A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202123456)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123456

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

1 August 2023

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. Response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives alone in the property which is a 2 bedroom, second floor flat. She has lived there since 2011 and has an assured shorthold tenancy.
Her upstairs neighbours (the neighbours) are a couple who have 2 children, one being an adult son and the other being a daughter under 10.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that noise should be kept to a minimum between 11pm and 7am.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy says that it will aim to:
1. Respond to complaints within 48 working hours and where possible agree an action plan.
2. Keep fortnightly contact with all residents identified in live ASB cases.
3. Use a variety of remedies to tackle ASB including preventative and enforcement measures.
4. Encourage and help residents to solve their differences themselves wherever possible.
5. Consider and arrange support for both parties where appropriate and possible.
6. If a resident is dissatisfied with the response to their ASB complaint, they have the right to request a review using the community trigger and ask for the case to be reviewed by a multi-agency panel.
7. It will work to prevent ASB in several ways, including:
  1. The design of properties and their environment.
  2. The identification of residents that may require additional support to maintain their tenancy.
  3. Working with other agencies to provide support to residents with difficulties such as mental health problems.
  4. Working with agencies like the police, local authorities and social care teams that may support early intervention and prevention strategies.
8. It will support vulnerable residents by:
  1. Making assessments with other agencies prior to the start of the tenancy.
  2. Providing sensitive lettings.
  3. Making referrals to appropriate support services.
  4. Being flexible to accept that some customers may wish to nominate an advocate.
  5. Working in partnership with statutory and voluntary agencies that provide the support packages.
  6. Participating in case conference work (via multi agencies or social services).
  7. Discussing with other agencies such as local authorities and mental health teams about suitability of accommodation.
The landlord’s management transfer procedure says as follows:
1. Its use should be restricted to urgent or extreme cases that arise in exceptional circumstances due to significant issues related to the resident’s occupation of their property that has resulted in imminent personal risk to any members of the household if they remain.
2. When a neighbourhood officer believes there is enough evidence to warrant a management move request, it will submit the application to the relevant head of neighbourhoods.
3. If the application for a management transfer is not successful, it may, on occasion, recommend a management assisted move submission.
4. If a management transfer application is unsuccessful the resident will be told of their right to appeal and will be offered further advice about alternative methods of moving e.g. Housing Jigsaw, Mutual Exchange etc.
5. Where a resident has left the property of their own choice prior to or whilst a management transfer decision is pending they will still be responsible for their tenancy, including the payment of rent until such time that their tenancy has legally come to an end.
The landlord’s allocations policy says as follows:
1. It aims to provide resident’s with the opportunity to transfer to more suitable accommodation and, wherever possible, offer choice about where they wish to live.
2. Provide assistance and support for residents who can no longer stay in their home due to exceptional circumstances such as ASB. This will be by use of a management transfer or a management assisted move where possible. This will be subject to the appropriate supporting evidence and relevant approval.
3. It has banding from A (emergency) to F. Band B is classed as “urgent need to move”.
The landlord’s compensation policy says as follows:
1. It will pay £20 for a missed appointment. The landlord can offer higher amounts if appropriate.
2. It will pay between £50 and £150 to acknowledge the detriment caused to a resident.
The landlord’s complaints procedure says as follows:
1. At stage 1 it will acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days. The timescale for the landlord to respond is not included in the stage 1 information. It is only within the section titled “the Housing Ombudsman” that the landlord says it has 10 working days to respond at stage 1.
2. At stage 2 the complaint will be considered at either a service director review or panel review hearing. The panel review is reserved for the most serious cases. The timescale for the landlord to respond at stage 2 is not included in the stage 2 information. It is only within the section titled “the Housing Ombudsman” that the landlord says it has 20 working days to respond at stage 2.

Summary of events

In 2016 the resident made a complaint about deliberate banging and abuse towards her from the neighbours. It appears that following this, since at least 2020, the resident has reported similar incidents of ASB from the neighbours to the landlord on a regular basis.
