Bromford Housing Group Limited (202109189)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109189

Bromford Housing Group Limited

21 March 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the block, including fly-tipping, drug use and noise.
2. Reports of communal repairs.
3. Reports of pets being kept in the block.
4. Management transfer request.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lived in a one-bedroom, ground-floor flat under an assured tenancy, which began on 30 April 2018 at the time of this complaint. The resident moved out of this address in April 2022.
The resident has declared to the landlord that she has mental health conditions and has a support worker in place to support her with this.
The resident raised a complaint on 30 June 2021. She said the property was unsafe and unhygienic due to issues with the broken communal door, ASB, drug use and pet fouling. The resident also said that she was paying for services, such as grounds maintenance, that she was not receiving. She felt that the landlord had not complied with its policy timescales for complaints, repairs or replies to correspondence. The resident requested to be rehomed because of these issues.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 7 October 2021, in which it said:
1. It had logged and managed previous cases of ASB. It said that this did not warrant a panel referral at this time and therefore the resident’s request to be rehomed had been declined.
2. It had addressed the issue of pet smells within the block with individual residents and would continue to monitor this.
3. Its contractors had attended and undertaken grounds maintenance to cut back the areas of overgrown bushes and weeds.
The resident escalated her complaint on 27 June 2022. The landlord held a call with the resident two days later to understand the issues she wished to escalate; however no record has been provided of this call.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 July 2022, in which it said:
1. It acknowledged failings in providing timely responses to complaints and reports of ASB, repairs and other neighbourhood issues. This included failing to update the resident on actions taken or escalating issues beyond initial actions (such as sending a letter to residents). The landlord attributed this, in part, to not being able to access information from previous employees. The landlord apologised for these failings and offered £450 compensation.
2. It had failed to use its discretion in the resident’s reports of ASB. It apologised for this and offered £100 compensation.
3. It had not followed up on reports of noise transference. The landlord apologised for this and offered £100 compensation.
4. It acknowledged that there had been delays in repairing the communal doors, which left the property insecure. The landlord apologised and offered £150 compensation.
5. It had failed to adhere to elements of the resident’s tenancy agreement, including repair timescales, timely communication, management of the ASB and resolution of fly-tipping.
6. It had followed its procedures correctly in handling the resident’s request for a managed move but acknowledged that it should have done more to address the substantive issues that had left the resident feeling that she needed to move.
7. It could not prove one way or another, due to incomplete records, whether it had completed grounds maintenance as regularly as it should have been. The landlord offered a £100 goodwill gesture in respect of this.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 9 January 2023 seeking a full investigation into her case and redress for the distress, inconvenience and necessity she felt to move home.

Assessment and findings

General record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep complete and accurate records of its complaint stages and associated processes, such as repair logs, ASB records and other communication to and from its residents.
The Ombudsman sets out this expectation in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which states that landlords must:
1. Conduct investigations in “an impartial manner, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made.”
2. Ensure that it keeps a full record of the complaint, including “any review and the outcomes at each stage. This must include the original complaint and the date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties and any reports or surveys prepared.”
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM), which is available on our website, further highlights the need for effective record keeping with recommendations which include:
1. A minimum standard for key data recording, to ensure high quality records are available to support the wider business processes.
2. Ensuring that it has databases can be easily interrogated and that it can extract data when needed.
The Regulator of Social Housing also enforces good information management through its ‘Tenant involvement and empowerment standard’, which includes regulations which require the landlord to:
1. “Provide choices, information and communication that is appropriate to the diverse needs of their tenants.”
2. “Have an approach to complaints that is clear, simple and accessible that ensures that complaints are resolved promptly, politely and fairly.”
The resident in this case has complained regularly that the landlord has not correctly logged, actioned or followed up on correspondence that it had received from her or other third parties. She said that this included sensitive medical information from her mental health support team not being logged correctly or added to her records.
Following a request for evidence from the Ombudsman, the landlord has provided very limited records of its interactions with the resident, third parties or internally. Crucially, there are significant pieces of documentary evidence that the landlord has not produced, such as ASB records, correspondence with other residents neighbouring the complainant, grounds maintenance records or evidence of its processes or support around the resident’s request for a managed move.
The landlord has acknowledged on several occasions that the records it held for this resident were limited or not updated. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it had “minimal notes on [the resident’s] account for me to go on.” The same response acknowledged that it was not able to “see or obtain notes from the previous Neighbourhood Coaches” and that this meant it could not “confirm what actions they did or did not take.”
This has greatly limited the ability of the Ombudsman and the landlord itself to assess and monitor this case and is a significant failing by the landlord. Our Service has used other documentary evidence, including the accounts and records provided by the resident, to decide this case.

