Ashford Borough Council (202013423)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013423

Ashford Borough Council

26 May 2022

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 concerns the landlord’s:

Handling of the residents’ reports of antisocial behaviour from their neighbour.
Handling of the residents’ request for a management move.
Related complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The residents signed a 5-year fixed term tenancy on 26 November 2019. The property is two-bedroom end of terrace house. The landlord is a council.
The residents previously brought a complaint to this service which included concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of their reports of antisocial behaviour from the neighbour. This investigation covered the period up to the date of the landlord’s final response of 10 August 2019. This was determined on 15 October 2020 under case reference 201908089. The timeframe considered in this review will therefore be from 16 August 2019 which is the date of the next ASB complaint made by the residents until 16 June 2021 which is the date of the landlord’s stage two final response. This service cannot consider any events that were considered under the previous determination. Any reference to these events is for background only. It is noted that the neighbour who was the subject of the residents’ ASB reports moved out of the neighbouring property on 23 October 2020.
On 16 August 2019, the residents made a complaint to the landlord about damage caused to the branches of a newly planted Hydrangea plant. They asked the landlord if they needed to install security cameras to protect their garden as the landlord would not take action.
The landlord replied on 19 August 2019 advising permission to install CCTV needed to be applied for. It sent the residents information via a link on how to obtain this.
On 22 August 2019, the landlord wrote to the residents and the neighbour confirming its previous offer of a management move -this was something that it had previously offered in its final response of 10 August 2019.
The residents wrote to the landlord on 28 August 2019 advising a house move was unacceptable for them and it should be the neighbour, as perpetrator of ASB that had to move. The residents complained about its handling of their ASB reports.
The landlord replied on 13 September 2019 advising it was considering the residents’ earlier request for soundproofing on account of their reports of crashing sounds from the neighbour’s kitchen. It referenced previously installing cupboard door closers at the neighbour’s property meaning it was impossible to slam the doors and therefore it questioned the effectiveness of soundproofing.
In emails sent to the landlord on 16,23,24 and 26 September 2019, the residents complained about their neighbour having bonfires from a chimenea, smoking cannabis outside and deliberate noise nuisance early in the morning caused by the neighbour crashing objects onto kitchen work surfaces. The residents provided diary sheets for the period 2 August 2019 to 14 September 2019.
In its response of 17 September 2019, the landlord advised it felt there was no merit in continuing to respond to issues that it had already covered. In its responses of 24 and 27 September 2019 the landlord advised that it was not able to make further comments unless there were new issues. It said it was still assessing their request for sound proofing.
In its communication to the residents of 2 October 2019, the landlord referred to its offer of a band A management move for a suitable like for like house or a two bedroom bungalow.
On 3 October 2019 the residents reported hearing crashing sounds from the neighbour’s kitchen early in the morning. They said they were exhausted and unwell and as there had been no effective resolution of the issues, they would like to proceed with a management move.
In emails to the landlord on 4, 8 and 17 October 2019, the residents reported further instances of noise nuisance including crashing sounds from the neighbour’s kitchen early in the morning and the sound of the neighbour’s shower.
The landlord called the residents on 10 October 2019 to discuss their recent communications, advising it could not discuss the contents as the matter was with the Ombudsman. It referenced a possible suitable alternative property and said it would look to offer this directly to them, via management move, if it became available.
There were several emails exchanged between the landlord and the residents and their councillor over the next few weeks regarding the potential management move to the property. The residents advised they would like to view the new property. On 18 November 2019, the landlord advised it did not have a tenancy end date for existing occupiers of the new property and said whilst it appreciated the residents were keen to see it, they would have to wait to see if they are offered it once the current occupiers had moved out. It also advised the residents about the option to apply for a mutual exchange.
In a reply dated 19 November 2019, the residents advised the landlord’s advice in its 18 November 2019 communication represented a “U-turn” on what they were told during the call on 10 October 2019, which was that if they like the property, they could have it.
On 22 November 2019, the landlord emailed the residents and their councillor advising that a direct offer would be made once the existing tenant had vacated.
The residents reported further instances of noise nuisance to the landlord on 25 November 2019.
On 4 and 5 December 2019, the residents complained about being the subject of harassment by the neighbour detailing instances of being watched by her and the neighbour coming out of her property to smoke whenever they were outside or returning home and staring at them. They also reported instances of the neighbour fly tipping “kitchen stuff” on the public green. On 16 December 2020, they advised the landlord that they had reported the verbal threats to police.