Following the repeated reports of ASB, which the neighbours had denied, on 16 April 2021 the landlord sought the involvement of a professional witness. The landlord said as follows:
1. Three visits of 2 hours were required.
2. The resident had been given the noise app but this had not provided any substantive evidence.
On 26 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbours and said as follows:
1. The reports of noise from the property had been substantiated through recordings.
2. The recordings showed noise occurring during the unsocial hours of 11pm to 7am.
3. As it had evidence, it could not allow the situation to continue.
4. They had declined to sign an acceptable behaviour contract and it was issuing them with a final warning. It said that further substantiated reports of ASB would result in it starting legal proceedings.
On 13 May 2021 a professional witness attended the resident’s property from around 8pm-10pm. The professional witness noted as follows:
1. The resident had described the neighbours slamming doors and using abusive language towards her. She worked from home and found this unbearable.
2. She believed that her flat had been bugged and had hidden cameras.
3. She had reported the neighbours behaviour to the housing officer and the police.
4. The situation had caused her to make an attempt on her life. Her housing officer was aware of this.
5. She chose to sleep in the front room on the sofa due to the noise.
6. The resident felt that the neighbours were aware that the professional witness was at the property and so would not make noise.
7. The witness noted that the walls of the property were noticeably “very thin”. Some sounds of walking from the flat above could be heard but this was not “excessive”.
8. The resident appeared scared and confused at times.
The professional witness attended again on 29 May 2021 from around 10:30pm-00:15am and noted as follows:
1. The resident had lost her job and she was uncertain about her future. She appeared to be “very stressed out”. It was noted that “it was clear the resident was struggling with her mental health”.
2. She did not feel able to stay in the property for long periods due to the banging doors and the abuse coming from the flat above.
3. She had enquired about downsizing to another property.
4. She had researched recording devices on the internet. The witness advised it could be useful to record the noise.
5. The witness suggested someone could stay with the resident to corroborate her reports.
6. The witness heard no excessive noise, shouting or ASB.
The landlord supported the resident in making a downsize application and offered her two alternative properties (the date of this is not clear). The resident declined these.
On 15 July 2021 the landlord noted that the resident had said she could hear her neighbours’ voices when she was out shopping. She believed they had bugged her flat and were watching her. Due to the nature of the reports, the landlord made a referral to its mental health team.
On 21 July 2021 a mental health assessment was carried out. It did not identify any “symptoms of acute mental disorder”. It was noted however that this did not mean that the resident did not have emotional difficulties or increased symptoms during periods of high stress.
On 24 August 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident as it had received reports of her causing a nose nuisance at night. It said it would be using sound recording technology and that if there was evidence that unacceptable noise was coming from the property, it may consider taking further action against her and she could lose the property.
That same day the landlord wrote to the resident and said that it would arrange for her to have the noise app to corroborate her reports. It said it had written to her neighbour to say that recording equipment would be used.
On 31 August 2021 the resident made a complaint to the landlord as follows:
1. The landlord had asked her to attend its offices to collect the recording equipment. She took the day off work to do so. It then told her mid-morning that the equipment had to be installed and could not be collected. It did not give her a further appointment for the installation of the equipment.
2. She had been “tormented” by her neighbours since making a complaint about them in 2016. She had provided evidence to the landlord and it had issued her neighbours with a final warning.
3. Since being given the final warning the neighbours had done as follows:
  1. Threatened to kill her, have a neighbour rape her and burn her flat.
  2. Threatened her daughter (who had since moved out of the property).
  3. Threatened to get her sacked from work.
  4. Told her they could access her bank account.
  5. Continued to shout abusive language in the night, stopping her from sleeping.
  6. Tried to get other resident’s to report her to the landlord.
  7. Made their daughter slam the door even though the resident could hear their daughter saying she did not want to.
  8. Told their daughter to call the police to say the resident had woken her up.
  9. Continually played an alarm until she left the property.
  10. She said she could no longer work from home due to the noise.
  11. She feared for her safety and described returning to the property as “traumatising”. The situation had ruined her life.
