Clarion Housing Association Limited (202009100)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009100

Clarion Housing Association Limited

25 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)
2. the resident’s reports of noise disturbance
3. the resident’s reports of the lack of maintenance of the neighbour’s garden including dog fouling
4. the related complaint

Background and summary of events

The resident has a lease which commenced on 10 November 2006.
The landlord’s ASB policy recognises that incidents of ASB can have a negative impact on its residents. It states that category one ASB occurs where it is the result of criminal activity, that residents are expected to report the criminal behaviour to the police and outlines that the statutory agencies are expected to take the appropriate enforcement action.

It recognises that victims may be reluctant to report incidents to the police and will offer support in those situations. In addition, it will collaborate with the police to take action to enforce tenancy conditions and will take its own legal action including the use of injunctions.

It will investigate other forms of ASB within five working days and following investigation, if necessary, remove items without investigating the substantive problem.

The landlord operates a two-stage complaint procedure with complaints at the first stage resolved within ten working days and within 20 working days at the final stage.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out to resolve issues and that for some situations an award of compensation may be appropriate to address service failures. The policy sets out the different levels of compensation awards and that it will offer awards between £50 to £250 where it has failed to meet its service standards but there has been no significant impact on the resident.
The resident’s complaint concerns a neighbour who is a tenant of the landlord and is the alleged perpetuator of the reported ASB. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement; therefore, it will not be possible to comment on the tenancy conditions that apply to the neighbour.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that there have been long-standing reports of ASB regarding allegations of drug taking, excessive noise and dog fouling.
The landlord’s ASB records that it received reports in August 2018 and September 2018 regarding allegations of drug taking and excessive noise by the resident’s neighbour. It held a case review on 21 February 2019 and closed the ASB case as no further incidents were reported.
The landlord ASB records shows that the resident contacted the landlord on 2 April 2019 to advise that the police had attended the neighbour’s address as four windows had been smashed and had carried out an arrest. In addition, he reported that he had been informed by a third party that the resident had been arguing with his girlfriend.
In response the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it had written to the neighbour about his behaviour. It followed this up with a telephone call on 16 May 2019 to advise that it had visited the neighbour’s address and the neighbour had not complied with the warning that it had issued, therefore it intended to start legal action.
The landlord obtained an injunction with a power of arrest against the neighbour on 10 July 2019 which forbade the neighbour to:
1. use or threaten violence to neighbours and to the landlord’s staff
2. engage in conduct causing or likely to cause harassment
3. consume or possess any prohibited drug as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or allow any of his visitors to do so.

The injunction expired on 8 July 2021.

