said he should consider the email a “formal warning” and that it would consider any refusal to sign the acceptable behaviour agreement as a breach of his tenancy conditions. It warned that it would use it in court to take further action against him if needed.
We understand that the landlord has an obligation to protect its staff from unacceptable behaviour. However, we have seen insufficient evidence of the resident’s behaviour to justify the landlord’s approach. Apart from references in some of the landlord’s emails to the resident ending calls from it, we have seen no records made by the landlord of the resident’s behaviour. For example, the landlord’s record of a call from the resident on 28 August 2020 said he was “angry” that no one had contacted him about his ASB report. However, there was no reference to suggest that the resident’s behaviour was inappropriate or unacceptable.
Further, the landlord was aware of the resident’s mental health issues and had not considered his request for a single point of contact. As such, the landlord’s email of 26 October 2021 was unreasonable and heavy handed. It was also unreasonable that the landlord failed to explain its reasons for deciding the resident’s behaviour was unacceptable when he later disputed that he had been aggressive with staff.
The landlord sent an internal email to colleagues on 28 October 2021 asking for someone to contact the resident about his subject access request. The email advised the recipients to contact the resident by email “to avoid him being aggressive”. This was inappropriate as the resident had been asking the landlord to contact him by email for several months by that time. It should have been sufficient for the landlord to have said that email was his communication preference.
Further, the landlord included the resident in the recipient list for the email and we have seen no evidence that it responded when he objected to it warning its staff about him. The landlord’s email caused distress to the resident and it was unreasonable that it did not apologise to him and explain why it had sent the email.
The evidence suggests that the landlord became aware of the outcome of the civil court proceedings in early November 2022. We have seen an information request that the landlord made to the police on 16 November 2022. It shows that the landlord had asked for information relating on an incident on 16 June 2022, the date when the resident had allegedly threatened his neighbour and her friend. As the incident on 16 June 2022 was not related to the civil court proceedings, it is not clear why the landlord had not asked the police for information about it sooner.
The police responded to the landlord’s information request on 23 November 2022 referring to an incident that had been reported to it on 16 August 2022. The information provided by the police contained no reference to the threats that the resident was alleged to have made to his neighbour and her friend. It confirmed the outcome of the incident as “no crimes”. It is not clear from the evidence whether the information supplied by the police related to the incident on 16 June 2022 or a different incident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have clarified the information provided but we have seen no evidence that it did so.
The landlord issued its second tenancy warning to the resident on 10 January 2023. Its letter did not give specific details of the allegations that it had received, such as the dates that incidents had occurred or what he was alleged to have done. It referred to video evidence showing the resident “displaying aggressive behaviour” but did not explain what it meant by this. Nor did it explain which tenancy conditions it considered the resident had breached or what the implications of the warning letter were for his tenancy.
We understand that tenancy warnings can be an effective solution to neighbour disputes and ASB. However, we would expect landlords to have investigated appropriately and to take a fair approach. In this case, the landlord did not investigate the incidents when they were reported by the resident but appears to have responded when the same incidents were later reported by the other party in the dispute. The evidence suggests that it had not taken sufficient steps to give the resident a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him before deciding to issue the second tenancy warning. As such the landlord’s decision to issue the warning was unreasonable.
Following the resident’s challenges about the tenancy warning, the landlord emailed him on 17 January 2023. Its email gave no further explanation of its decision to issue the warning and was unclear. For example, it referred to being satisfied that there had been no other incidents but did not specify whether that meant since the warning had been given or since the last incident occurred. It also said that it had told him that “the case” could be reviewed and closed but it was not clear what case it was referring to or say when the review would take place.
The landlord’s lack of clarity caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident. His emails show that he felt the landlord had not treated him fairly and was ignoring his concerns. The landlord’s response in saying it would not correspond with him further on the matter was not reasonable in the circumstances.
The evidence shows that the resident had continued to email the landlord about its decision to issue a tenancy warning. It suggests he called the landlord on 11 May 2023 where it confirmed it had viewed a video he had sent of the incident in June 2021 and confirmed its position had not changed.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it acted fairly and reasonably when deciding to issue the resident with tenancy warnings. Its failings amount to maladministration.

Handling of the resident’s complaints.

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. Its procedure says that it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
The resident’s first complaint of 30 April 2021 was about the landlord not returning his calls. The evidence shows the landlord gave its stage 1 response on 13 July 2021 which was 50 working days after the resident had complained. The landlord did not send us a copy of its stage 1 response but its later stage 2 response said that it had upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and offered £50 compensation.
The landlord sent another stage 1 response to the resident on 27 August 2021. That letter had a different complaint reference number and said the complaint was about the landlord not acting on the ASB reports he had made. The landlord’s response acknowledged he had reported incidents and that it had not returned his calls. It apologised for its service failure and said someone would contact him by 3 September 2021 to discuss his ASB reports.
It is not clear from the evidence we have seen what had caused the landlord to send this complaint response letter on 27 August 2021. Nor have we seen evidence that the landlord contacted the resident about his ASB reports as it promised.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint of 30 April 2021 on 4 September 2021 which was over 2 months after the resident had asked for his complaint to be escalated (on 17 July 2021). The landlord’s response did address the matters raised in the resident’s initial complaint and said it would open an ASB case. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have to have explained why it had not opened an ASB case sooner after the resident’s reports in July 2021 and why no one had contacted him about his reports since its stage 1 response on 13 July 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 November 2022. His email was a clear expression of dissatisfaction about the landlord’s communication with him and its handling of his ASB reports. The landlord should have recognised this as a formal complaint. Although the landlord did respond to the resident’s email, it did not log a formal complaint or respond through its complaint process. This was a failing and contrary to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident complained again on 6 February 2023 about the way the landlord had dealt with the incidents between him and his neighbour’s son. The landlord sent its response within 6 working days on 14 February 2023. The response addressed how the landlord had handled the incidents from 16 September 2021 which was when it had received the allegations the resident had damaged the mobile phone and car. However, it did not explain why it had not investigated the incident when the resident had reported it on 1 July 2021.
Further, the landlord’s response said that it understood that the outcome that the resident wanted was for it to contact the witnesses he had named. However, it did not answer this request in its response or give an explanation of why it had not spoken to witnesses when the incident had been reported. This suggests that the landlord’s investigation of the complaint was inadequate.
After the resident escalated his complaint, the landlord gave its stage 2 response within timescale on 16 March 2023. Again, the landlord failed to address the issues being complained about. It did not explain why it had not contacted any witnesses or why it had not responded to the ASB reports that he had made from July 2021.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. It did not address all the issues being complained about in its responses and its investigations were inadequate.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Decisions to issue the resident with tenancy warnings.
3. Handling of his associated complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. A senior manager must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report. The landlord must send us a copy of its apology.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £1,500. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It is comprised of:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his ASB reports.
  2. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its decisions to issue tenancy warnings.
  3. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his complaints.
3. Update its tenancy records to reflect the resident’s mental health conditions.
4. Review its position on the tenancy warnings it has issued. The landlord should reconsider whether the warnings were reasonable and proportionate in view of our findings.
5. Write to the resident and us to explain the outcome of its review of his tenancy warnings including:
  1. Whether the warnings are to remain or be withdrawn.
  2. A full explanation of its decision.
  3. The implications for his tenancy.
  4. How he can challenge the decision.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Write to the resident to offer a single point of contact for a specified period of time.
2. Carry out a self assessment against the recommendations in our knowledge and information spotlight report to identify how it can improve its approach.