On 18 December 2019, the landlord advised the residents that whilst the Ombudsman was dealing with their complaint it could not continue to investigate their ongoing complaints. The residents provided diary incident sheets for the periods from 1 September to 28 December 2019.
On 30 December 2019, the residents reported that their tyres had been let down and further instances of fly tipping on land owned by the landlord. On 31 December 2019 the landlord advised the diary sheets related to an ongoing complaint which was with the Ombudsman.
On 20 January 2020, the landlord said it could not give a timescale for the availability of the new property previously discussed but it would give them a direct offer for this property if and when it became available. It said they should continue to check the choice based letting scheme for other alternative properties to bid on.
On 29 January 2020, the residents asked for an update in regard to the management move to the new property previously discussed.
On 31 January 2020, the landlord advised there was nothing further to update on regarding their management move to the new property.
In response to the residents’ further reports of fly tipping by the neighbour on the green, the landlord advised on 31 January 2020 that it had arranged for the area to be cleaned and a bulk collection had been booked.
On 5 February 2020, the residents reported a hammering noise on the party wall and the slamming of kitchen draws. The residents also asked for update regarding the new property.
On 6 March 2020, the residents contacted the landlord advising they would like to accept an alternative property that they had seen that day. The landlord replied explaining the property had a local connection preference to it and that they would be notified in due course.
On 27 April 2020, the residents reported further instances of noise nuisance including loud music, screaming, shouting and foul language. They also said the neighbour had been burning incense and bonfires to mask the smell of drugs. The neighbours reported the neighbour shouting at them after asking her son to stop kicking a football in the parking area. Their car had dents and small scratches from children playing on scooters and bicycles in the parking area. They advised they had a video recording to send to the landlord. Incident diary sheets were provided for the timeframe from 22 January 2019 to 14 March 2020. They asked for an update on the property once the Covid-19 restrictions had been lifted.
On 4 June 2020, the landlord wrote to the residents advising their management move Banding A would be removed with effect from 8 June 2020.
On 5 June 2020, the residents’ councillor contacted the landlord on their behalf asking about a statement it made in a recent email advising it would remove the residents’ management move banding A with effect from 8 June 2020. In a response provided the same day, the landlord advised that the residents had said they no longer wanted to proceed with a move.
On 5 June 2020, the residents reported that the neighbour woke them up early in the morning by deliberately crashing around the kitchen and then she threw foodstuff onto the green outside her property causing seagulls to swarm.
On 14 June 2020, the landlord called the residents offering to gift a camera doorbell. Its notes of the call state it explained that they could not use their own camera to video communal areas and that the residents accepted its offer.
On 26 June 2020, the residents reported being intimidated by the neighbour’s new partner.
The police and the landlord attended a meeting on 30 June 2020 facilitated by the residents’ councillor to discuss the alleged ASB by the neighbour with other residents in the area. This service has not been provided with any details about the outcome of this meeting.
On 2 July 2020, the landlord provided the residents and the neighbour with camera doorbells.
On 9 July 2020, the residents reported the neighbour splattering paint on their plants whilst painting her side of the fence and that a male, whom the neighbour was involved with and whom she believed was a drug dealer, sitting in the car park staring at their house in a threatening manner.
In its response of 9 July 2020, the landlord said it had looked at their further diary incident sheets and no further action would be taken without evidence.
Within its response of 21 July 2020, the landlord advised it would only respond to new questions and statements and would not respond to issues it had already given a response to which was with the Ombudsman. It said if the residents felt intimidated, they should contact the police.
On 1 August 2020, the residents reported that the noise nuisance from the neighbour was escalating. There was low level banging throughout the previous evening and then between 10.30 pm and 11.50 pm there was non-stop banging, thumping, slamming, stamping and kicking and what appeared to the bouncing of a rubber ball on the adjoining kitchen work surfaces. This noise was different as it was deliberate and provocative, and the landlord should treat this as a new complaint.
On 14 September 2020, the residents emailed the landlord asking for a response to their 1 August 2020 communication and reported instances of the neighbour lighting bonfires to hide the smell of drugs which had been happening since 12 September meaning they could not use their garden. They reported further instances of the neighbour smoking cannabis in the garden on 15 and 16 September 2020.
On 16 September 2020, the residents reported further instances of ASB to the landlord. They stated that they were unhappy with the way the landlord had handled their reports of ASB including in relation to:

Cannabis smoking;
Bonfires;
Noise complaints;
Harassment and;
Fly tipping of food stuff.