The resident was sent a copy of the court order on 8 August 2019 and advised to report to the landlord if there were any further occurrences of ASB.
The landlord contacted the resident on 13 August 2019 to obtain an update and was informed that the ASB had improved but the neighbour’s garden was in a bad condition. In response, the landlord wrote to the resident on 14 August 2019 to advise that the ASB complaint would be closed and that it would take tenancy action regarding the complaint about the garden.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 August 2019 to report that there was dumped rubbish in the neighbour’s garden and the landlord responded the following day (20 August 2019), advising that it did not intend to investigate the report and arranged for the rubbish to be removed.
The landlord confirmed on 18 September 2019 that it had closed the ASB case regarding the allegations of drug use.
The landlord opened a new ASB case on 11 October 2019 in response to the resident’s report that on 6 October 2019 that on numerous occasions he had smelt cannabis from the neighbour’s property, and he had reported this to the police. The landlord discussed whether the resident would provide a witness statement in relation to the reports he had made, the resident stated that he was reluctant to do so. The landlord informed the resident that it would write to the neighbour to remind him of the terms of the injunction, that it would need strong evidence before it could take further action for breach of the injunction. That it would consider making an application for a committal hearing. It requested that the resident complete diary sheets, continue making reports to the police and that it would investigate his concerns regarding the dog fouling and the number of dogs resident at the property.
The landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour on 18 October 2019 advising him that it had received further complaints regarding dog fouling, smell of cannabis, condition of the front and rear garden and reminding him of the terms and conditions of the injunction. It requested that the neighbour arrange for the second dog at his property to be rehomed.
The resident reported to the landlord on 28 October 2019 that on 25 October 2019 that his window was damaged following an altercation at the neighbour’s property. He advised that he had reported this to the police and had obtained a crime reference number.
The landlord contacted the police on 28 October 2019 to request disclosure regarding the incidents reported by the resident.
The resident informed the landlord on 7 November 2019 that he had made reports to the police regarding the smell of cannabis from the neighbour’s property. It is noted that the landlord carried out a visit to the neighbour’s property on 11 November 2019 following damage to his windows.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 22 November 2019 to arrange a visit for 9 December 2019 to carry out an inspection of the property and the garden. On the same day, it wrote to the resident requesting the information he had shared with the police, that the police could take action for breaches of the injunction, that the police were not taking action regarding the damage to his neighbour’s windows and that it would be carrying out a visit to the neighbour’s property on 9 December 2019 to remind him the terms of the injunction served on the resident.
The resident informed the landlord on 2 December 2019 that he had informed the police of the dates that he had smelt cannabis from the neighbour’s property, that he believed that the neighbour had two dogs at his property and that the neighbour was disposing of the dog faeces in the general bins which was causing an unbearable smell. The landlord advised that it intended to visit the neighbour on 9 December 2019, and it would provide him with an update.
On the same day, the resident provided the landlord with a list of dates when he had smelt cannabis from 1 August 2019 to 1 December 2019. In response, the landlord requested that he continue making reports to the police and to them.
On 11 December 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to provide an update following its visit on 9 December 2019. It advised that it had discussed the second dog and the friend staying at the address with the neighbour. In addition, that:
1. the second dog would be rehomed by 15 January 2020
2. the friend staying at the address was also required to leave by that date
3. during the visit it did not witness the smell of cannabis and that the neighbour disputed that the smell originated from his address.
4. it had inspected the property and the garden; while there was no evidence of dog mess, the neighbour had been advised to tidy the garden.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 December 2019 to report that following its visit the garden had been cleared. However, the visitor had returned and he did not believe that the landlord had addressed the drug use with the neighbour when it visited his property and provided details of a third party who could witness the smell of cannabis. The landlord responded the same day (12 December 2019) and confirmed that the smell of cannabis had been discussed during the visit with the neighbour, that going forward it planned to take unannounced visits that the situation would be monitored.
The resident reported on 19 December 2019 that on three separate occasions over the past ten days, he had smelt cannabis from the neighbour’s property and outlined his concern about the number of people entering and leaving the resident’s address. He advised that he was going to contact the police regarding the installation of CCTV and that the smell from the bins were horrendous as they were filled with dog faeces.
The landlord responded the following day (20 December 2019) requesting further details regarding the allegation of the smell of cannabis from the neighbour’s property and that it would write to the neighbour advising him to properly dispose of the dog faeces. The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 23 December 2019 regarding the dog faeces, that it would take unannounced visits to monitor the maintenance of the garden and it would start legal action for breach of the injunction.
The landlord updated the resident on 24 December 2019 advising that a warning letter had been sent regarding the reported issues – smell of cannabis, disposal of the dog faeces and that the second dog was to be rehomed.
The landlord made an unannounced visit on 10 January 2020. The neighbour was not home – it noted that there was no smell of cannabis and observed that the dog waste visible was probably from one dog.
The resident made a further report on 14 January 2020 regarding the slamming of internal doors, provided a list of dates of times between 5 January 2020 to 12 January 2020 that he was affected. He advised of the stress that the ASB was causing him. The landlord responded on 20 January 2020 reiterating the action it was taking – unannounced visits occurring at different times of the day to witness the smells of cannabis and that if there was a breach of the injunction it could act as a professional witness rather than relying on residents to do so.
Following a partnership meeting between the local councillor, police and the Council’s environmental health team on 17 January 2020, it was agreed for the landlord to visit the neighbour’s home on 24 January 2020 with the police to discuss the reported issues regarding the smell of cannabis.
The resident reported that there were young people at the neighbour’s property and that he had experienced loud music and shouting on 21 January 2020. In response the landlord, on the same day, set out the measures it could take and asked the resident whether he was willing to act as a witness. The resident declined and was given until 24 January 2020 to give a final decision.
