Believe Housing Limited (202312112)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312112

Believe Housing Limited

29 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the resident’s request for a subject access request (SAR).
    2. the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    3. arrangements it made with the resident to conduct an electrical safety check.
    4. the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
    5. the resident’s request for additional fencing.
    6. the resident’s concerns about his rent account.
    7. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house which the resident lives in with his wife. The property has a shared area of land in between the next row of semi-detached houses. This area is shared with his neighbour who is a private resident. To the rear of the properties there are open-access gardens, separated by low level picket fences. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The resident has reported instances of ASB from his neighbour for some years. The landlord investigated the matter as part of a formal complaint which concluded in February 2022. It explained to the resident that it had limited powers to act on his reports because his neighbour was a private resident. He was offered mediation, advised to keep a diary record of events and told to contact the local authority ASB team or the police about any further concerns.
  3. Between March 2022 and March 2023, the landlord tried on several occasions to gain access to the property to carry out an electrical safety check. On 4 April 2023 the resident was served with a notice of seeking possession (NOSP). The following day, he attended the landlord’s office and made a formal complaint. He advised that:
    1. He was unhappy with the way the landlord had handled the electrical safety check appointment.
    2. He was dissatisfied with the way it had handled his reports of ASB, and wanted to request a SAR for all data pertaining his records since his neighbour moved in. He was keen to know whether any counter allegations had been made against him.
    3. He wanted reassurance that he was not in rent arrears and requested a copy of his rent statement.
    4. He was unclear whether his property was affected by radon gas and wanted an explanation as to whether he should be concerned.
    5. He felt he had been missed from letters sent to residents about a stock condition survey.
    6. He wanted hard copies of the landlord’s complaint policies, including previously published versions.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process on 20 April 2023. It said that:
    1. There had been numerous attempts to contact him and gain access for the electrical safety inspection. The reasons why the NOSP had been served had been explained to him and it was served correctly.
    2. There had been no recent reports of ASB made against him. It reiterated it was limited as to what actions it could take from his reports as his neighbour was a private resident. It signposted him to the local authority ASB team and the police.
    3. There were no rent arrears on his account. It provided him with reassurance that arrears did not form part of the NOSP it had served for no access.
    4. An information sheet had been sent to him about radon gas and its specialist officer was happy to talk to him if he had further concerns.
    5. A stock condition survey was undertaken in 2018 and he was not contacted about further surveys as its records were up to date.
    6. He had already been provided a copy of his rent statement between November 2015 and January 2021. Further rent statements from January 2021 onwards were being processed as part of his request for a SAR, as well as information related to his reports of ASB. The information would be provided by 9 May 2023.
    7. It had provided him with the current complaint policy and procedure. Previous versions of the policy were not subject to the Freedom of Information Act and therefore it was not required to provide them to him.
  5. The resident requested that his complaint was escalated on 5 May 2023. The landlord asked the resident on several occasions if he could clarify why he was dissatisfied with its response. Around the same time the resident suffered a bereavement. He requested that his complaint be put “on hold” and asked it to consider installing another fence to ensure his back garden was secure.
  6. Throughout May 2023 the landlord was in contact with the resident about the installation of a smoke alarm. The resident alleged the officer who had tried to coordinate the appointment was “malicious and harassing” him because she had sent him a text message from a personal mobile device.
  7. On 31 May 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and said that it was sorry that it had been a difficult time for his family. It explained that as he had not clarified why he wanted his complaint escalating to the next stage, it could not provide a stage 2 response. However, it wanted to update him as follows:
    1. It was sorry he had been contacted about the installation of the smoke alarm during his period of bereavement. Due to the health and safety implications, it was important that he allowed access for the works to be completed.
    2. Staff would communicate with residents from time to time using work mobile phones. If he could provide the number that was used by the member of staff to send him a text message, it could check whether it was a work or personal device.
    3. It had explained on several occasions why it was limited on what actions it could take against his neighbour but had liaised with the local authority about his reports. His concerns about an iron gate had been investigated in a previous complaint and it was found that his neighbour had not acted unlawfully by removing it. It was not its responsibility to erect an additional fence, but he was welcome to contact its tenant led alterations team for permission to install one at his own expense.
    4. It wanted to reassure him again that there were no rent arrears on his account.
    5. It had reviewed his recent correspondence in accordance with its person of interest policy and wanted to make him aware that some of his communication had been unacceptable. It wanted to continue to support him, but any repeated requests related to matters it had already responded to may not be answered.