Reports of anti-social behaviour

The landlord’s policy adopts the definition of ASB given in Part 2 of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (‘the Act’), namely behaviour that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance. The policy says that the landlord will not investigate normal day-to-day business, differences in lifestyles or actions that relate to people being unpleasant, inconsiderate or thoughtless, that do not warrant its involvement.
Within its policy, the landlord outlines a range of possible interventions it could utilise, including warning letters, acceptable behaviour agreements, mediation and ultimately tenancy warnings or eviction. The policy says that it will respond to all ASB concerns within 5 days, or sooner if there is an imminent threat. This will include meeting with the complainant and deciding on next steps. Whilst cases are open, the landlord commits to reviewing this monthly.
The Act sets out a range of powers that the local authority, police or courts can utilise in cases of antisocial behaviour, including injunctions, community protection notices, criminal behaviour orders, closure orders and public space protection orders. Whilst the landlord could not apply many of these options directly, it can consider making referrals or applications to other multi-agency partners, where appropriate.
In her stage 1 complaint, the resident reported her neighbours for behaviour which she considered to be ASB including:
1. “Rowdy and nuisance behaviour,” including excessive noise, which the resident said the landlord’s staff witnessed on one occasion. On another occasion on 26 April 2021, the resident said that the police attended the property due to the level of noise.
2. Littering and fly-tipping on the estate. The resident said that the landlord had installed a “no smoking” sign and issued a warning letter to all tenants, but that no further practical action or follow-up was taken. The resident said that she first raised this in June 2018.
3. Drug use in the property and a smell of cannabis. The resident said that a drug dealer had intimidated her and, on one occasion, pushed her aside. The resident said that she first raised a concern about the smell of cannabis in the property in June 2018.
In correspondence with this Service, the resident indicated that there had been three significant incidents of ASB from her neighbour, including:
1. The incident noted above, when a drug dealer pushed her aside. The resident said that the police were called and attended the property for this incident.
2. An incident when she was on a telephone call with the landlord to inform them that her neighbour was selling kittens in the communal area of the property. The neighbour overheard this conversation and confronted the resident, including banging repeatedly on her door.
3. An occasion when the resident was having a meeting with the landlord’s staff in her property. During this meeting, both the resident and the landlord’s staff overheard the neighbour “smashing up” the property and threatening to stab other occupants of the building. The police were called and attended. The resident said this was witnessed by the landlord’s staff.
The resident said that she had reported these, and other issues much earlier than her stage 1 complaint, but the landlord had not logged these concerns, which caused a lack of action and a need for her to continually re-report the issue.
Despite the reports made by the resident, the landlord internally described the ASB as “very minor” and said that it did not warrant an ASB case being open. There has been no evidence presented to evidence this risk score, such as a risk assessment.
In communications with the resident, the landlord also said that it could not open an ASB case as she had not reported the matters to the police. From the evidence provided by the landlord, there is no indication that it communicated with the police, nor fully considered the resident’s reports, which indicated that the police had attended the property, in response to concerns, on several occasions.
The resident also noted that, on one occasion, after she had reported drug use in the block, she requested that the landlord refrain from acting for a few days, to avoid her being identified as the informant. The landlord acknowledged, in its stage 2 complaint response, that it failed to use its discretion to do this and acted immediately. The resident felt that this put her at risk of identification and reprisal from her neighbour.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response indicated that it had managed the ASB matters effectively and that the concerns raised did not warrant an ASB case being opened. Conversely, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response found that the landlord:
1. Had not followed up with the resident after she met with the neighbourhood coach in April 2021. It acknowledged that its records of this meeting and the follow up steps taken were limited.
2. Had not used its discretion to wait a few days before challenging ASB that the resident had reported, to mitigate her being identified by the alleged perpetrators.
3. Had not followed up effectively on concerns about excessive rubbish and fly-tipping.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response offered £400 compensation for this element of the complaint, comprised of:
1. £300 for its “failure to effectively communicate on reports made to [it] concerning anti-social behaviour and pets in the block.”
2. £100 for its failure “to apply discretion and adhere to [the resident’s] request to delay acting on reports of drug misuse by a few days.”
Overall, there were several failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, including:
1. A failure to follow its ASB policy and risk assess her concerns.
2. A failure to follow its ASB policy by not opening an ASB case on the grounds that the resident had not reported the matter to the police. The landlord’s policy does not indicate that this is prerequisite to an ASB case being opened. On the contrary, the policy indicates that it will seek to resolve the issue at the lowest level possible to avoid escalation.
3. A failure to work collaboratively with the police or acknowledge that the resident had previously had police involvement for the matters she was escalating.
4. A failure to use its discretion to wait before acting on the resident’s information about drug dealing in the property, therefore potentially putting her at increased risk.
5. Failures to correctly log incidents that the resident had reported. This meant that it did not have the full and correct information available when assessing the risk she was at, or her wider request for a management move. This also led to conflicting stage 1 and 2 complaint responses for the resident.
6. A failure to follow up on actions agreed in the meeting with the resident’s neighbourhood coach about pets in the building or fly-tipping.
These were significant and protracted failings by the landlord, which were worsened by its exceptionally poor record keeping. On this basis, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the ASB in this case, for which the existing remedy is not sufficient.