The landlord contacted the resident on 23 January 2020 and asked whether he was willing to speak to its specialised ASB team who provided information on the advantages and disadvantages of the landlord undertaking possession action and the use of the resident’s evidence. The resident confirmed that he was unwilling to act as a witness, that it could not use his anonymised evidence apart from the allegation that he had heard banging noises from the property. The ASB specialist confirmed that having visitors was not considered a breach of tenancy unless they were creating a nuisance.
It is noted that the landlord received confirmation on 23 January 2020 that the dog had been rehomed and the visitor had left.
It is noted that the visit scheduled for 24 January 2020 was rearranged for the 19 February 2020 at the neighbour’s property and that the landlord contacted other neighbours regarding the complaints of music and the smell of cannabis.
On 29 January 2020, the resident confirmed to the landlord that it could not use his evidence. The landlord explained that without his evidence it did not have sufficient evidence to take further action. It advised that the injunction remained in place and the resident should contact the police if he smelt cannabis from the neighbour’s property so the police could send an officer to witness it.
The landlord carried out an unannounced visit on 10 February 2020 to the neighbour’s property. It is noted that the property smelt of dog faeces, there was no smell of cannabis and it was unable to inspect the garden.
The landlord informed the resident on 19 February 2020 that it had spoken to the neighbour regarding the banging of the internal doors and that he had advised that he would take action to prevent this happening.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 27 March 2020 to explain that it was unable to carry out the scheduled visit with the police due to the restrictions introduced by the Covid 19 pandemic. It reminded the neighbour that as people were more likely to be at home to be considerate of his neighbours by closing doors properly and to keep the garden tidy. On the same day (27 March 2020) it informed the resident that the visit had been cancelled and signposted him to the police if there were further reports of ASB. Furthermore, it said it intended to carry out a case review and if there were no further breaches to the injunction, it would close the ASB investigation.
The resident and the landlord exchanged emails between the 4 April 2020 and 6 April 2020, the resident provided a list of dates that it had smelt cannabis on 12 occasions between 12 January 2020 to 3 April 2020 and notified the landlord that the door slamming was a persistent problem. The landlord explained that it required evidence for it to act, it was satisfied that the garden had been cleared and at its last visit to the neighbour’s property there was no smell of cannabis. It signposted the resident to the police who had the statutory power to act if there had been a breach of the injunction.
The landlord contacted the police on 6 April 2020 to request assistance regarding the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord chased the police for a response on 15 April 2020 who advised that the resident should continue to report his concerns regarding the smell of drug use using the non-emergency number.
On 21 May 2020, the resident informed the landlord that he smelt cannabis constantly from the neighbour’s property and that the loud music had restarted. He had contacted the police who had not attended to witness the smell of cannabis. The landlord responded the same day (21 May 2020) that it had inspected the exterior of the property the day before and it had not witnessed the smell of cannabis. It said it would arrange for its tenancy officer to visit to inspect the garden.
The police informed the landlord on 3 June 2020 that it had received daily reports from the resident regarding the smell of cannabis and on 19 June 2020 that it has been unable to witness evidence of cannabis use from the neighbour’s property.
The resident reported on 19 June 2020 that the loud music and door slamming had reoccurred and that the smell of cannabis from the neighbour’s property had been reported to the police without resolution. In response, on the same day, the landlord informed the resident that it and the police had visited and been unable to witness the smell of cannabis. However, it added that he should keep reporting incidents to the police. The landlord wrote to the neighbour regarding the loud music and the slamming of doors.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 July 2020 querying the times of the landlord’s visits and whether the visits could take place outside business hours. The landlord responded on the same day (20 July 2020) confirming that its visits had taken place within working hours and that the police undertook random checks outside those times. It advised that it had undertaken a visit to the neighbour’s property on 10 July 2020 and it had not witnessed the smell of cannabis and that the neighbour had disputed that he was slamming the doors in his property. The landlord suggested to the resident that it carry out a visit to his property which would enable it to witness the noise and establish that it was coming from the neighbour’s property.
The police informed the landlord on 21 July 2020 that the neighbour had disputed that the smell of cannabis originated from his property and that he believed it originated from a neighbouring property that backed onto his. It advised that it would investigate this..
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 July 2020 expressing his unhappiness with the ASB investigation as he had made multiple reports regarding the cannabis use and it remained unresolved and the door slamming was getting worse.
In response, the landlord responded to the resident on 22 July 2020 advising that the ASB investigation had not been concluded, that he should continue reporting to the police, that the injunction remained in place and signposted him to the Council’s environmental health team (EHO) regarding the door slamming.
The landlord received similar reports on 25 August 2020 and 7 September 2020 and communicated with the resident on 19 September 2020 and 28 September 2020 regarding the smell of cannabis, allegations of young people drug dealing, reports of door slamming and loud music. The resident confirmed that he was unwilling to make a statement about the issues he reported. The landlord reiterated that the injunction remained in place, that without evidence it could not take action and unannounced visits to the address had taken place but the allegations of drug use had not been witnessed. It signposted the resident to the EHO for sound recording to be installed regarding the door slamming.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 16 October 2020, following its visit on 7 October 2020, requesting that it clear the dog faeces from the garden, that he has a minimum amount of visitors and reminded him of the terms of the injunction.
The resident made a further report regarding dog fouling, use of cannabis, loud music and door slamming to the landlord on 2 November 2020. He also advised that there were different young people leaving and entering the neighbour’s property who he believed were acting as drug mules for the neighbour.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 November 2020 and provided an update following it’s visit to the neighbour’s property on 23 November 2020. It advised that:
1. the neighbour had been advised that he needed to clear the dog faeces
2. it had not witnessed the smell of cannabis
3. it had spoken to the police who had agreed to carry out announced visits.