  8. The resident approached the Ombudsman in July 2023. On 14 November 2023 the landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 complaint response. It explained that:
    1. It did not uphold his complaint and reiterated the points it had made to him on 31 May 2023. It said it was sorry that its correspondence on this date had not been addressed as a formal stage 2 response and offered him £25 in compensation for the failure in service. It assured him that it had taken learning from his experience and would ensure that it was more transparent in responding to residents who requested an escalation of their complaint.
    2. He had since raised other matters which were not part of his original complaint, but it wanted to address them so that he was clear on its response. These matters related to:
      1. Concerns about the presence of asbestos. The matter was concluded as part of a previous complaint in 2014 after an independent surveyor tested the area and confirmed it was safe.
      2. Reports of animal cruelty. He had been signposted to the police and the organisation responsible for the prevention of cruelty to animals (RSPCA).
      3. Harassment, invasion of privacy and allegations of inconsiderate parking of his neighbour. The advice it had given about his neighbour remained the same and it was limited in what actions it could take as they were a private resident.
  9. In correspondence with the Ombudsman on 18 October 2024 the resident advised that his neighbour had been “quiet” for the past year. In order to resolve his complaint, he wanted the landlord to take ownership of any future reports of ASB against his neighbour. He wanted an apology from the landlord and the NOSP that was served on him “dismissed”. He also requested that the landlord install a fence in the back garden.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
  3. On 5 April 2023 the resident made a SAR. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 April 2023 as part of its stage 1 complaint response and said he could expect to receive the information he had requested by 9 May 2023.
  4. The resident remains dissatisfied with the information he was provided within the SAR. On 27 August 2024 and 18 October 2024, the Ombudsman explained to the resident that the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) is the body responsible for considering complaints about data. As a result, the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  5. Should the resident wish to contact the ICO for further assistance, details can be found at https://ico.org.uk/

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman recognises that the situation has caused the resident distress as he has reported dissatisfaction with several tenancy related matters over a prolonged period. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact his living conditions had on his and his wife’s health. The Ombudsman does not underestimate the resident’s concerns. However, unlike a court the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
  2. This assessment is based on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline. It may help to explain the scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be time-limited in relation to when a complaint was brought to our attention. It is noted that the resident has reported ASB from his neighbour over several years. The matter was investigated as part of a previous complaint made to the landlord and was closed in February 2022. The resident did not refer the matter to the Ombudsman at the time. Therefore, the assessment of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB are focussed on the events from January 2023 onwards, which is the date from which the resident raised new concerns about the behaviour of his neighbour.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy explains that in most cases, the policy applies to ASB reports relating to its tenants or anyone living in or visiting one of the landlord’s properties. It explains that only in “serious cases” would it consider taking action against someone who is not a tenant of the landlord.
  2. In his reports to the landlord in January 2023, the resident alleged that his neighbour was harassing his wife and his dog. He did not give the landlord specific details of any dates or times the events took place, nor did he provide it with supporting evidence or details of witnesses to the incidents. This hindered the landlord’s ability to gain a full understanding of the resident’s experience.
  3. For the landlord to consider whether the behaviour of the private resident met the threshold for it to take further action, it was appropriate that it contacted partner agencies to see what evidence there was to support the resident’s claims. Records show that the landlord contacted the local authority ASB team and the police in a timely manner. Its decision to discuss the matter with its partner agencies was appropriate and in accordance with good practice set out within the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
  4. The police acknowledged that it had investigated reports of criminal damage made by the resident in the past, but the case was closed due to lack of evidence. Both agencies confirmed that they had received no recent reports from the resident. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to conclude that his reports did not meet the threshold for an investigation under its ASB policy.
  5. Where reports of ASB do not meet the threshold for an investigation, then landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct from its ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbour relationships. This should include mediation, which should be offered to residents at the earliest opportunity to establish a mutual understanding of each other’s lifestyles. There is evidence to show the landlord has offered it to the resident on several occasions in the past, but he responded that he will “never ever consider mediation” with his neighbours. The option to refer the resident to mediation should remain should he wish to reconsider the landlord’s offer.
  6. The response the landlord provided the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process on 20 April 2023 was proportionate and fair. He was reminded to keep a record of any alleged incidents including the date, time, a description of what happened and details of any witnesses. He was also advised to report incidents to the local authority and the police as the lead agencies to investigate his concerns which was appropriate.