The residents also said the lack of a response to their emails was unacceptable and they asked that the landlord treat the email chain as a complaint.
On 16 September 2020, the landlord advised that it had spoken to the neighbour and that she adamantly denies smoking cannabis in her back garden advising it was another neighbour smoking cannabis. The landlord said if they smelt it again to ring him and if an officer is in the vicinity, they would try to establish where the cannabis is emanating from. Regarding bonfires, the neighbour confirmed that she had been having these and was advised on bonfire good practice. If they believed they were not being managed correctly, the residents should contact their local police community support officer.
The landlord replied on the same date advising it would provide a response within 10 working days.
In their communication to the landlord of 17 September 2020, the residents referenced that the landlord was aware that bonfires were antisocial as the Fire Officer had previously confirmed this in 2019.
On 18 September 2020, the residents reported that another bonfire had taken place the previous evening. This was the sixth bonfire in eight days. The residents’ councillor also reported the same issue to the landlord. The landlord replied on 21 September 2020 advising that it had spoken to the neighbour about the bonfires and reiterated that she must not have more than one per week and not burn anything aside from wood. It would ask that the residents monitor this and let it know if this was not being adhered to.
The landlord’s internal communications show it contacted the local authority’s EH team in in September 2020 for clarification on if bonfires could be considered a nuisance if kept to once a week to which they confirmed they could be however this would need to be evidenced in order to justify tenancy or nuisance action against a tenant.
On 28 September 2020, the residents reported that the neighbour on 25 September 2020 had parked her car across their cars preventing them from “getting out”. They also reported an incident that happened on 26 September 2020 involving an “explosion” from the neighbour’s garden following by an enormous amount of smoke from under the neighbour’s gazebo which was attached to their fence. Their house filled up with smoke. They called the fire brigade who came. They provided the landlord with a recording of the smoke from the neighbour’s gazebo which was attached to their fence.
On 29 September 2020, the residents reported further ASB to the landlord that had occurred that day including loud music and cannabis smoking, and a further bonfire. They also sent the landlord video recordings. The residents complained about the landlord ignoring their ASB reports and taking no action to deal with the ASB.
On 2 October 2020, the residents reported that the neighbour’s gazebo had blown over to their garden. The landlord offered assistance with removing this.
On 8 October 2020, the residents complained that the neighbour’s guest had been rude and sent the landlord a recording. The landlord replied on the same date stating it had spoken to the neighbour advising that her guests must not be offensive to other tenants. It referenced a counter allegation raised by the neighbour that the residents were laughing at the neighbour’s partner.
On 13 October 2020, the residents complained to the landlord that they had endured repeated harassment and ASB from the neighbour for more than two years and that the landlord had consistently refused to believe them, demanding more evidence, which they had provided but the landlord continued to make out it was a neighbour dispute and apportion blame away from it onto them.
On 25 November 2020, the residents wrote to the landlord regarding issues at the property including relating to privacy sound proofing. The landlord replied on 26 November 2020 advising it had rejected their request for sound proofing as it was not cost effective and would have minimal impact.
The residents reported an incident involving the neighbour in February 2021 when they reported she had been verbally abusive. The landlord advised that as this did not happen on its land, it was a police matter.
In March 2021, following contact from the residents, the Ombudsman requested that the landlord respond to the more recent ASB reports in accordance with its complaints process.
In May 2021, the residents reported harassment by the neighbour, sending the landlord a video recording.
On 16 June 2021, the landlord provided a stage two final complaint response. It said that the residents had made a number of complaints about the neighbour since 1 August 2019 and it attached a table summarising these and actions it had taken in response. It also said:

In reviewing the table, there was a pattern of complaints about the neighbour and its officers responding to them had taken proportionate action where necessary and have advised them when no further action could be taken.
Several complaints were repetitive in nature with little or no evidence to support them which did not enable it to take any further action against the neighbour.
On 17 September 2019, it advised it would not continue to respond fully to every communication the residents send and that it would only note complaints of a repetitive nature where there was new information or evidence supplied or new issues had been raised.
It referenced the residents’ expectation for it to evict the neighbour and explained that to remove someone from their home or to take stringent action against someone it must prove a case to the courts, and this required substantive evidence. In the residents’ reports, they either did not supply evidence or if they did supply photographs or video footage this did not support the allegations made and therefore it was insufficient to support legal action being taken. Further the neighbour made counter allegations against them and complained that they were harassing her.
It referenced that mediation had previously been offered that the residents declined to take part in as they believed they had nothing to concede.
It made offers to both parties to award a management move in view of the continuing complaint being made which amounts to one tenant’s word against the other. The neighbour eventually agreed to move and was no longer their neighbour.
Regarding the video footage of the neighbour in May 2021 of what is believed to be the neighbour parking her car in the parking area and of her getting out of the car and walking towards another property, this was likely to be her visiting others locally and there was no evidence of her harassing them.
In referenced the residents’ report of the neighbour following them and behaving in a threatening way, this was not on its land therefore it was a matter for the police.

The evidence therefore indicated that its officers involved acted appropriately and it was not able to be able to meet their expectations to take action against the neighbour.
On 24 May 2022, in response to a request for further information, the landlord said that the residents were not offered a management move to the alternative property initially discussed in October 2020 because the property the residents wished to move to did not become available as the existing tenant did not move out.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports of antisocial behaviour from their neighbour.