It asked the resident to complete diary sheets as it needed to establish a pattern of behaviour before it could return to court for breach of the injunction and could not do so without evidence.

The landlord’s records show that the neighbour was remanded on 5 December 2020 for breach of the terms of the injunction.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 11 December 2020 via this Service regarding allegations of drug dealing, the noise disturbance and the ongoing dog fouling outside his property. He wanted the landlord to investigate the incidents and for the neighbour to be moved.
The landlord informed the resident on 21 December 2020 of the outcome of the neighbour’s court hearing on 14 December 2020, that the neighbour had been bound over for one night and that further breaches of the injunction could lead to his eviction.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 9 February 2021 apologising for the delay in its response. It stated that it had spoken to the resident on 14 January 2021, that the majority of his concerns had been resolved and the level of noise disturbance had improved. It apologised for the experience and inconvenience and concluded that:
1. an injunction had been obtained for his neighbour in 2019 and it had issued a warning to the neighbour for dog fouling in the communal garden
2. it had carried out unannounced visits and issued reminder letters
3. it had reminded the neighbour of the obligations under his tenancy, carried out monitoring and arranged for the garden to be cleared
4. signposted the resident to the EHO to obtain sound recording equipment regarding his reports of door slamming
5. it had offered to visit his property to listen to the noise however, the offer was not taken up
6. despite unannounced visits taking place, it did not have evidence from him or other neighbours to enable it to take tenancy enforcement action and without evidence it could not take action
7. it did not identify a failure in its service and offered an award of compensation of £50 for its late response.
The resident escalated his complaint on the 20 February 2021 as he remained dissatisfied with the complaint response. He accepted that the dog fouling and condition of the garden had improved but there was a lack of consistency. He maintained that the neighbour was possibly dealing drugs and that the children accessing his property were likely to be involved. He accepted that this was the responsibility of the police but was of the opinion that the landlord had equally failed to act. He confirmed that he was unwilling to provide a statement as he was scared of reprisals and that the injunction had been ineffective in managing the neighbour’s behaviour. He believed that the landlord had not considered the impact on him and wanted to know how the landlord intended to manage the ASB going forward. He declined the compensation awarded.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 19 March 2021, finding that it had followed its procedures in regard to the reported ASB. It outlined that it had collaborated with the police, explained its position that without evidence it could not take further action and noted that since early February 2021 it had not received any further reports.
After the complaint process was exhausted, the landlord confirmed to the resident on 15 July 2021 that it intended to close the ASB investigation as it had not received any further reports of ASB.
The resident escalated his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB and that it should have taken stronger action which would have reduced the length of time that he experienced living with drug taking, noise disturbance and the lack of maintenance of his neighbour’s garden.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed its procedures and acted appropriately. It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate the ASB allegations, to establish whether or not any party is to ‘blame’ for any of the alleged ASB or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the resident. Our role is to consider the landlord’s response to the reports it received and to the formal complaint and consider whether its response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, in accordance with its policies and its obligations under the tenancy agreement and any relevant legislation.
It is noted that the resident reported similar allegations continuously over a long period of time. Whilst the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord is duly noted, the report will not be addressing each and every specific issue or incident. The available evidence has been carefully considered and the report will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