Communal repairs

During her complaint, the resident raised concerns about both the front and rear communal door being damaged, noise transference and poor standards of grounds maintenance, including overgrown weeds and bushes.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that residents reported issues with the communal front door on 13 December 2021 and 11 January 2022. Similar reports were made on 28 September 2020 and 18 March 2022 regarding the back door. A further report was made on 27 July 2021 regarding an “external door,” however the records do not indicate which door this relates to. These reports were in addition to the request for repairs in the resident’s complaint, its subsequent escalation and a meeting between the resident and her neighbourhood coach on 26 April 2021.
The landlord said, in its stage 2 complaint response, that it had repaired both doors on 13 May 2022. This means that the front door took around 13 months to repair and the back door around 20 months. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it should have attended and made the property secure within 24 hours. These delays were vastly in excess of this policy and this is maladministration.
The resident raised concerns in her stage 1 complaint that communal grounds maintenance was not being completed around her property. She was concerned that she was paying for a service that was not being delivered. In particular, the resident noted that weeds and bushes were overgrown and needed cutting back.
The landlord’s records indicate it carried out the remedial grounds maintenance on 28 August 2021 and both parties agreed subsequently that this was to a high standard. Notwithstanding this, the landlord noted in its stage 2 complaint response that it could not find records to indicate if it had completed previous grounds maintenance as regularly as it should have. The landlord apologised for this and offered the resident a £100 goodwill gesture.
The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about grounds maintenance effectively and the goodwill gesture was appropriate given the failings identified in its own record keeping. There was no maladministration in this element of the complaint.
The resident also raised concerns about noise transference in April 2021, which resulted in a surveyor attending the property on 5 August 2021. The landlord admitted in its stage 2 response that there had been no follow up on this and that it had previously incorrectly advised the resident to begin the repairs process again.
The landlord said that it would have expected further investigations to be undertaken and, if required, works to be commissioned through its own investment team or via a claim to the National House Building Council (NHBC) insurance scheme. It attributed this failing to a lack of communication and poor record keeping. The landlord apologised for this failing and offered £100 compensation in its stage 2 complaint response.
Given that the landlord did not fully assess or complete the works to reduce noise due to poor communication and record-keeping, and that the resident suffered additional distress and inconvenience as a result, therehas been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of noise transference in the property.
Overall, the landlord’s poor record keeping and communication hindered its ability to respond to these repair and service requests in a timely or effective way. This left the resident in a property that was insecure for extended periods of time and suffering potential detriment due to the levels of noise transference. These were significant failings by the landlord, for which its existing apologies and compensation is not sufficient.

Reports of pets being kept in the block

The resident reported as early as April 2021 that her neighbour was keeping dogs and other pets in her property. On some occasions, the resident said this was as many as five dogs. The resident also reported that she had seen her neighbour in the communal areas attempting to sell kittens.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement says that residents must obtain permission to have pets in their property. Its permissions policy outlines the process to be completed and names dogs and cats as pets that will usually be allowed, provided it is safe and does not cause a disturbance to other residents.
The landlord’s ASB policy also notes that excessive noise from pets, fouling or pets that are not kept under control may all constitute anti-social behaviour.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response indicated that it had handled these issues correctly, in line with its policies. The landlord did not provide any basis or justification for this claim.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it did not have records from previous neighbourhood coaches and other staff that the resident said she had previously reported this issue to. The landlord said, on this basis, it was unable to confirm what actions these individuals did or did not take. This was both a record-keeping and procedural failing by the landlord.
The landlord confirmed that its staff had spoken to the neighbours about their pets, but acknowledged that it had taken too long to do this and that the resident had not been kept updated.
The landlord apologised and offered £300 compensation for failing to effectively communicate with the resident about her reports of ASB and pets in the block.
The landlord has not provided any records of the meeting its neighbourhood coach had with the resident, nor any of her reports regarding pets. It has also not provided any record of permissions given, nor any discussions had with the resident’s neighbour. More widely, the landlord’s incomplete record-keeping is reflected in its stage 1 response, which indicated that its policy was being followed, but did not substantiate this claim.
Due to the lack of records, it is not possible for this Service to confirm what actions the landlord took or when these were completed. This is contrary to the landlord’s own policies and caused additional distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident to progress the matter to completion. This has also frustrated the Ombudsman’s ability to accurately assess this complaint. For these reasons, and given the protracted failings, the landlord’s existing remedy offered is not sufficient in this case and there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.