  7. In May 2023 the resident continued to report his neighbour to the landlord and alleged that they had been responsible for fly-tipping grass cuttings into his garden. The landlord continued to liaise with the police and the local authority about his claims which was appropriate. The landlord explained to the resident again that it was limited as to what actions it could take as the neighbour was a private resident, which was reasonable. Evidence shows that the landlord acted promptly on the resident’s concerns and tried to manage his expectations. It gave adequate and consistent explanations as to why his reports did not meet the threshold for an investigation under its ASB policy on several occasions.
  8. Overall and in accordance with its ASB policy, the landlord has provided the resident with realistic advice about what action it can reasonably take against his neighbour who is a private resident. The explanations the landlord has given the resident have been consistent and clear, and he has been provided with appropriate advice about the best placed agency to investigate his concerns. As a result, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of arrangements it made with the resident to conduct an electrical safety check

  1. In accordance with his tenancy agreement, the resident must allow the landlord, its employees, contractors or agent access to the property to inspect the condition and carry out safety checks or any repairs as necessary. The importance of allowing access to the property is also highlighted within the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy. Repeated failure to allow access to the property would put the resident in breach of his tenancy agreement.
  2. The landlord was obliged to carry out electrical safety checks to meet its obligations under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and section 9A and 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It was therefore important that the landlord was able to gain access to the property to ensure the health and safety of the resident. The evidence shows that the landlord had considerable difficulties in gaining access over a prolonged period. It made approximately 14 attempts to contact the resident to arrange an appointment between March 2022 and March 2023.
  3. Records show that the landlord used various methods to get in contact with the resident over approximately 1 year including by phone, email, text message, letter and in person. It was appropriate for the landlord to try different methods of contact where previous attempts had failed. This demonstrated its commitment to ensure that the property was safe, and that the resident understood the importance of the appointment.
  4. The resident explained to the landlord that electrical checks had been completed in the past and therefore he did not believe further tests were warranted. However, the landlord was entitled to rely on expert advice from its qualified staff as to the schedule of electrical checks. Internal correspondence shows that it liaised with its specialist teams in 2022 about the testing programme before contacting the resident to arrange the appointment which was appropriate.
  5. The resident alleged that the landlord’s repeated attempts at contact had left him feeling “deliberately targeted and bullied” and he accused the landlord of “relentless acts of authoritarianism”. There is no evidence to suggest this was the case. It had explained to him the importance of the electrical check and why it was required on several occasions. The landlord’s letter on 14 March 2023 explained in sufficient detail the purpose of the check and what he could expect during the visit. This demonstrated that the landlord was committed to managing the resident’s expectations and highlighted the importance of why access was required.
  6. The resident alleged that he informed the landlord that it could attend the property on Monday 3 April 2023 to carry out the safety check and therefore the service of the NOSP the following day came as a surprise. There is no evidence that the resident discussed what dates he may be available for the appointment with the landlord, or that his request had consequently been ignored. Conversely, there is evidence that he told the landlord on 29 March 2023 that he was refusing access until he received a second letter from the landlord about why the test was needed. As explained above, the landlord’s justification for why the test was required had already been explained clearly to him in its letter dated 14 March 2023.
  7. The resident alleged he was served a NOSP “without solid reason”. Given the difficulties the landlord had experienced in gaining access to the property over a prolonged period, it was reasonable for it to consider more affirmative action. The decision to serve the resident with a NOSP on 4 April 2023 was proportionate and fair. The NOSP was accompanied by a letter which explained why the landlord felt the resident was in breach of his tenancy agreement, and he was signposted to seek legal advice which was appropriate.
  8. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of arrangements it made with the resident to conduct an electrical safety check. It had a legal obligation to ensure that it conducted the appropriate safety checks, and the resident was given ample notice of appointments over a considerable period of time. The landlord’s decision to serve a NOSP was proportionate, and the resident was signposted appropriately to seek his own independent legal advice.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct

  1. The resident said that he received “unsolicited contact” from the landlord about its request to install a smoke alarm. The landlord was obliged to carry out works relating to the safety of the property to meet its obligations under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and section 9A and 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to arrange the appointment.
  2. The resident alleged that the landlord acted insensitively by contacting him about the smoke alarm during a period of bereavement around May 2023. The Ombudsman does not underestimate that this time was difficult for the resident and his family. On 31 May 2023 the landlord apologised to the resident for contacting him during a difficult time, but explained the importance of ensuring the smoke alarm was fitted. The landlord’s response was reasonable and demonstrated that while it was empathetic to the resident’s circumstances, it still had to balance its legal obligation to ensure the property was safe.
