From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202327139)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327139

Clarion Housing Association Limited

5 February 2025

 

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 response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. a leak from the roof.
    2. antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. This report has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident lived in a 2-bedroom, first floor flat when she made her complaint. She was an assured tenant of the landlord and had occupied the property since June 2020. The landlord was aware of her vulnerabilities, which included mental health issues. She moved to another property shortly before the landlord issued its stage 2 response.
  2. On 27 October and 4 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report that her neighbour was “cultivating cannabis” and dealing drugs from their premises. She stated that she had reported the matter to the police. The landlord responded on 8 November 2022 to ask her to provide a crime reference number so it could liaise with the police. The resident did not respond, and so the landlord closed the case.
  3. On 17 January 2023, the resident reported a hole in the roof, near the chimney. She said this was causing a leak in her daughter’s bedroom and making the ceiling bow. The landlord contacted the resident on 1 March 2023 to say it would inspect the property on 8 March 2023. The resident responded on 2 March 2023 to say that the date it had offered was not convenient for her. She added that:
    1. it had attended the property without giving her 24 hours’ notice and left a card. She had tried to contact it several times about her roof, but it did not respond.
    2. there was “water pouring into the loft” from a hole near the chimney. A “third party company” that came to inspect earlier that year had told her the roof was not fit for purpose.
    3. the landlord was unable to get a response from her neighbour to get permission to erect scaffolding.
    4. she wanted an update from a survey carried out in July 2022, which listed a number of issues the landlord needed to address.
    5. she had told it “on many occasions” that her neighbour was “growing cannabis” and was causing her distress by “bullying and threatening” her.
    6. she did not want to live in the property any longer. Her mental health had “deteriorated to such an extent that” she had been referred back to her community mental health team.
  4. On 3 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord by telephone to say that she wanted to raise a complaint. This was prompted by a failed appointment that day. The resident followed this up on 29 March 2023 and listed the concerns she wanted the landlord to address. She stated that:
    1. she had received no updates on the installation of cavity wall and loft insulation as recommended following a survey in August 2020.
    2. she had been continually chasing for the hole in her roof to be repaired but the landlord had still not erected any scaffolding.
    3. she was still waiting for guttering and repointing works to be completed and there were draughts coming from all the windows, which had not been replaced for 20 years.
    4. the storage heaters were “not energy efficient” and her heating bill for 4 months was “in excess of £1,000”. In addition, there was no heating in her bathroom, and she was still waiting for this to be installed.
    5. a repair to her loft hatch has been cancelled twice due to staff sickness.
    6. it was costing £2 per day to have hot water, which she could not afford. She needed constant access to hot water due to her disability.
    7. there were protruding tree roots at the front of her property which were a “health and safety issue”.
    8. the landlord had given her a paint pack to redecorate her property, but she was unable to use it due to her disability.
    9. the landlord had missed “multiple appointments” and sometimes attended “without notice”.
    10. it had still not investigated her ASB reports about her neighbour.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 April 2023 and told the resident it would update her on a weekly basis with any developments it had on the issues she had raised. It stated that it had arranged for its contractor to erect scaffolding at the property on 5 April 2023 and for works to start on 10 April 2023. It asked her to confirm if the works had “begun as planned”.
  6. The resident responded on the same day. She stated that she had received an email informing her that scaffolding would go up that day. However, this was the second time contractors had failed to arrive. Between 19 April and 9 June 2023, the landlord and resident continued to correspond about arranging a suitable date on which to start the roofing work. On 26 May 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord to say that contractors had attended to erect the scaffolding but left the site following abuse they had received from her neighbour.
  7. On 5 July 2023, the resident reported that her neighbour had damaged her garden fence, gazebo and garden chair. The landlord contacted the police on 6 July 2023 to ask for information about the incident. The police told it on 7 July 2023 that, until it had created a crime reference number and allocated an officer to the case it was unable to disclose any details. The landlord made a subsequent enquiry and the police confirmed that it was not taking further action.