Resident’s request for a management transfer

The landlord’s lettings policy indicates that it will consider management transfers in exceptional circumstances. This may include when residents can no longer manage in their existing home or to resolve an issue when all other means have been exhausted. The policy also shows other methods that residents can utilise to move properties, including mutual exchange, applications to the housing register and applications via ‘Homes Direct’.
The resident said that she could no longer live in the property due to the impact it was having on her physical and mental health. As part of the complaint, the resident sought redress from the landlord for the impact of her living situation on her health and welfare, this is known as a personal injury claim. In particular, the resident stated that she had been forced to leave her property, take medication again and re-engage with therapy because of the landlord’s action.
This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, personal injury, therefore we will not consider this element of the resident’s complaint. This Service can give an opinion as to whether the landlord responded in a reasonable manner to the resident’s reports of illness, however, claims of personal injury must be decided by a court of law who can assess specialist medical evidence and make a judgement on the merits of the case. The Ombudsman understands that this situation has been very stressful for the resident and therefore she 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 lack thereof by the landlord.
In correspondence with our Service, the resident described “moving goalposts” each time she requested a move or sought an update. The resident said the progression of her request was as follows:
1. Following her initial request, she was told that there was insufficient evidence of the ASB to warrant a management move and the landlord encouraged her to provide additional evidence. The resident says that she did this for almost two years, but the landlord failed to log this correctly.
2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response indicated that the ASB was not significant enough to warrant a “panel referral” and that it had declined her request to move on these grounds. Internally, the landlord described the ASB experienced by the resident as “very minor”.
3. The resident was told that she needed to obtain medical evidence to support her application. The resident said that her mental health team became involved following a period of mental health crisis, which resulted in a hospital admission in April 2022. She said that the landlord “completely ignored, failed to act upon and take seriously the advice of [her] mental health team”.
4. The resident ended her tenancy in April 2022. She said that her family worried for her safety and assisted her with being rehoused.
5. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response said that it had handled the resident’s request correctly but acknowledged that it should have done more to address the substantive issues making the move necessary. Internally, the landlord’s complaint summary indicated that it had supported the resident to start other processes to move, including via mutual exchange or HomeSwapper. The resident disputes this and says that the landlord did not provide her with any support in this regard.
6. In an email dated 20 July 2022, the landlord said it could not have logged an ASB case as the resident had not reported her concerns to the police. The landlord said that it had acted correctly in reviewing her request for a management move, as it was still awaiting medical evidence at the time she moved out of the property, which it had not received. The resident disputes this and said that this had been sent directly to the landlord by her mental health support worker, but the landlord had failed to acknowledge or log this.
On balance, considering the resident’s vulnerabilities and the ongoing unresolved ASB, there is insufficient evidence to show that the landlord fully considered the resident’s request for a management move. In particular, given the lack of ASB records, its failure to complete a risk assessment and the acknowledgement that actions were not completed to address the ASB, it is unreasonable for it to assert that the ASB was not significant enough to warrant a move.
The landlord has not provided any evidence of the support it claims to have given the resident with finding accommodation via other routes, such as mutual exchange. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, particularly following the hospital admission in April 2022, the landlord should have proactively supported the resident to seek alternative accommodation either directly or through the involvement of third-party support services.
Ultimately, following the resident’s hospital admission, her family assisted her to move to another property. The resident attributes the need to move to the unresolved issues within the property and the lack of timely action by the landlord.
Taking these factors together, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move. Its processes caused additional distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident and her family and the landlord’s records do not support its assertions around the level of support it provided.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a two-stage complaint procedure. It commits to issuing stage 1 complaint responses in 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which was in force at the time of this complaint, and is available on our website, sets out a range of key principles that landlords must adhere to in their complaint handling processes. These include:
1. Attempting to resolve the complaints at the earliest possible stage, particularly where urgent actions are required.
2. The importance of the landlord keeping accurate records of the complaint, including associated reports, surveys and other supporting documents.
3. The need for the landlord to look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether anything needs to be put right in its processes or systems to benefit all its residents.
