Hastoe Housing Association Limited (202011428)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011428

Hastoe Housing Association Limited

30 June 2021

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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for a copy of her tenancy agreement.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a ground floor bungalow under an assured tenancy. The tenancy began on 16 May 2016. At the time the tenancy began, the properties where the bungalow was situated was part of a block designated for over-55s. The arrangements had changed since the resident moved in. The resident had a number of vulnerabilities, including depression, anxiety and OCD.
The resident’s neighbour, in relation to whom the resident had made reports, moved into the property 18 August 2018. The neighbour has physical vulnerabilities which information he agreed the landlord could share with the resident. It is assumed that the neighbour’s tenancy agreement was subject to the same or simar terms as the resident’s.

Legal and policy

Tenancy agreement

The tenancy agreement prohibited the tenant from engaging in a way that caused or was likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to any person living in the locality. Examples cited include intimidation or harassment and dumping unwanted items of rubbish.
The tenant was also prohibited from disposing of any rubbish “in such a way that it creates a nuisance or annoyance to your neighbours and you must not allow any rubbish to accumulate inside or outside your home”.

The ASB policy

The then ASB policy defined ASB as anything from low level, persistent nuisance to serious violent behaviour. It included noisy neighbours and “leaving rubbish ..lying around”.
The ASB procedure stated that the landlord adopted a victim-centred approach. It stated that neighbours could cause a nuisance through thoughtless or uncaring behaviour and could affect anyone in the vicinity. This could include a range of anti-social behaviour, and would be dealt with as was appropriate to the problem.
It stated that “unreasonable noise” could have a serious and detrimental effect upon the lives of residents. Excessive or persistent noise between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am had a lower tolerance level. ASB could also include overgrown gardens, or rubbish in gardens. It also included deliberate damage to property. The procedure sets out a number of tools, including liaising with a PSCO (Police Community Support Officer), neighbour agreements and mediation. The landlord could use or refer to external agencies, where appropriate.
The guidance stated that unreasonable noise nuisance and rubbish and garden–related nuisance was categorised as “B”. The only types of nuisance that were less serious were normal or day to day noise. ASB in the least serious category, while classed as ASB, would not give rise to any further action. Category “B” ASB would be dealt with by initial telephone interviews with the parties. The prescribed response time was five days. Face to face interviews would require the landlord to follow up with agreed notes while a telephone interview should be followed up with an offer of a written confirmation of agreed actions. Every case should be reviewed internally at a minimum three-monthly intervals. Cases should be closed where no further action was required.

The compensation policy

The compensation policy stated that claims for compensation would only be considered where services had not been delivered in accordance with its policies and the customer has suffered financial loss, distress or significant inconvenience as a result.