  8. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 July 2023 to say it was investigating her report under its ASB policy. It sent her diary sheets and asked her to record details of any further incidents. It wrote to her again on 4 August 2023 to ask for further information about the damage to her property. It asked her how she knew her neighbour had done this, whether she had witnessed it personally or if she had any supporting evidence, or witnesses.
  9. On 17 August 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It stated that:
    1. it had failed in line with its policy to provide the resident with 24 hours’ notice of changes to appointments.
    2. the delays in putting up scaffolding were due to issues encountered by contractors while on site, and difficulties in gaining access.
    3. it had arranged for its contractor to attend from 21 August 2023 onwards to “adapt the scaffolding and complete the repairs” to the roof.
    4. with regard to the other repairs, due to lack of access into her property and the time taken since the inspection in July 2022, it would like to complete another inspection.
    5. in November 2022 it had received her reports about her neighbour’s “drug use” and asked her to provide a police crime reference number. If she was able to provide one, it would open a new case for investigation.
    6. the resident had asked to move property. It had contacted her on 10 August 2023 with a provisional offer.
    7. it acknowledged its failings in missing appointments and the time it had taken to complete the roof repairs.
    8. it offered her £330 compensation, broken down as follows:
      1. £150 for inconvenience caused and for providing conflicting information.
      2. £50 for delays in completing the repair.
      3. £30 for the missed appointments in March and April 2023.
      4. £100 for the delay in responding to her complaint.
  10. On 30 August 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord to say that neither its response nor its offer of compensation were “acceptable”. She stated that its letter had not been signed by an individual, which meant that nobody had taken responsibility. In addition, two of its operatives had attended her property without notifying her first, and then “laughed” in her face while her neighbour verbally abused her. She added that it was so “upsetting” she “had to report it to the police”. The landlord responded on 5 September 2023 to say that its complaints review team would contact her directly. It asked her to provide it with details of the incident, including a crime reference number.
  11. On 3 October 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to say that, because she had moved out of the property, it would not be taking any further action regarding the recent ASB issue she had reported. The landlord wrote to her again on 4 October 2023 to acknowledge her escalation request, and to confirm that it would be carrying out a review of her stage 1 response, which it referred to as a “peer review”.
  12. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 30 October 2023. It stated that:
    1. it had completed the roofing works on 8 September 2023. This included renewing the lead flashing to the chimney and removing and refixing the ridge tiles.
    2. the delays in completing the repairs were due to various factors. These included difficulty gaining access, abuse received by contractors and difficulties carrying the scaffolding through a road blockage.
    3. it had made contact with the resident to update her on the progress of the works and had not identified any failure with regard to the repairs at her property.
    4. it had not followed the correct process in managing her ASB case.
    5. when the resident reported “criminal damage” it should have set up a new case. This would have enabled it to complete an initial interview and action plan with her. It apologised for not creating a new case in line with its policy. It had given feedback to the member of staff concerned to prevent them making the same mistake. Despite not creating a new case, it had “thoroughly” investigated her reports, which included liaising with external agencies.
    6. it wanted to offer increased compensation of £480 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
      1. The £330 it had offered at stage 1
      2. £100 for not raising a new ASB case in line with its policy.
      3. £50 for the delay in responding at stage 2.
  13. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 6 December 2023. She said it had taken the landlord “years to attend to repairs” and it had “ignored complaints about antisocial behaviour”. Operatives had missed appointments, and the landlord had failed to investigate her concerns about cannabis cultivation. She added that it had “allowed” her to live with water leaking into her home for 6 months and failed to act on its own surveyor’s reports.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has reported that her mental health was negatively impacted by the noise disturbance she had experienced. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments about the impact on her health. However, the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. They are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. While we cannot consider injury to health, we have considered whether the resident was caused distress or inconvenience as a result of any failings by the landlord.