  12. The neighbour pushed her while she was on the stairs. She reported this to the police who opened a harassment case.
  13. She had to sleep at other people’s houses to feel safe.
  14. She had taken on a weekend job to limit her time in the property.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 2 September 2021 and said it intended to respond within 10 working days.
On 8 September 2021 the landlord completed a management transfer form for the resident (categorised as band B) and said as follows:
1. The resident had endured an alleged longstanding history of ASB from the neighbours with the police being called on numbers occasions. A number of police incident references were included.
2. Despite having the noise app the resident had not produced any substantive evidence to support the allegations.
3. The professional witness and police believed the resident was suffering from mental health issues.
4. The housing manager concluded that the application had no basis and did not meet the management transfer criteria. It said that the issue was “paranoia” which had taken both police and management time.
5. The housing manager recommended that the landlord flag its concerns with the resident’s doctor.
6. The management transfer application was refused as there was no evidence that she was at immediate risk of harm.
On 9 September 2021 the resident added to her complaint and said that the landlord had sent a letter to her neighbours advising them of recording and seeking their permission. She said that they would not make any noise if they knew they were being recorded and that they would not want to give their permission.
That same day (9 September 2021) the landlord reopened a safeguarding case for the resident.
The date is not clear but it appears that during September 2021 the landlord noted that ASB scored low on the risk assessment and should not have been allocated. Between February and September 2021 the resident has sent it over 200 noise app recordings. Only one recorded noise, that being of a child screaming in the early hours.
On 15 September 2021 the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 as the landlord had not responded. The landlord responded the following day that her complaint was still being considered. It said it had until midnight to respond and there was no reason to escalate the complaint. It sent a follow up email to say that the response should be with the resident on 17 September 2021.
On 19 September 2021 the resident again chased up the complaint response and said she wanted it to be escalated to stage 2.
On 22 September 2021 the landlord sent a response to part of the resident’s complaint and said that the complaint was partially upheld as it had failed to keep an appointment with the resident. When it checked the recording equipment on the day of the appointment it realised it could not proceed (as it had to be installed not collected). It said it could not provide the resident with another date at the time. It offered £50 compensation to acknowledge the missed appointment.
The resident responded the same day and asked for the complaint to be escalated. She said as follows:
1. The offer of £50 was insulting and did not cover the wages she had lost due to taking the time off work.
2. The landlord’s failure to provide the recording equipment resulted in her leaving her home due to fear as she had received threats against her life and the property.
3. The complaint response was late and did not cover all aspects of her complaint. She felt let down and ignored.
4. The landlord had advised her to give up her tenancy which was not acceptable when her neighbours had already received a final warning for their behaviour.
The landlord responded the same day and said that it would respond to the rest of her complaint by 27 September 2021 and that she could not escalate her complaint until then.
On 8 October 2021 the landlord told the resident that t would escalate the complaint to stage 2.
On 8 November 2021 the landlord sent the stage 2 response It said the complaint was not upheld as follows:
1. £50 compensation for the missed appointment was in line with its compensation policy. It said that if the resident provided evidence of her loss of earnings, it could reconsider this.
2. It would not be providing her with noise recoding equipment as it had closed her ASB case. It had tried to support her to obtain evidence of the noise but had been unsuccessful.
3. There was no evidence to support the resident’s claims and the neighbours denied the allegations.
4. Any further noise should be reported to the environmental health team and she should compete diary sheets on a weekly basis.
5. The resident could discuss alternative housing options by contacting its contact centre.
6. The landlord did not agree that she was being bullied.
7. The resident must use her home as her principal home. If not, it would be a breach of the tenancy agreement which could result in the termination of the tenancy. This would not happen if there was evidence that the resident could not remain in the home.
On 5 January 2022 the resident made further reports of ASB. The landlord offered her the noise app but the resident declined this and said she wanted the noise monitoring equipment. The landlord told her it would not provide this unless there was some evidence to support the allegations. The landlord’s internal notes stated that it considered the resident’s reports to be vexatious.