During the timeline reviewed, the residents made a high number of ASB complaints regarding their neighbour which they reported to the landlord via incident dairy sheets and via written and verbal communications with the landlord’s officers. The majority of the ASB complaints raised were similar in nature to those previously considered under the previous investigation and concern noise nuisance, bonfires and drug use, intimidating behaviour, fly-tipping as well as damage to property.
A decision was made by the landlord in August 2019 to offer both the residents and the neighbour a management move; this was because it deemed the relationship between the parties to have broken down despite its efforts to resolve the residents’ complaints and because it did not consider enforcement action against the neighbour was justified. Its offer of a management move was subsequently confirmed to both parties on several occasions during the timeframe covered in this review and this eventually led to the neighbour moving out of their property on or around 23 October 2020. This for the main part brought an end to the residents’ reports of ASB about the neighbour. It is noted that the residents did make two further ASB reports regarding the neighbour after she had left however the landlord explained why it would not be a matter for it to act upon rather it suggested they report the incidents to police, which was appropriate.
This service acknowledges that the timeframe considered in this review, was an extremely difficult period for the residents and one which caused them significant distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded to their reports during this time, in accordance with its ASB policy and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The landlord’s ASB policy states it recognises the importance of tackling activity which causes nuisance and annoyance to its residents however it makes clear that any action it takes will be reasonable and proportionate to the behaviour taking place or being complained about. Its policy also notes that the majority of complaints of ASB do not require legal action as a means of resolution and says that an informal approach using tools such as verbal/written warnings, mediation and Acceptable Behaviour Agreements (ABA) will be explored before considering more formal enforcement tools. Its policy also says the landlord will work closely with partner agencies to prevent ASB from occurring and to support those who are the subject of ASB.
Having reviewed the landlord’s actions during this timeframe, aspects of its response were appropriate however there were also instances of the landlord not taking a sufficiently proactive approach to resolving the ASB allegations raised by the residents. In response to ASB allegations raised in September 2019, the landlord advised the residents that it felt there was no merit in continuing to respond to issues that it had already covered and that it was not able to make further comments unless there were new issues or evidence.
Where behaviours reported were the same as those previously investigated by the landlord and were found not to constitute ASB, on balance it was reasonable for the landlord to decide not to take any action and such advice was appropriate in order to manage the residents’ expectations about this. The types of complaints raised by the residents where the landlord took no action as it felt the behaviour was not ASB included those relating to fly-tipping as it felt there was insufficient evidence to link this to the neighbour and also in relation to noise nuisance coming from the neighbour’s property. Examples of noise nuisance included reports of “crashing” noises from the kitchen which the residents perceived to be the neighbour crashing objects into the worksurface as well as noise from her TV and loud music.
The landlord explained that its conclusion from sound recordings previously taken was that noise heard was deemed to be normal household noise and therefore did not represent a nuisance. It also mentioned that it had fitted cupboard door closures to mitigate the risk of noise caused as this had previously been reported as a source of noise. It is acknowledged that the residents told the landlord they believed such behaviour, which often occurred early in the morning, was deliberate on the part of the neighbour. Nonetheless the landlord’s stated position that there was insufficient evidence of ASB to support any further action on this issue, was reasonable in the circumstances.
It is noted that the residents asked for the landlord to install soundproofing to the party wall at the property to minimise the noise transferred. The landlord declined this request explaining that this was not cost-effective and would have minimal impact. Whilst the landlord has a right to balance efficacy of such a request with cost, bearing in mind the residents first asked for this as early as September 2019 and the landlord only provided an answer on 26 November 2020 following their further requests, the delay by the landlord in clarifying its position in relation to this request, was unreasonable.
In response to the other ASB allegations raised, the landlord advised the residents that whilst the Ombudsman was investigating their complaint (under case ref 201908089), it could not continue to investigate their ongoing complaints. This happened on occasions including on 10 October 2019, 18 December 2019 and 21 July 2020. This is not an appropriate response to complaints raised about new incidents or reports of behaviours that may amount to ASB as it is reasonable to expect the landlord respond to these in accordance with its ASB policy.
The residents made repeated reports of: the neighbour smoking cannabis in the back garden; the neighbour burning bonfires in the back garden to mask the smell of cannabis and which caused smoke to enter their garden and house and; the neighbour coming outside to the front of her house to smoke when she knew the residents were there and staring at them, as well as loud music, shouting, screaming and swearing. The residents also made a small number of reports relating to damage caused to their plants and issues with the neighbour blocking their vehicles with her car as well one report of their car tyres being let down, and an instance of the neighbour’s guest being abusive to them. The residents told the landlord that they perceived much of this to be harassment and intimidating behaviour.
In response to these reports the landlord spoke to the neighbour on an occasion in September 2020 about the reports of cannabis smoking and bonfires in the back garden. It spoke to her on a further occasion in October 2020 after the residents provided a video recording showing abusive behaviour towards them by the neighbour’s guests. The landlord told the neighbour on these occasions that bonfires must be infrequent and nothing other than wood could be burnt and also warned her that abuse by her guests must stop otherwise it would consider taking further action. Whilst this action was appropriate, given the number and nature of the ASB reports made over the 14-month timeframe prior to the neighbour moving out, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to have taken further steps to resolve the complaints. There is a lack of evidence to show that it did. Therefore, by maintaining it would not investigate their ASB complaints for the reasons stated above, many of the residents’ ASB complaints were not responded to or acted upon. Although, due to the high number of communications, it is understandable if the landlord was unable to deal with them all individually, the action shown to have been taken to address the reports, was insufficient. The landlord did not recognise this in its final complaint response.
The landlord did give both parties camera doorbells in July 2020, however, it is noted that the residents had already by this stage provided multiple recordings and photographs to the landlord in support of their allegations. In its final response of 16 July 2020, the landlord acknowledged this but explained that this evidence did not support the allegations made and overall, there was insufficient substantive evidence to prove to a court stringent action against the neighbour or eviction was justified. Formal action to evict a person as a result of ASB usually only happens in extreme cases where this is clearly evidenced and corroborated for example where police have charged an individual for ASB or they have been prosecuted.
Nonetheless, the landlord’s ASB policy refers to less formal interventions which the landlord could have considered during the fourteen months prior to the neighbour moving out. Issuing formal written tenancy warnings and getting residents to enter an ABA are both mentioned in its policy and would have been reasonable and proportionate. There is no evidence of the landlord using these interventions or of it contacting the neighbour on a more regular basis to put the ongoing behaviour allegations to her. This may have de-escalated the situation regardless of whether the behaviours reported were proven or sufficient to warrant court action. It is acknowledged that the residents previously declined mediation, however this would not preclude the landlord from looking at different ways to manage the situation. It is evident that the landlord was engaging with police where residents had reported issues to them, which was appropriate, however this service has not had sight of these communications.
There were counter-allegations raised against the residents by the neighbour whenever the landlord put their allegations to her. It is acknowledged that in this circumstance, the landlord must ensure it acts impartially. Although it did not take action against the residents in respect of any counter-allegations, as previously mentioned, it is evident from this review that the landlord did not do enough to address and manage the issues being reported by the residents. This demonstrates that the landlord failed to follow its ASB policy when handling their reports.