A leak from the roof

  1. In line with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, which includes the roof. The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect this, such as volume and complexity of required work, or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out 2 categories of responsive repair; emergency and non-emergency. Emergency repairs are those that present an immediate danger to the resident or property. The landlord will respond to these within 24 hours to make safe. The landlord will aim to complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
  3. On 17 January 2023 the resident reported a hole in the roof that resulted in water entering her property during wet weather. The records show that the landlord completed the repair on 8 September 2023, nearly 8 months later. It is noted that it had completed part of the roofing work in August 2023 but had to adapt the scaffolding to complete the rest. The landlord’s records have identified several different factors that contributed to this delay.
  4. The evidence shows that the relationship between the landlord and resident had broken down. A result of this was that the landlord took the decision to visit the property in pairs. This had been appropriately communicated to the resident on 14 March 2023.
  5. The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates an ongoing unwillingness by the resident to engage with it. It is unclear why this was the case, but the records suggest this was due to historical issues. The strained relationship made it difficult for it to arrange inspections or carry out visits. The records show instances where the resident would not allow certain members of staff to enter her property. On one occasion she wrote to the landlord on 2 March 2023, naming a specific member of staff and stating she would not allow them access while she was in the property.
  6. There is also evidence of the landlord having a particularly challenging conversation with the resident during one of its visits. Furthermore, the records show that the landlord’s attempts at arranging an appointment for the repair were sometimes hampered by its difficulties contacting the resident to agree a suitable time. This contributed to problems in gaining access to the property to complete the roofing works.
  7. The resident is obliged under the terms of the tenancy agreement to provide access to the landlord and its contractors to investigate and complete repairs. The Ombudsman accepts there can be many reasons why it may not be convenient for the resident to allow work to go ahead. However, it is evident the landlord’s difficulty in gaining access to the property impacted its ability to complete repairs and carry out inspections.
  8. There are internal records that indicate the landlord considered taking tenancy enforcement action to complete the roof repair. However, it is unclear whether it had taken steps to follow up on this. It is generally responsible and appropriate for a landlord to take all reasonable efforts to meet its repair obligations. However, given the resident’s vulnerabilities, it would have been appropriate for it to have made some enquiries about whether there was any support it could provide to enable it to complete the repair as quickly as possible. It could have also engaged in further discussion to establish if there were difficulties related to her vulnerabilities that were making it more difficult for her to allow access to her property.
  9. The landlord could have considered facilitating an advocate or assigning a suitable single point of contact to liaise between the landlord and resident. Given her known concerns about particular members of staff, this could have helped rebuild its relationship with her. These measures may not have achieved a different outcome. However, it would have demonstrated that the landlord was making reasonable efforts to resolve the communication difficulties contributing to the delays. That it did not do so was a shortcoming.
  10. There is evidence that missed appointments by the contractor, sometimes without prior notice also contributed to the delays. For example, the contractor was due to attend the property on 3 March 2023. Despite sending reminders to the resident, and informing her that operatives were on their way, they failed to attend. The records show that this was due to sickness. However, neither the contractor nor the landlord informed the resident the appointment had been cancelled. This caused her avoidable distress and inconvenience. A further appointment was missed on 19 April 2023. The records show the resident was told scaffolding would be erected that day. However, the operatives had failed to attend again and there is no indication she had been given any prior notice or reason for the non-attendance.
  11. As the resident had to pay for carers in order to allow access, the missed appointments were of considerable inconvenience. Furthermore, she had to take avoidable time and trouble chasing the landlord to find out why contractors had not attended. The landlord’s poor communication and lack of customer focus was a failing, The landlord should remind its contractors of their expected service standards. It should be emphasised that residents must always be informed in advance whenever appointments are missed, delayed or re-scheduled. The landlord acted appropriately by offering compensation for those 2 missed appointments.
  12. There were additional issues that contributed to the delay in completing the roofing works. The records show that the works were originally planned for February 2023 but had to be postponed due to poor weather. A further reason was due to an altercation between operatives and the resident’s neighbour while the contractor tried to erect scaffolding on 26 May 2023. This resulted in the operatives leaving the site. There was a further delay due to a road blockage, which meant the scaffolding contractor had to return the following day with a smaller vehicle. Although unfortunate, the landlord could not have reasonably foreseen or taken steps to prevent those incidents.
  13. The records indicate that the resident had repeatedly contacted the landlord for updates on the roof repair. Given it had assured her in its stage 1 response that it would update her on a weekly basis, the landlord’s failure to keep to its commitment caused the resident avoidable distress and uncertainty about when the works would progress. The landlord could have managed her expectations better and informed her that it would contact her whenever there were any significant developments. Records show the resident had to make unnecessary efforts to try and progress the outstanding repairs, which should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations.
  14. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress it had offered to put things right resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, which are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  15. In its stage 1 complaint, the landlord acknowledged the missed appointments and delays in completing the roofing repairs. It apologised for its poor communication and the inconvenience caused. It also offered £480 in its stage 2 response, of which £230 was in recognition of the missed appointments and delays in completing the repair. For these reasons, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