On 24 January 2022 the resident contacted this Service and said that the landlord would not accept her new ASB complaint. She was advised to contact the landlord which she did.
On 31 January 2022 the landlord told this Service that the resident had raised 8 complaints in the last 6 months and it had responded to them all. (These have not been provided to this Service).
On 8 February 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and asked her to sign an acceptable behaviour contract as her neighbours had reported that she had been causing a noise nuisance. The resident did not sign this.
On 10 February 2022 the landlord told the resident that it would not be investigating her further complaint of ASB as it had competed its complaints process.
The resident referred her case to this Service on 1 March 2022. She was asked to confirm the outstanding issues which she did in November 2022 as follows:
1. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the complaint as she had continued to experience bullying from her neighbours.
2. The noise disturbance had impacted on her ability to sleep and the stress was causing her health issues.
3. She had offered to move property and downsize in order to escape the ASB.

Correspondence following the involvement of this service

After referring her case to this Service the resident continued to report the behaviour and noise caused by her neighbours to the landlord.
In January 2023 the landlord told the resident that it had put the allegations (made in 2021) to the neighbours and they have provided “irrefutable evidence” to confirm that they were not causing any noise nuisance.
Due to the level of contact received from the resident the landlord told her to contact it via its contact centre going forward.
Information provided by the landlord to this Service in February 2023 said as follows:
1. It did not have any vulnerabilities recorded against the resident however it had made a mental health referral for the resident in July 2021.
2. Since it had sent its final complaint response to the resident, it had not received any further reports from the resident. She had not been able to provide any evidence for the landlord to carry out further investigations.
The resident spoke to this Service on 5 June 2023 and reiterated the aspects of her complaint. In addition, she said as follows:
1. The landlord had offered her two alternative properties. One was on an estate where someone she knew had been shot. She did not feel comfortable moving there as a single female. The other was too far away for her to be able to commute to work. She had therefore turned these properties down.
2. She was viewing another one bedroom property that day (5 June 2023). Although she felt her current living situation could not go on, she felt that she should not have to move and leave her friends.
3. When the noise team from the council attended, it had heard talking and noted that it was one of the most poorly insulated properties it had visited.
4. She described the recordings of the noise app to be of poor quality. She asked the landlord about purchasing her own recording equipment. The landlord told her to just use the noise app.
5. The landlord had not offered mediation when she first reported the matters. When she later reported the threats of violence from her neighbours mediation was no longer appropriate.
6. She had been assessed by a psychiatrist who said she had no mental health issues and that she was suffering from stress and trauma from the ongoing situation.
On 7 June 2023 the resident told this Service that she had accepted a move to another property offered by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said that the situation has impacted her health. Whilst this Service acknowledges the resident’s views, it is beyond the remit of the Housing Ombudsman to decide whether there was a direct link between the ASB reported by the resident and her health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or inaction of the landlord.
Residents may describe how they have been affected by the situation that has led to their complaint, such as impact on family life, use of their home and health and emotional wellbeing. This may be expressed as giving rise to or exacerbating existing health conditions. The Ombudsman’s remedies can recognise the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a failure of the landlord. Distress can include stress, anxiety, worry, frustration, uncertainty, raised expectations, inconvenience, sense of being treated differently and problems caused by delays. There may also be aggravating factors that could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident. Such aggravating factors include mental health, dependants, disability and previous history of mishandling by the landlord of the resident’s tenancy.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord has a responsibility to respond to reports of ASB made by its residents. Section 218 of the Housing Act 1996 requires housing associations to prepare a policy and procedure on ASB. The Act also gave housing associations powers to evict residents for harassment.
The neighbourhood and community standard is one of the 4 consumer standards set by the regulator of social housing. As part of this standard, the landlord is required to “work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle ASB in the local area.”
It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate any of the alleged ASB itself, to place blame or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the resident. This investigation focuses on the actions of the landlord and whether or not these were reasonable and were in line with its policies and procedures.