  3. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the behaviour of a particular member of staff who he reported was “malicious and harassing” in her text communication about the smoke alarm. No evidence has been provided to the Ombudsman which demonstrates that the member of staff was acting maliciously, rather that she was trying to coordinate the appointment after being unsuccessful in contacting him by telephone which was appropriate. Furthermore, the resident had corresponded with the same member of staff via text message in the past about the electrical checks, therefore it was reasonable for them to assume that it had been an acceptable method of contact.
  4. The landlord took the resident’s reports that the member of staff had sent text messages from a personal device seriously. Within its response to the resident on 31 May 2023, the landlord asked him to provide details of the number the message was sent from, so it could investigate the matter further. The resident did not provide the landlord with this information, and therefore the landlord was limited as to what further action it could take. The landlord’s explanation that staff were otherwise able to communicate with residents using work issued devices was reasonable.
  5. Once the resident requested that there was no further contact with him by text message, there is no evidence that the landlord continued to communicate with him via this method. It is important to note that whilst the landlord has respected the resident’s wish not to text him, it still has an obligation to contact him about tenancy related matters. The resident can therefore expect the landlord to continue to communicate with him via other contact methods as appropriate.
  6. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. Its staff tried to engage with him about an important appointment related to health and safety matters which was appropriate. When the resident reported that a member of staff had communicated with him using a personal device, the landlord took the matter seriously. After he requested that the landlord ceased communication via text message, there is no evidence that it continued to do so.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for additional fencing.

  1. The resident has explained to the Ombudsman that the landlord landscaped his garden in 2021, and he was happy with the outcome. He explained that around that time, a member of staff visited him and offered to install additional fencing. While the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s claim, there is no evidence that additional fencing was offered to him.
  2. On 30 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and said that his back garden had been left exposed due to the removal of the iron gate on his neighbour’s side in 2021. He asked the landlord to install an additional fence to deter any potential criminal activity. The landlord acted promptly on the resident’s concerns. It responded to him the next working day, referring him to the terms of his tenancy agreement. It explained that due to the ownership and open access of the land, it was not obliged to erect any additional fencing which secured his garden from the front of the property.
  3. Overall, the landlord’s response on the matter was reasonable. It responded to the resident in a timely manner and agreed to consider a request via its tenant led alterations team for him to erect an additional fence to the back garden at his own cost. As a result, there was no maladministration found in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for additional fencing.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his rent account

  1. For context, the resident has explained to the Ombudsman he had historic issues with his housing benefit payments and the amount he paid as bedroom tax, which at times caused a negative balance on his rent account. The resident advised he was in touch with the local authority about the issue at the time and they eventually provided him with a rebate to backdate the outstanding amount.
  2. Any eligibility for housing benefit is considered by the local authority. It is understandable that the resident’s rent account with the landlord would have shown a negative balance at times whilst his housing benefit was being investigated and particularly if it was paid in arrears. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman does not underestimate the worry the situation may have caused the resident.
  3. In making his complaint to the landlord, the resident explained that he had consistently paid his rent on time and wanted reassurance that he was not in rent arrears. Records show that the landlord reassured the resident in each complaint correspondence it sent on 20 April 2023, 31 May 2023 and 14 November 2023 that it did not consider his rent account to be in arrears and would not be taking any further action against him.
  4. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his rent account. Its explanation was consistent and provided the resident with reassurance in writing that it did not consider him to breach of his tenancy agreement for rent arrears.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident first made his complaint to the landlord on 5 April 2023. He attended the landlord’s office in person and the member of staff logging the complaint took substantial notes about all the matters he was dissatisfied with, which was appropriate.
  2. In accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy at the time, the resident could expect a response within 10 working days. The landlord responded within that time, and its stage 1 response was comprehensive, setting out all that the resident was unhappy with into 11 key points. This demonstrated that the landlord had a sound understanding of his concerns and applied its response to each element individually which was reasonable.
  3. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response at stage 1, but he did not express his reasons why. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time of the resident’s complaint said that if any aspect of the reason for escalation was unclear, the landlord must seek clarification and the full definition of outstanding concerns must be agreed by both parties. The landlord sought to clarify why the resident was dissatisfied on several occasions which was reasonable, particularly because there were so many aspects to his complaint.
  4. On 10 May 2023 the resident explained that as he had suffered a bereavement, he wanted his complaint put “on hold”. The landlord acknowledged his request and on 12 May 2023 it wrote to him to explain that it would leave his complaint open for a further 10 working days to provide clarification of what he remained dissatisfied with. This was reasonable and demonstrated empathy with the resident’s situation. Records show that the resident responded to the landlord and said he was thankful for the support it had shown him.