ASB

  1. The policy divides ASB reports into 3 separate categories. For ASB involving crime, the landlord will work with police on a collaborative basis, take action to enforce tenancy conditions and refer victims to support agencies. The police will investigate and bring charges against the perpetrator. The landlord will not take the lead on resolving such incidents, but in some serious cases if it is appropriate to do so, it will explore its options for taking its own legal action such as an injunction. For other forms of ASB, the landlord generally investigates ASB within 5 working days if certain thresholds are met based on the frequency of reports.
  2. The same policy states that, where ASB is the result of criminal activity, it will expect residents to report criminal behaviour to the police. The landlord recognises the importance of working collaboratively with the police and local authorities to support and encourage their role in enforcing the law. It will also use the evidence the partner agencies provide together with evidence it may obtain to take enforcement action where appropriate.
  3. When considering complaints relating to ASB, it is not the role of this Service to reach a decision on whether it has occurred. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. Our assessment will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
  4. It is relevant to acknowledge that ASB cases involving reports and counter-reports over an extended period of time, sometimes with limited or no corroborating evidence, can be among the most difficult for a landlord to manage. This is not the fault of any party, but it is important our assessment of the landlord’s actions recognises this fact.
  5. The evidence shows that from November 2022 to October 2023, which is when the records indicate the resident moved out, she reported 3 different incidents relating to ASB. On 4 November 2022, she told the landlord that her neighbour was growing cannabis.
  6. In line with its ASB policy, the landlord responded within 5 working days and asked the resident to provide a crime reference number so it could liaise with the police. This was appropriate. The resident did not respond and the matter was not raised again until 29 March 2023.
  7. The neighbour was not a tenant of the landlord. As such, it was limited in the actions it was able to take. Nevertheless, the evidence shows it did make efforts to follow the matter up by visiting the neighbour on 7 March 2023 to discuss the resident’s reports. Furthermore, there is an internal record from 16 February 2023 where the landlord states that it had been in the neighbour’s flat and found no evidence of cannabis within the property. The resident had not forwarded a crime reference number, or provided any evidence to corroborate her report. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to close the case at that point in time.
  8. The resident made her second report relating to ASB on 18 July 2023, where she stated that her neighbour had caused criminal damage to her garden fence, a gazebo and a chair. It is not disputed that the landlord failed to create a new case for this. It acknowledged in its stage 2 response that this was because it had erroneously added the incident to an existing case where the resident was being investigated following counter-reports. It was appropriate that the landlord took accountability for its error. However, the landlord’s action ultimately led to its failure to take further action by conducting an initial interview and agreeing an action plan with the resident.
  9. A comprehensive and meaningful action plan would have been an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations in terms of what it was able to do and to set realistic objectives. It could also have been a way of discussing any reasonable adjustments it could make and to assign a single point of contact for the resident to approach for updates or seek clarification on the actions it was taking. The lack of a clear plan was a missed opportunity for the landlord to maintain regular contact and offer reassurance it was progressing her case and taking the matter seriously.
  10. The Ombudsman has outlined its expectations for landlords dealing with ASB. We state that an ASB policy should contain steps for creating the fundamentals of an effective ASB response, including action plans, clear communication, risk assessments, and working with third party agencies. Furthermore, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 statutory guidance states that “the relevant bodies should use their risk assessment procedures as part of the decision on whether the threshold is met” It goes on to say that, “even where the threshold is not met, local agencies may wish to consider the possibility of hidden needs or risks which may require a response from a particular agency”.
  11. There is no evidence the landlord carried out any kind of risk assessment after receiving the resident’s reports. Given it was aware of her vulnerabilities, it would have been appropriate for it to have completed a risk assessment. This would have helped it identify any specific needs that was causing her to report ASB and whether there was any appropriate support it could provide, such as signposting her to Victim Support or other relevant support services.
  12. In terms of working with third party agencies, the evidence shows that the landlord liaised with the police several times about the matter, which was in line with its ASB policy. It also made attempts to ask the resident for any supporting evidence and tried to arrange a visit to her property to discuss the matter. Despite the police deciding not to investigate due to lack of evidence, the landlord decided to progress its investigation and sent the resident diary sheets to complete. However, there is no indication she had completed any. There are no records to show she had provided the landlord with any further information. It was therefore reasonable that it closed the case due to lack of engagement by the resident.
  13. As part of her escalation request on 30 August 2023, the resident reported a further ASB incident, where she stated her neighbour had verbally abused her. The landlord acted appropriately by making enquiries with the police. However, before it was able to proceed with its own investigation, the records show that the resident moved to an alternative property around October 2023. It was appropriate that it sent her a closure letter explaining that it had closed the case because she had moved away from the location of the ASB.
  14. It is noted that one of the resident’s desired complaint outcomes was to move to another property. It is positive to note that, despite having rent arrears that would have ordinarily prevented her from being eligible for a move, the landlord exercised its discretion and agreed to offer her a management transfer. Despite it not having any obligation to do so, internal correspondence shows that the landlord made significant efforts to arrange for her to find alternative accommodation.
  15. As stated above, the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response its error in not creating a new ASB case following resident’s report of criminal damage by her neighbour. It noted that this prevented it from completing an initial interview, agreeing an action plan and sending her a closure letter. It apologised for its error and assured the resident it had provided feedback to the member of staff concerned to ensure this did not happen again. This demonstrates that it had taken some learning from the complaint.
  16. Furthermore, it offered £480 compensation in its stage 2 response, of which £100 was in recognition of its failure to create a new ASB case. However, as discussed, the landlord ought to have carried out a risk assessment. Its failure to do so meant it had not adequately considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when handling her ASB reports, and whether she was adequately supported. We have therefore made a finding of service failure.