Chronology

The first report of ASB in the evidence provided to this service was made on 17 January 2019 and was of the neighbour making a request to the resident to use her internet, and wearing his dressing gown. The resident reported the neighbour informed her that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. The resident complained of smells, rubbish and small objects being moved around. The resident also complained about the refuse and smells on 28 January 2019 and 11 February 2019.
On the 12 February 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident offering to visit the resident.
There were two further complaints on 17 February 2019 and 28 April 2019, including about rubbish, damage to an arbour, a tree had died, and she had seen her neighbour running through the garden. She noticed small things had been moved about again.
On 30 April 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident to say she would invite the PCSO to a meeting at the property.
There followed similar complaints on 6 May 2019 including that the resident had seen open parcels, and about the neighbour’s “body language”.
On 10 June 2019, the landlord stated that the PSCO would “pop round”. The resident reported on 6 July 2019 rubbish, smells and lights being kept on in the neighbour’s property,
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 July 2019 stating that it could not prevent the neighbour from smoking or having lights on. It would arrange to ensure there were sufficient facilities at the property for rubbish, it would check the smells, and arrange for the cardboard to be removed and for a surveyor to attend to investigate the source of the smells. It advised the resident to contact the local authority in relation to noise monitoring. On the same day, the resident reported her suspicions of illegal substances being used. She considered that noise monitoring would not assist as the incident of noise was too erratic.
There is a gap in the evidence from 9 July 2019 until 6 January 2020, on which date the resident sent to the landlord her handwritten diary of reports covering the period from 26 August 2018 to January 2020. The exact date in January is not legible, but it will have been prior to the day the resident sent the diary. The complaints consisted mainly of excessive noise, including banging on walls in the early hours, the neighbour’s rubbish bins being full, rubbish being blown into the garden, his using a fire pit, odours of rubbish, smoke and ‘other substances’, the neighbour exiting his property in his dressing gown and staring. The resident reported she felt uneasy given, according to the resident, the neighbour had told her that he suffered from schizophrenia. The reports were on average bi–weekly, if not more often and, on occasions, daily.
The resident’s email of 6 January 2020 referred to her previous emails. The landlord responded the next day to say it had left a message on the resident’s landline, and suggested it attended the property, and invite the PSCO who had attended previously.
On 8 January 2020, the landlord attended the property and, again, offered to visit with a PSCO which was arranged for 16 January 2020. It also advised the resident to call 101 or 999 if she felt threatened in any way.
There is a further gap in the evidence from 8 January 2020 to 6 August 2020, when the resident requested a fence. According to that email, a police officer (or PCSO) offered the neighbour ‘strong words of advice’. The resident had erected a fence but reported that her neighbour had knocked down a railing pot. The resident reported that while the landlord did not consider the reports to be ASB, the police officer had disagreed. She requested a six-foot-high fence with a lockable door. The resident made a further report on 8 August 2020 that plants had been “ripped out of their bedding”, which damage she attributed to her neighbour.
The landlord replied on 11 August 2020 to say it would speak to the police and consider what action to take. The next day, it informed the resident it would visit the neighbour, and the resident should keep the landlord informed of further incidents.
The resident made a further report on 15 August 2020 that a ceramic fairy had fallen down, despite being glued in place. The landlord responded on 18 August 2020 to say it had spoken to the police and was considering what steps to take. The landlord also enquired whether there was any evidence captured on the CCTV of the reported incidents. The resident replied that the CCTV was fake, as previously explained. She made a further report of ‘excessive noise’, and she had a photograph which she described as the neighbour staring at her window. The landlord replied stating that it would pass this onto the police, at which point the resident replied to say there was no need to “act as her messenger”. The landlord responded that it was taking the matter seriously, but that evidence was required, and “there was nothing that can be used”.
The resident made a further report on 25 August 2020 of her pots and camera being smashed. Another camera had not disclosed ‘sufficient evidence’ that the perpetrator was the neighbour. The police were making further enquiries.
On 13 September 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord requesting:-
1. A copy of her tenancy agreement
2. A date for the surveyor to attend regarding the drains.
3. A request for the dates when the one-to-one reviews of her case had taken place.
4. What action the landlord was taking regarding the smells and the neighbour staring.
5. The reason the landlord asked about the CCTV when it was aware the CCTV was fake.
The resident attached her diary covering the period 13 March 2020 to 12 September 2020 which included the following reports:
1. The resident seeing her cat being ‘pulled through back of the arbour’ into the neighbour’s garden next door.
2. Shouting, blowing smoke, rubbish bags, staring, banging, the use of a fire pit. Objects beings moved, ripped out plants, doorbell rang with no–one there.