The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 30 June 2021 and the landlord issued its response on 7 October 2021, 71 working days later. The landlord acknowledged this failing in its stage 2 complaint response and noted that this had frustrated the resident being able to escalate her complaint. The landlord also noted that the resident had followed up on her complaint on at least three occasions in the interim, due to the extended timeframe.
The landlord apologised for this delay and offered £150 compensation for these failures and the associated lack of communication or updates. Given the substantial delay and the need for the resident to repeatedly chase an update, this is not sufficient redress in this case.
There were also several instances where the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses contradicted one another. For example, one response said that it had followed its ASB processes correctly, while the later response found several failings in its handling and awarded compensation. This can, in part, be attributed to the landlord’s very poor record keeping on these matters, but also indicates a wider issue with identifying faults and possible learning in the complaints process.
It is noted that following completion of the complaint process, the landlord considered the complaint again and increased the total compensation it had awarded by £331.68. The landlord attributed this to credit on the resident’s rent account at the date when she told it she was vacating the property. It is important to note that a refund of credit is not compensation. Similarly, the landlord should ensure that all considerations of compensation and redress are made within the complaint process, as this avoids unnecessary extensions, which delay the residents receiving their final redress.
It was positive to note that the landlord involves a resident within its stage 2 complaint deliberations. This is a visible attempt to involve residents in a collaborative way in its processes and is an example of good practice.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint process was ineffective for several reasons, including:
1. Significant delays in issuing the stage 1 complaint response and a lack of demonstrable learning to resolve this or prevent a reoccurrence.
2. Conflicting stage 1 and 2 complaint responses.
3. A lack of learning identified or actioned. The stage 2 complaint response, in particular, identified a range of failings, for which the landlord apologised and offered compensation. The landlord did not outline what action it intended to take to prevent a reoccurrence.
4. Additional compensation being offered after the resident had exhausted the complaint process, rather than considering this as part of the complaint stages. This serves to elongate the complaint and cause the resident additional time and trouble in obtaining the redress. In this case, the additional compensation was also actually a refund of overpaid rent.
For these reasons, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for communal repairs.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the block, including fly-tipping, drug use and noise.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of communal repairs.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pets being kept in the block.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer request.
6. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior officer to apologise to the resident in person for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the £1331.68 compensation previously offered in its complaint responses, if it has not already done so. This compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to the rent account, unless this is requested by the resident.
3. Pay the resident further compensation of £1950, comprised of:
  1. £600 for the landlord’s record keeping failures across all aspects of this complaint which caused the resident additional distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in pursuing the complaint and the associated matters to completion.
  2. £400 for the landlord’s failure to follow its ASB policy, which caused the resident significant additional distress and inconvenience over a protracted period.
  3. £800 for the landlord’s failure to properly consider the resident’s request for a management move, which caused her significant additional distress, inconvenience, time and trouble over a protracted period, prior to her leaving the property with the support of her family.
  4. £150 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures identified in this determination.

This compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to the rent account, unless this is requested by the resident.

Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Undertake a comprehensive review of its record-keeping practices. The review must include a self-assessment against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. The review must also specifically highlight the cause of record-keeping failures in this case, any learning identified and an action plan to implement the required changes in a timescale not exceeding six weeks.
2. Undertake a comprehensive case review of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. This review must assess the following as a minimum:
  1. Why key information and reports made by the resident were not logged appropriately.
  2. Why the landlord failed to risk assess this case in line with its policy.
  3. Why the landlord failed to use its discretion to delay addressing drug use within the block.
  4. Why key actions were not followed up with the resident.

The review must highlight any learning identified and include an action plan to implement the required changed in a timescale not exceeding 6 weeks.

Undertake a comprehensive case review of its handling of communal repairs. The review must assess why there were substantial delays in repairs to the communal doors and noise transference works. The review must include any learning identified and an action plan to implement the required changes in a timescale not exceeding six weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Review its training for staff involved in the identification and logging of ASB, repairs and permission requests to ensure that it is fit for purpose considering the failings identified in this determination.