Looking at the issue of the resident’s allegations that he could smell cannabis from his neighbour’s property and that the young people attending his address were involved in drug use, the landlord has evidenced that it responded reasonably and proportionately to the reports as it took steps to investigate these reports in line with its ASB procedure. Following complaints, it obtained an injunction with a power of arrest in July 2019 which was valid for a two-year period – it expired in July 2021. On receiving further reports, it carried out visits in May 2019, October 2019, November 2019, December 2019, May 2020 and June 2020 and spoke to the neighbour about the allegations and carried out unannounced visits to the neighbour’s property. It signposted the resident to the police, organised for the police to carry out unannounced visits to witness the allegation and agreed to carry out joint visits with the police to the neighbour’s property.
The landlord communicated regularly with the resident regarding his concerns to ensure that he was kept informed. It advised of the outcomes of its visits, contact with the police, the actions it was taking and reiterated its position regarding the need for evidence to take further tenancy action.
Evidence seen by this Service shows that the landlord informed the neighbour that the young person staying at his address had to leave in December 2019, wrote to him to minimise the number of people at his property in October 2020 and shared information with the police in October 2019, January 2020 and April 2020. The resident accepted that the police had statutory responsibility for determining whether there was drug use in the neighbour’s property. The landlord took sufficient steps to follow up to ensure that the visitor left and to inform the neighbour of the terms of the injunction in relation to the allegations of drug use.
The resident wanted the landlord to take stronger action against the neighbour, however, the landlord has explained throughout its handling of this matter that it could not take further action unless it had the evidence to do so. The landlord sought the advice of its ASB specialist in January 2020 who gave information to the resident on the options available including the evidence required if it wanted to take possession action. The resident was asked whether he was prepared to act as a witness, even if the evidence was anonymised in accordance with its ASB policy. The resident set out the reasons why he was not prepared to do so. The landlord has explained the limitations of the actions it can take to pursue possession action without this evidence as the decision to take possession of a property can only be made through a court of law and a robust case must be built to present to the court. Legal action such as eviction, should only be undertaken as a last resort, where all other resolutions have failed. The landlord has decided that if there are further breaches of the injunction or it can witness the smell of cannabis that is the next tenancy enforcement steps it would take against the neighbour.
The final complaint response noted that it had not received any further reports of allegations of cannabis use and that it intended to close its ASB investigation.