There is evidence that the landlord has taken some steps to support the resident with the reported ASB as follows:
1. It provided her with the noise recording app and asked her to complete weekly diary sheets to record the ASB.
2. It instructed a professional witness to attend to see if it could corroborate the resident’s reports. It is noted that the landlord requested three visits by the professional witness but evidence of only two visits has been provided. It is not clear why a third did not go ahead as instructed.
3. It considered the possibility of a management transfer and did so in consultation with the police. Although this was appropriate, further comment has been made on this below.
4. The landlord offered the resident two alternative properties. Although this was appropriate, further comment has been made on this below.
5. It signposted her to the police and the environmental health team.
Although the landlord has taken some reasonable steps in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB, its actions fell short of what would be expected in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord told the resident she could have access to sound recording equipment. It however later advised that it would not be providing this as it had closed her case due to lack of supporting evidence. This was despite the landlord telling her that her reports had been substantiated in April 2021. It is noted that the landlord offered this recording equipment to the resident’s neighbours when they made a seemingly uncorroborated report about her making noise. Given the number of reports the resident had made, the landlord should have offered this as it would have provided the resident with another evidence gathering tool. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to support the resident and to further understand her living environment.
Despite the landlord receiving a report of the ASB from an unrelated resident, there is no evidence that the landlord conducted a neighbourhood survey into other residents experiences of ASB. This would have been appropriate and would have provided the opportunity for the landlord to see if there was any further corroborating evidence from others in the block of flats.
The landlord missed an opportunity to try mediation between the resident and her neighbours. The landlord provided no explanation for it not offering this when the situation first came to its attention. As the situation escalated to involve reports of threats of violence by the neighbours the option of mediation was no longer appropriate.
The landlord appears to have concluded that, as it offered the resident two alternative properties, it had acted reasonably to support her. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to suggest downsizing to another property, there is no evidence that it considered the appropriateness of the properties it offered to the resident. It is clear that the landlord had concerns about the mental wellbeing of the resident and knew she lived alone, however it offered her properties in an area which the resident believed had suffered from recent gun violence and a property which was so far away from her the property that she would have to leave her job. The landlord did not show sufficient consideration for the resident’s needs in offering her these properties as a means to addressing her reports of ASB.
It is positive that the landlord acted on information about the resident’s possible mental health difficulties and that it made a referral to the mental health team. It is of concern however that, despite a psychiatrist finding no mental health conditions, the landlord appears to have made its own assumptions that the resident’s frequent reports were not justified. The reasoning given by the landlord to reject the resident’s management transfer application stated that the issue was the resident’s paranoia. This was not supported with any medical or mental health assessment and was in contradiction to the psychiatrist’s findings. The landlord should be mindful not to base its reasoning on unsupported assumptions.
Given the concerns for the resident’s mental health, and her clear fear (perceived or actual) of the behaviour of her neighbours, the tone used by the landlord within its stage two complaint response was not appropriate. Within this response the landlord warned her of possible enforcement action against her tenancy due to her staying away from the property. In addition it said it did not agree that the resident felt let down by it not helping her prove she was being bullied. This heavy handed and unsympathetic approach was not an appropriate way to communicate with the resident who was clearly struggling and required a sensitive and compassionate approach.
It is clear that, as part of her reports to the landlord, the resident was concerned for the neighbour’s child. She described the child being made to bang doors, shout and call the police as directed by the parent(s). Although it is correct that the landlord and police could not discuss any action taken on this concern, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have reassured the resident that her concerns had been listened to and that it had taken appropriate action.
Case law has established that there is no legal requirement for landlords to retrospectively fit improved sound installation. However, the landlord’s consideration of the design of a property is specifically mentioned in its ASB policy when considering how it can be prevented. The landlord had been made aware by the professional witness and the council’s noise team that the walls were very thin and poorly insulated. Despite this the landlord did not take any action to consider or provide any additional sound proofing at the property. it would be appropriate for the landlord to check that the existing sound proofing had not fallen into a state of disrepair. A recommendation has been made for such an inspection to be carried out below.