  5. After the 10 working days had passed, the landlord contacted the resident again and reiterated much of what it did within its stage 1 complaint response. It explained that as he had not provided it with a rationale for why he wanted to escalate his complaint, it had taken steps to close it. This was a fair approach by the landlord as it could not keep the resident’s complaint open indefinitely without an understanding of what element he felt it had not investigated, or what aspect he disagreed with.
  6. Records show that the resident got back in contact with the landlord on 30 May 2023. While he did not explain the reason for an escalation of his complaint, he expressed his general dissatisfaction with the landlord and raised new matters that he was unhappy with. The landlord replied to the resident with a comprehensive response the next day. Although it explained that it could not escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 due to the lack of explanation he had provided, its response did resemble a final assessment of his complaint.
  7. While the correspondence the landlord sent to the resident on 31 May 2023 resembled a final complaint response and was detailed and comprehensive, the landlord’s failure to record it formally at stage 2 caused confusion at a later date. As a result, the Ombudsman had to intervene. On 17 October 2023 it was asked to provide the resident with a final written response, which the landlord provided within the requested timeframe.
  8. The landlord’s final response was an opportunity for it to apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of “be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. On 14 November 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident with a formal conclusion to his complaint. It also included responses to new matters the resident had raised, for example, about asbestos, which demonstrated a willingness to resolve all of the resident’s apprehensions about a number of tenancy related matters.
  9. While the final response was detailed and comprehensive, it was sent by the same person who had written the stage 1 response. This did not demonstrate fairness and impartiality, and it was not compliant with the guidance set out within the Code. The Code made it clear that the person considering a complaint at stage 2 must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage 1.
  10. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to write to the resident formally in May 2023 at stage 2 of its complaint process, which was appropriate. To put matters right, the landlord apologised and offered the resident £25 in compensation. The amount it offered the resident was made in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy in place at the time and was fair. It took into consideration that it had provided the resident with a comprehensive response to his concerns on 31 May 2023, albeit it had not labelled it formally at stage 2.
  11. It is understood that the landlord experienced difficulties communicating with the resident. Despite explaining to him on several occasions that it was limited as to what action it could reasonably take against his neighbour, the resident continued to report the same concerns as a complaint about the landlord’s service.
  12. The landlord has a person of interest policy, distinct from its complaint policy, which sets out its response to unreasonable demands or persistence where there “is a continual refusal to accept explanations about services provided”. The policy has an associated procedure which explains what steps the landlord needs to take to address behaviour it feels meets the requirements.
  13. While it was reasonable for the landlord to highlight to the resident how his communication was impacting its complaint investigation, it failed to address the matter separately and in accordance with its person of interest procedure. This left the resident feeling as though the landlord had not taken into consideration how his medical condition impacted his communication, causing him frustration. To date, it remains unclear whether the warning it gave the resident about his behaviour within its response on 31 May 2023 was informal or whether the resident’s communication is being regularly reviewed in line with its person of interest policy.
  14. It is important that where service failure has been identified, landlords take the opportunity to learn from outcomes. This is to ensure that future service delivery is improved for other residents, and to avoid the same situation occurring again. In this case, the landlord said that it needed to ensure that complaint responses at stage 2 were more transparent which was reasonable. However, it fell short in identifying full learning from the resident’s experience.
  15. It is not until after the resident’s complaint came to the Ombudsman that the landlord conducted an audit of the resident’s complaint and took additional learning. This included recognition of the failure to have an independent person investigate his concerns at stage 2. To improve its service in the future, it has recently updated its complaints and compensation policies in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance and best practice which is appropriate. It has also updated its person of interest policy.
  16. While these steps demonstrate clear service improvements, they cannot be considered reasonable redress because the learning took place after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure, and only after the involvement of the Ombudsman. As a result, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of his request for a subject access request (SAR) is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of arrangements it made with the resident to conduct an electrical safety check.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
  6. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration found in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for additional fencing.
  7. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration found in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his rent account.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures noted in this report relating to its handling of the associated complaint.
    2. Explain what it has learnt from his complaint experience and what steps it has taken to improve its service delivery.
    3. Discuss whether there are any vulnerabilities in the household it needs to take into consideration, so it can update its records accordingly.
    4. Explain whether it is monitoring his communication under its person of interest policy.