On 15 September 2020, the resident asked the housing officer to clarify how long the housing officer had known her neighbour, to confirm another neighbour had not complained about the neighbour, that the neighbour had been moved to the current property due to heath grounds, and that there were rumours about the resident spread by the housing officer. The landlord’s housing officer replied on the same day to say that “as this was becoming personal”, she would discuss the resident’s email with her manager before replying.
A senior manager wrote to the resident the next day to state that the housing officer had been liaising with the police, she had carried out visits, and no other neighbour had raised concerns. The police also confirmed it had no evidence to support the resident’s allegations, therefore in the circumstances, having reviewed the matter, no further action would be taken at that time. The landlord could only take action if there was evidence supporting the resident’s reports.
On 17 September 2020, the police and the landlord discussed whether mediation would assist.
The resident wrote to the landlord 17 September 2020 to state that it had only visited her twice. She also stated that while she accepted there was not enough for a criminal action, this did not mean the landlord could not investigate. She requested replies to her previous emails.
On 18 September 2020, the resident made a formal complaint:-
1. The communication referred to by the landlord had been by email, and not verbal.
2. Another neighbour had in fact raised concerns in relation to the neighbour.
3. There was evidence, but not enough to support a police officer prosecution.
4. She did not receive a copy of her tenancy agreement that she had requested.
5. She referred to the landlord’s policy and noted that :
  1. She had only received two visits from the housing officer.
  2. She had had to press for a response and asked about the three-monthly reviews referred to in the policy.
  3. She did not receive advice regarding ASB, as required by the landlord’s ASB policy.
  4. She was not offered an action plan by the landlord.
6. In her view, the neighbour had breached the conditions of his tenancy as follows:
  1. She had provided photographs of the neighbour staring at her property.
  2. Rubbish has been buried in the pit fire, and there were issues about waste.
  3. There was a build–up of rubbish, she felt the landlord’s visits to the neighbour did not work to prevent this, and she wanted details of other actions the landlord would take.
  4. The garden was full of weeds.
  5. The neighbour’s letter box was “ripped off” when the neighbour “slammed door for (the resident’s) benefit’”.
7. She felt there has been the following breaches of data protection:-
  1. The housing officer had said she had known the neighbour for 16 years.
  2. By the housing officer reporting to the resident that another neighbour had not complained about her neighbour.
  3. By the housing officer disclosing to the resident that the neighbour was moved to his property on health grounds, and there had been no previous complaints.
  4. There were “Chinese whispers” about herself that could only have come about as a result of communications by the housing officer.
On 21 September 2020, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and provided the resident with a copy of its complaints procedure.
On 23 September 2020 the local authority accepted that there were no issues with the rubbish and a visit by them might exacerbate the situation between the neighbours.
On the same day, the landlord spoke to the resident. According to the landlord’s records, it acknowledged the complaint and discussed it with the resident at length.
The landlord wrote to the resident with its Stage One response on 7 October 2020, as follows:-
1. It apologised for use of the word ‘conversation’ instead of communication.
2. There had been a one-off report of damage but no evidence as to who was responsible.
3. There was no evidence as to the identity of the perpetrator of the damage, or where the external noise was from. There was limited evidence in relation to the night–time noise, and there were no sound recordings, however the landlord did discuss the complaints with the neighbour. The landlord deemed that the neighbour’s explanation for the noise from his property was reasonable.
4. It confirmed that the housing officer visited the resident twice, once with the PCSO, and gave advice about contacting the police regarding the damage and the environmental health officer regarding the noise nuisance.
5. It apologised for insufficient communication and it was not clear enough with its expectations and general information. It should have explained the position and closed the case. It accepted that there were no regular reviews, and the resident had not been offered an action plan.
6. In terms of the alleged breaches by the neighbour the landlord responded as follows:
  1. The neighbour explained that he was getting fresh air when outside the property.
  2. The rubbish situation had improved since its intervention, however the landlord noted the neighbour’s rubbish management would deteriorate therefore it would monitor the situation.
  3. The fire pit was acceptable but it accepted it could create a nuisance. The resident could contact the EHO. The landlord would speak to the neighbour about being considerate.
  4. The damage to letter box was the neighbour’s responsibility.
7. It apologised for the delay in sending a copy of the tenancy agreement.
8. In relation to alleged data protection breaches, the landlord responded as follows:
  1. The housing officer knew the neighbour in a professional capacity only.
  2. It was not a breach of data protection to share with the resident the fact that a neighbour had not complained.
  3. It had permission to share information about the neighbour.
  4. There was no evidence of any rumours but would review the matter if there were evidence.
On 7 October 2020, the resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint on the following grounds, including:-.
1. The resident asked why facts were not checked before writing to her in relation to the landlord using the term “conversation” rather than “communication”.
2. Given the manager stated there was ‘no‘ evidence and the letter of 7 October 2020 stated there was some evidence, she wanted to know “which one was lying?”.
3. When had reviews taken place? The resident’s view was that none had taken place. Why not?
4. What caused the delay to providing a copy of the tenancy agreement?