Complaint

  1. At the time of the resident’s complaints the landlord was operating what it referred to as its “interim” complaints policy. This was a 2-stage process and was operational following a cyber incident. The procedure states that both stage 1 and 2 complaints must be acknowledged and logged within 10 working days of receipt. It aimed to respond to new complaints received since 17 June 2022 within 20 working days of the complaint being logged. It referred to the stage 2 as a “peer review”, which it will aimed to conclude within 40 working days.
  2. The evidence shows that the resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 3 March 2023 and the landlord acknowledged it on 19 April 2023, 33 working days later. It then sent its response on 17 August 2023. It took 115 working days for it to provide the resident with a stage 1 response. Furthermore, the landlord has not provided any records to demonstrate it had contacted the resident during that period with any updates. There is no indication it had attempted to agree any new timescales with her, or to explain why its response was delayed. The landlord’s protracted complaint handling and lack of communication would likely have caused the resident unnecessary additional distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s complaint handling was a significant departure from its complaints policy.
  3. It is noted that, following the resident’s escalation request on 30 August 2023, the landlord took 44 working days to issue its stage 2 response. This was not excessively over the 40 working day timescale that it was following as part of its interim complaints policy. However, it should still have reasonably informed the resident there would be a short delay in completing its “peer review”. This would have been in keeping with good practice and demonstrated it was being customer-focused.
  4. The Code requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. In her letter dated 29 March 2023, the resident raised a number of concerns regarding outstanding repairs to her property. In its acknowledgement on 19 April 2023, the landlord listed those concerns (para. 6), which it agreed it would investigate as part of her complaint. The evidence suggests that most those issues related to previous inspections, including one that took place in July 2022. In its stage 1 response, it referred briefly to the outstanding repair issues and stated that due to access issues and the time that had elapsed, it “would like to attend to inspect again”. However, it did not provide a proper response to the specific concerns the resident had raised, nor did it attempt to address them.
  5. There is internal correspondence that shows the landlord was investigating those issues. The records show it had made attempts to gather information about the progress of the outstanding repairs the resident had listed as part of her complaint. Given the landlord had provided evidence of internal updates relating to those issues, it is unclear why it had not given any of those to the resident it its complaint responses. That the landlord had failed to properly address all of the aspects of the resident’s complaint was a failure, and a departure from the Code.
  6. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged failings it had identified in its handling of the resident’s roof repair. It also offered compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused. However, in its stage 2 response, it stated that it had not identified any failing with regard to the roofing repairs. Its mixed messaging between the 2 responses would have caused the resident some confusion. It could also have come across as a negation of the failings it had previously identified. The lack of consistency in its responses was an oversight and shows a lack of attention to detail. The landlord should check all responses before issuing them to ensure the information in its responses is consistent.
  7. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the delays in responding to the resident’s complaints. It also offered her £480 compensation, of which £150 was in recognition of those delays. However, it failed to take accountability for its failure to address a number of concerns it had agreed it would investigate. Furthermore, the delays in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint, coupled with its lack of communication during that time was a significant failing. For the above reasons, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration and will order further redress to put things right.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses its response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £450 compensation as follows:
      1. £100 it offered at stage 2 for not raising a new ASB case in line with its policy.
      2. £100 in recognition of its failure to carry out a risk assessment following the resident’s ASB reports, and the distress and inconvenience caused by this.
      3. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
  2. Within 8 weeks of receiving this report, the landlord must:
    1. carry out a review of the complaint handling in this case. This should look into the reasons why it did not provide the resident with a proper response to her concerns and ways in which it will avoid similar oversights in future. The review should also focus on the importance of following the landlord’s complaints process, providing timely responses and communicating appropriately with residents whenever there are likely to be delays. It must then provide the Ombudsman with details of the learning it has taken from this case and how it plans to put this into practice.
    2. review its training in ASB case handling, particularly around the implementation of action plans and risk assessments. This should put particular emphasis on working more effectively with vulnerable residents to explore if reasonable adjustments are required and to work with residents in order to identify and provide appropriate support. The landlord to share the outcome of its review with the Ombudsman within the timeframe specified above.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should pay the resident the £230 it offered in its stage 2 response in recognition of the repair handling failures it had identified.