There is also no indication that the landlord considered the type of flooring in the property above and whether this may have contributed to the level of noise. The resident has said she believes the neighbours have vinyl flooring, which would be permitted assuming the conditions of their tenancy agreement mirrors that of the residents. There is no evidence however that the landlord investigated to see if the flooring in the flat above was in line with the tenancy agreement or spoke to the neighbours about the possibility of them putting down rugs.
There is no evidence that the landlord advised the resident of her right to request a review of its actions in responding to her reports of ASB by way of a multi-agency panel using the community trigger. This is part of the landlord’s ASB policy and it is not clear why this was not explained to her.
In summary, although the landlord took some action in accordance with its policies, there are further steps the landlord should have taken to both investigate the reported ASB and support the resident.
Although not part of this investigation, it is noted that the landlord has deemed the resident’s continuing reports of ASB as vexatious. Whilst frequent reports of ASB can be challenging to deal with it is important that the landlord does not adopt a dismissive approach without investigation.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The failings of the landlord in appropriately responding to the resident’s reports of ASB have been found to amount to maladministration and the failure had a significant impact on the resident. Compensation totalling £1200 has therefore been ordered in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This is to acknowledge the impact, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s maladministration.

Complaint handling

The resident made a complaint on 31 August 2021. The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure are not clear on its response timescales but as per the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code), it should respond within 10 working days from receipt of the complaint (i.e. by 14 September 2021). As the resident had not had a response by 15 September 2021 she understandably asked for her complaint to be escalated. The landlord told her that it had until midnight on 16 September 2021 to respond to her. It seems the landlord had misinterpreted the Code and allowed itself 10 working days after the acknowledgement rather than from receipt of the complaint. As it had not responded to the resident within the timescale, it was not appropriate for the landlord to tell her that it had no reason to escalate her complaint.
The landlord did not send the stage 1 response until 22 September 2021 and even when it did, the response only addressed one part of the resident’s complaint (the missed appointment). Although the landlord told her it would respond to the ASB elements of her complaint by 27 September 2021 it did not give any explanation for this delay or offer any apologies.
When the resident asked to escalate the part stage 1 response the landlord told her she could not do so as it had not responded to all aspects of her complaint. This was not appropriate. As the landlord had chosen to ‘split’ the complaint and respond separately, it should have accepted her escalation request rather than making her wait for it to respond to the other part of her complaint.
It appears that the other part of the stage 1 complaint was sent to the resident on 27 September 2021. This was 9 working days late and no apology or explanation was given to the resident.
The landlord has not provided the resident’s subsequent escalation request to this Service but it acknowledged the escalation on 8 October 2021. It did not provide the stage 2 response until 8 November 2021, this was again outside of the timeframe outlined in the Code (20 working days). No apology was given to the resident for this.
To acknowledge the impact on the resident of the complaint handling failures an order of £250 compensation has been ordered below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord took some action in line with its policies when responding to the resident’s reports of ASB, however it do not do all that it could have to investigate the reports. The landlord appears to have become frustrated with the frequency of the resident’s reports and, as a result, the landlord did not do all that it could have to support her. If it had done, staff may have been more sympathetic to her reports rather than classifying them as vexatious.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in the appropriate timeframe. It declined to escalate her complaint despite the response being late and it having split her complaint. No apology was provided.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. The landlord is ordered to pay a total of £1,450 compensation. This is made up of the following amounts:
  1. £1200 to acknowledge the failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and the impact of this on the resident.
  2. £250 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failure.
2. Apologise to the resident for the failings in this case.
3. Provide staff training on:
  1. The appropriate was to respond to reports of ASB in line with its policies and procedures.
  2. Its vexatious customer policy to ensure staff are clear on the difference between when a resident is raising legitimate concerns and when they are behaving in a vexatious manner.
  3. The appropriate handling of complaints.
4. Review its complaints policy in line with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handing code.