5. What specific dates did the landlord attend the neighbour’s property?
6. Why did it include the points the resident had omitted?
7. She felt she had to ‘nag’ to get a response to her complaints, which was not a victim–centred approach promised by the policy.
8. She had not had any advice or support from the landlord apart from to contact the police and the EHO, ‘who do not cover this type of noise”. She did not receive advice regarding an “ASB charity”, or about the community trigger, or the need for sound recordings.
9. Were the failures the landlord had acknowledged “due to incompetence, lack of knowledge, lack of care, deliberate or something else”?
10. Why did the landlord not either offer advice or direct her to a body that could offer advice about affordable cameras?
11. Why was she not offered an action plan?
12. The resident considered that her photographs of the neighbour staring in her front window was sufficient evidence in a non-criminal matter.
13. The resident denied complaining about the neighbour’s firepit.
14. What action was taken regarding the rubbish and garden? In her view, visits to the neighbour did not work. She requested the precise dates steps were taken.
15. The resident requested clarification that the housing officer knew the resident “in a professional capacity”, did that mean in the capacity of working for a social landlord for 16 years? She also enquired whether the housing officer and the PCSO were friends.
16. Informing the resident that her neighbour had been in social housing was a data protection breach.
17. She disagreed that informing her there had been no complaint from a particular neighbour was not a breach of data protection.
18. When did the neighbour allow disclosure that he was moved on health grounds, and that there were never any complaints at his previous address?
19. Why, if there was no proof regarding the rumours, did the landlord refuse to reply?
20. If the noise from the neighbour’s property was due to epileptic fits or another medical reason, had the landlord seen medical evidence?
21. The resident again asked why the housing officer made enquiries regarding evidence from the fake CCTV.
On 8 October 2020, the landlord sought advice internally whether a letter of 18 August 2020 the resident had presented as evidence of a breach of data protection was such a breach, and was advised that it was not.
The following day, 9 October 2020, the landlord having made a community trigger report, informed the resident that she did not meet the criteria of three reports in six months. According to the undated report provided to this service, it referred to three reports relating to 6, 15 and 25 August 2020.
The landlord’s records shows that it made extensive enquires into the handling of the resident’s case. On 12 November 2020 it made its final response as follows:-
1. It again apologised for the use of the word ”conversation” instead of email.
2. It confirmed that there was evidence of incidents, but this evidence was insufficient to warrant any police action or the landlord to take formal tenancy action.
3. It confirmed that case reviews had taken place and the landlord had seen notes that reflected this.
4. It again apologised for the delay in providing the resident with a copy tenancy agreement.
5. It could not provide the resident with dates of visits, or the details of the discussions with the neighbour, as this was a confidential matter.
6. It confirmed that her ASB case had not been managed as it should have been in that she should have been advised sooner that there was insufficient evidence for the landlord to take formal tenancy action against her neighbour at an earlier stage, and closed the case. It apologised for this.
7. In terms of advice and support, the landlord involved the local PCSO in the investigation. It accepted that it could have given the resident details for other agencies. It did not, as a matter of practice, make recommendations of where to buy CCTV cameras.
8. The community trigger was available to anyone and it was a matter for the police or the local authority.
9. The photographs did not evidence the neighbour deliberately causing harassment.
10. The issues in relation to the neighbour’s garden had been addressed with them. The landlord referred to photographs of the garden taken on 7 October 2020. Whilst there were some items to be removed, the condition of the rest of the garden was acceptable.
11. The front of the letterbox appeared to be missing and would be addressed directly with the neighbour, but it was not an issue that affected the resident.
12. The landlord had investigated the matters of data protection and was satisfied no breach had occurred, for the reasons provided previously.
13. It confirmed that the housing officer only knew the PCSO in a professional capacity in her role as employee of the landlord.
14. It could not share any information in relation to her neighbour’s personal situation, including any medical information.
15. It had located and attached a copy of the advertisement for the property from February 2016.
16. A completed job in relation to a leak from the soil pipe had been carried out, and the landlord invited the resident to report any further issues.
17. In relation to the fake CCTV, the housing officer was merely seeking evidence to assist in the case.
18. The errors in managing her reports of antisocial behaviour had already been acknowledged in its responses.
19. It was not able to take any further action in relation to the neighbour, because of the lack of evidence.
It offered the resident £50 in compensation for the failures in its handling of the ASB case and for the delay in providing a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The resident has informed this service that, in her view, her questions to the landlord remained outstanding.
While events post–completion of the landlord’s complaint procedure are outside the remit of this report, it is noted the landlord continued to address the resident’s reports. The landlord has since informed this service that local authority noise monitoring equipment had been installed, which evidenced noise issues, and the landlord was taking steps to deal with the noise complaints, and mediation was scheduled to take place.