Handling of the residents’ request for a management move.

The landlord reiterated its offer of a management move to the residents on occasions including 22 August 2019 and September 2019 when confirmed it had awarded them Band A priority banding which was the highest banding. The management move was previously offered and noted in its 10 August 2019 final response. These actions indicate the landlord was following through with what it had said it would do which was reasonable.
Initially the residents did not accept the landlord’s offer however after identifying a potential suitable alternative property on the lettings scheme, they advised the landlord that they were interested in an alternative property and wished to view it. The landlord advised that the existing tenant was still in occupation but said they would have first refusal if it became free.
Over the subsequent six months, the residents regularly asked for updates about the status of this property with a view to moving. The landlord’s response for the main part was that it had no updates to give them until 28 April 2020 when it told the residents that this property was no longer available. The landlord has since told this service this was because the existing tenant’s did not move out. As such this indicates they were not offered the management move to this property due to reasons outside the landlord’s control.
Having reviewed the landlord’s communications with the residents about this, overall, the landlord did make efforts to manage the residents’ expectations about this, nonetheless, the lack of any explanation provided to the residents when communicating this news, was unhelpful. Whilst the landlord has a responsibility to adhere to data protection requirements which meant it could not divulge any personal data, it could have provided some further explanation at the time.
It is acknowledged that there was a second property the residents requested to view which they had also seen on the lettings scheme however the landlord explained that to be eligible, they had to demonstrate a local connection which they were unable to do.

Complaint handling

The landlord operated a three stage complaints procedure at the time of the complaints. At stage “0” the landlord aimed to “put right” complaints as quickly as possible without the need for residents to go through its formal complaints process. Its policy stated that at stage one the landlord will provide a complaint response within 15 working days and at stage 2 a complaint response will be provided within 20 working days.
During the fourteen-month timeframe reviewed, the landlord received a high volume of communication from the residents, the majority of which concerned reports of ASB from the neighbour. However, the residents regularly raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of their ASB reports, including on 28 August 2019, 9 July 2020, 16 September 2020 and 13 October 2020. There is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord resolved these complaints, logged them as stage one complaints or that it escalated the complaints through its complaints process.
The landlord’s failure to treat any of the above-mentioned residents’ communications as a formal complaint is evidence of poor complaint handling. This resulted in a prolonged period of ongoing communications and repeated complaints made, not only about the substantive issues but about the landlord’s service provided when handling the issues. The landlord’s failure to respond through its complaints process prevented the residents the opportunity of escalating these to the Ombudsman. The landlord only provided a formal complaint response after the Ombudsman, on 23 March 2021, asked it to investigate and respond to the resident’s ASB reports using its internal complaints procedure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the residents’ reports of antisocial behaviour from their neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when handling the residents’ request for a management move.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the residents’ complaints.

Reasons

The landlord was not sufficiently proactive in its approach to addressing the residents’ ASB complaints raised over the course of more than fourteen months.
The landlord reasonably handled the residents’ requests for a management move to alternative properties.
The landlord failed to handle the residents’ repeated complaints made about its service through its complaint process.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:

Provide an apology to the residents for the service failures identified in this report.
Pay the residents £550 in compensation made up of:
1. £300 for failing to deal with ASB reports appropriately and;
2. £250 for complaint handling failures.
Reviews the learning from the service issues identified in this report and let the Ombudsman know how it will ensure ASB complaints are handled in accordance with its ASB policy, going forward.
Provide a formal response regarding the issuing of the NOSP.
Comply with the above orders within four weeks.