The resident’s reports of noise disturbance

With regards to the allegations of noise disturbance caused by the neighbour by slamming doors and the playing of loud music, the evidence shows that the landlord responded to these reports by speaking to the neighbour in February 2020 and that a visit arranged to address these issues had to be cancelled due to the restrictions imposed by the Covid 19 restrictions. However, the landlord wrote to the neighbour in March 2020 outlining its expectations of his behaviour as more people would be at home in accordance with his tenancy agreement.
The landlord continued to investigate the resident’s report. It visited the neighbour’s home in September 2020 but did not witness the reported noise. When the neighbour denied being the cause of the noise disturbance, it suggested that it visit the resident’s property in July 2020 to establish the origin of the noise. This suggestion was not taken up. This was a reasonable course of action for the landlord to take as it would have allowed it to witness the reported noise and to satisfy itself that the reported noise was caused by the neighbour’s action.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Council’s EHO team as it had noise recording equipment for it to witness the noise. This could have provided an independent source as the resident had informed the landlord that it would not agree for his evidence to be used if it took enforcement action. The landlord did not receive evidence that the noise disturbance constituted a statutory nuisance. Whilst the noise disturbance was causing frustration to the resident, the landlord decision that it could not take any further action was reasonable as it did not have sufficient evidence to support further action.

The resident’s reports of the lack of maintenance of the neighbour’s garden including dog fouling

The resident reported that the neighbour’s front and rear garden were not maintained and complained of dog fouling. It is noted that these reports were sporadic, however, the landlord appropriately investigated these reports by carrying out both unannounced and announced visits in December 2019 to ensure that the garden was maintained to an acceptable standard and in relation to the reports of dog fouling. It reviewed the diary sheet provided by the resident, issued warning letters and carried out inspections to ensure compliance. The landlord wrote to the resident in March 2020 reminding him of his obligations to maintain the garden and the resident agreed in April 2020 that the complaints related to the garden were primarily resolved.
The evidence shows that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. It responded to complaints that the neighbour was not correctly disposing of the dog faeces by visiting in December 2019 and addressing this with the neighbour. It addition, it took action in accordance with the tenancy agreement by advising the neighbour in December 2019 that one of his dogs had to be rehomed and followed up to ensure that this occurred.
The landlord monitored the situation and kept the resident informed of the action that it intended to take. The resident has confirmed that generally the dog fouling has improved though he remains concerned that there is a lack of consistency to the neighbour’s behaviour.

The related complaint

The resident complained to the landlord on 11 December 2020 regarding the drug dealing, noise disturbance and the condition of the garden including dog fouling. The landlord’s complaint policy states that the resident should receive a response in ten working days. The landlord spoke to the resident on 14 January 2021 regarding his concerns and responded on 9 February 2021 – nearly two months later which exceeded its published time limit. The landlord apologised and offered compensation of £50 in recognition of the delay he experienced.
The resident escalated his complaint on 20 February 2021 to the final stage of the complaint procedure. The landlord reviewed its complaint response and responded within its published standards on 19 March 2021.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and to learn from outcomes. The landlord is expected to recognise its service failures and take appropriate action to put things right, including making an award of compensation, that is appropriate to the severity of the service failing. The landlord’s compensation policy outlines that where there has been failure to meet its service standard, it considers that an award between £50 -£250 is appropriate. Therefore, the offer of compensation recognises the delay in completing the complaint response and represents reasonable redress for this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s the lack of maintenance of the neighbour’s garden including dog fouling
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable address for the service failures in its handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord investigated the resident’s reports that there was a smell of cannabis and the allegations of drug dealing from the neighbour’s address. It collaborated with the police, kept the resident updated and worked in accordance with its ASB procedure.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns by investigating his reports of loud music and slamming doors by requesting that he complete diary sheets, offering to visit his address, signposting him to the EHO and keeping him updated on the action it had taken.
The landlord acted appropriately by carrying out inspections to the neighbour’s property, issuing warning letters and monitoring the situation to achieve compliance.
The landlord has recognised that it did not answer the initial complaint within its published complaint handling standards. It has apologised for this and offered compensation to the resident.