Assessment and findings

There are gaps in the landlord’s evidence due to missing notes and records. The landlord has explained to this service the gaps were due to changes in its IT systems. There were references in the evidence that was provided, by both the landlord and the resident, to steps that had taken place but were not evidenced in the documents provided. Otherwise, the evidence was provided in a comprehensible and organised manner. It is important to ensure there is proper record–keeping so that there is a clear paper trail of actions, and the landlord can fully trace its actions and ensure its management is organised and methodical.
It is noted that the policy quoted in the resident’s correspondence differed from the relevant policies referred to above provided to this service that were prevalent at the relevant period, however they did not differ substantively.
The landlord’s response time of 12 February 2019 following a complaint on 17 January 2019 was inappropriate, given the response time to reports regarding rubbish promised under the policy was five working days. There was no evidence of the visit itself. The Ombudsman would expect to see attendance notes. While the resident made two further reports, on 17 February 2019 and 28 April 2019, there is no evidence of a further response till 30 April 2019, however given that a visit was to have taken place, it is reasonable to conclude that a visit did take place on a date in February 2019.
The landlord’s response on 30 April 2019 was appropriate. The timescale was within that prescribed by its policy, and, in accordance with its policy, it involved another agency. Again, there is no record of a visit except there is a further promise that a PCSO would attend.
It was reasonable for the landlord to choose to involve the PSCO and appropriate, given the policy stated the landlord could chose to involve other agencies. A PSCO has a specific role in the community. They are members of the local police force, but focus on social and community issues. It was also reasonable to involve the police. However, reports of criminal acts, such as property damage, should not be left only to the criminal justice system. As the resident herself pointed out, there is a different burden of proof between a criminal court and one that a landlord may apply, or be subject to in a civil court. However, the police in general have greater investigative powers than would a landlord. Moreover, the police also have the ability to deal with matters informally, yet with authority. ‘Words of advice’ from a police officer carry weight and can be an effective tool in preventing anti-social behaviour, without recourse to the courts.
The landlord accepted it had not provided an action plan and there is no evidence that the landlord offered to provide an action plan after any telephone interview. This was not appropriate, given this is required by its own procedures. This would have provided a clear path and managed the resident’s expectations. However, the landlord’s response of 9 July 2019 to the resident’s email of 6 July 2019 was appropriate and reasonable. It set out the landlord’s limitations, and what the resident could expect. It offered to address each issue the resident had raised with a proposed plan of practical action and advice. The resident chose not to seek noise monitoring at that time, on the grounds that the noise was too erratic, although the resident‘s diary disclosed that she was noting noise incidents most days.
There is no evidence of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of her suspicions of drug use. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to take reports of drug use particularly seriously, being both a breach of tenancy and criminal behaviour, therefore not to respond was inappropriate. However, in the light of later investigations, which resulted in the landlord finding no evidence upon which to take action, the impact of the landlord not taking steps in that respect was not significant, and in any event, not part of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s email of 6 January 2020 was appropriate both in timescale and content. It was again prompt, and again offered to attend the property with a PCSO.
It was appropriate the landlord responded to the reports of 6 and 8 August 2020 with an assurance it would speak to the police, and the neighbour, and invited the resident to ‘keep it posted’. The landlord did the same on 18 August 2020 in response to a further report of 15 August 2020. The landlord explained there was no evidence that could be used in order to take action that the neighbour was responsible for the damage to the resident’s property, or that the neighbour was staring at her property. The landlord was entitled to accept, in the absence of any alternative evidence, the neighbour’s explanation that he was getting some air. The landlord’s records show that it was managing the neighbour’s refuse by providing more space to accommodate the quantity and speaking to the neighbour at intervals. The landlord acknowledged that the rubbish issue would subside after it spoke to the neighbours and then return, and for that reason the landlord would monitor the situation. The landlord was proactive in managing the situation and was entitled to use its judgment in its approach. A breach of a tenancy agreement on the basis of the neighbour’s refuse management alone, in particular where the situation was not critical, and where the local authority had no concerns, would not likely to have been sufficient grounds upon which to take legal action successfully, let alone an automatic right to possession. Moreover, a social landlord is expected to treat seeking eviction as remedy of last resort. It was entirely reasonable that the landlord sought to manage the situation rather than take enforcement action, and appropriate as this was in accordance with its policy to focus on preventing ASB, rather than taking enforcement action.
There was no dispute that there was some noise disturbance at the property. However, the extent and level of the noise was disputed. The landlord’s suggestion that the resident should contact the local authority regarding noise monitoring was reasonable, given the local authority had the appropriate and specialist equipment.
According to the resident’s report, the local authority rejected the resident’s request on the basis that it took the view the noise would not reach the statutory threshold. That is a matter for the local authority, however the resident made the point that noise nuisance does not have to reach a statutory level in order to cause disturbance. The landlord’s own policy stated that unreasonable noise constituted ASB and therefore it would have been reasonable to have considered finding alternative methods to investigate the extent of the noise from next door. The landlord stated that it did not have the facilities to measure noise (such as, presumably, a noise app), and this may have had a bearing on the steps the landlord could take in relation to its investigation.
It was also a matter for the local authority that it refused the community trigger referral. Again, there is no evidence that the landlord followed this up with he local authority, however there is no evidence of what the outcome would have been if it had done so. In the circumstances, there is no evidence of any impact on the resident of this omission.
While the landlord was entitled to consider that the neighbour’s explanation of the noise was satisfactory, and disclosed no malicious intent, it should have considered investigating the extent of the noise further, once it had had sight of the diary logs provided in January 2020 and September 2020. It is not, however, the role of the Housing Ombudsman to speculate on what the outcome of the landlord’s deliberations would have been, and accordingly measure the impact on the resident of the landlord for not having done so.
While the landlord was on the main attentive and responsive, the landlord did not apply its policies in many respects. As stated above, it did not provide an action plan or revised actions plans. A plan would have provided clarity and transparency. However, it did take steps such as monitoring the rubbish and investigating the reports, and it did keep the resident informed of what steps it did, and would, take. It was in the main responsive. It did not provide guidance on diary sheets, but the resident was able to and did make reports in any event. The landlord applied the spirit of the policy, if not the letter of the policy and to that extent, the landlord’s response was appropriate.
In relation to the minimum of three-monthly reviews required by its policy, the landlord’s initial response acknowledged that there were insufficient reviews, while the second response, which reviewed the first response and investigated internal communications, stated that reviews had taken place. This service has only been provided with the notes of one review meeting. The landlord has informed this service that there was more than one review, but it was not documented. It is reasonable to conclude that reviews took place, but they may not have been to the degree set out in the policy. The landlord accepted that it did not manage the resident’s expectations, and this may have been a symptom of the lack of management reviews.
The landlord in the main acknowledged and apologised for its failings, including accepting that the case was not managed as it could have been. It offered the resident compensation. The landlord’s response was appropriate as there was no dispute that most of the behaviour the resident reported potentially comprised of ASB. It was reasonable that it concluded that it was not able to take action at that stage due to insufficient evidence. It took proactive steps in relation to such complaints where there was evidence, such as intervening in relation to the refuse.
While events post the completion of the landlord’s complaint procedure are not within the remit of this report, it is noted that evidence has since been obtained of noise issues, and mediation had been scheduled. The findings of this report are based on the evidence that was available at the time and cannot take into account events retrospectively.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for a copy of her tenancy agreement.

It is not disputed that the resident requested a copy of her tenancy agreement on a number of occasions. The landlord accepted that she should not have had to chase her request so many times. The tenancy agreement was eventually provided, and that aspect of the resident’s complaint was resolved.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord addressed the resident’s complaints. It undertook an internal investigation at both stages. It accepted its failings that the Ombudsman has identified, the lack of action plan, the lack of communication, the lack of reviews, the lack of management of the resident’s expectations. It accepted it did not make all the recommendations it could have done. It addressed every issue that the resident raised. It provided reasons where it did not share information, which explanations were reasonable, as they concerned data protection and confidentiality. In some instances, it exercised its discretion in addressing issues in a commendably thorough way, including going to some lengths to reassure the resident in relation to the nature of the housing officer’s relationships. It apologised and it offered £50 in compensation.
The landlord had addressed the resident’s numerous and detailed questions, as far as it was reasonable to do so. The Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to be required to address each and every one of the resident’s detailed questions, in particular as some appear to be commentary, some seeking information to which the resident was not entitled, and the landlord had acknowledged its failings. It would have been a disproportionate use of the landlord’s time to respond to each and every question in order to either provide an explanation for its failings. The landlord had accepted and acknowledged failings, and the landlord’s complaint responses were reasonable and complete.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:-
1. Reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for a copy of her tenancy agreement.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:-
1. No maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord in the main acknowledged and apologised for its failings. There was no evidence of a significant impact on the resident at the time of the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, and, in the circumstances, the compensation offered was adequate.
The landlord provided a copy of the tenancy agreement to the resident. It apologised for the delay in providing this and exercised its discretion reasonably in its offer of compensation.
The landlord investigated the resident’s complaint in a thorough manner and fully addressed her enquiries.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord considers it reviews its cases that were potentially affected by the changes in its IT systems.