Islington Council (202100449)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100449

Islington Council

7 September 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance.
2. The resident’s reports of a leaking overflow pipe.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. He lives in a one bedroom fourth floor flat, within a block, and has done since 2002. The resident has confirmed that he became a leaseholder of the property in February 2023.
The resident reported ASB against his neighbour, who will be referred to a “Mrs A” in this report, and the neighbour’s son, who will be referred to as “Mr A.” The landlord has confirmed that Mr A is an occupant of Mrs A’s property and is not registered on the tenancy agreement, or a registered household member. The resident has confirmed to this Service that he had reported ASB, from Mrs A and Mr A for three to four years at the time of the complaint, in 2021.
The evidence provided to this Service details the first report of ASB being received in April 2020. The landlord has advised that it does not have a record of the resident making an ASB complaint prior to December 2020.
The evidence provided suggests that a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) may have been issued prior to December 2020, however this Service has been unable to confirm this. It is evident that the resident sought assistance from his MP, but again, this Service is unclear as to what the outcome of this was.

Summary of events

ASB

On 17 April 2020, the resident reported Mr A “banging around” and making noise during the night and requested a call from the landlord to discuss it. A further log on the same day confirmed that Mr A was “harassing” the resident, by playing loud music and playing his Xbox at 4am and 5.30am and keeping the resident awake.
The resident said he had tried speaking with Mr A but to no avail. He said the previous evening, Mr A was on the “stairwell with three friends playing loud music and smoking illegal drugs.” The resident, and other neighbours had asked Mr A to move from the communal area but had “got abuse.” The resident asked the landlord to speak with Mr A as he was “continually having problems” with him, which “disturbed his sleep”, impacting his work. It is unclear what, if any, action the landlord took at this point.
Further noise reports were made by the resident in September 2020 of “intermittent thuds” during the early morning between 1am and 3am and he requested a call back to discuss the matter, and his complaint. He noted that at the time of making his complaint, he was advised by the landlord to “liaise with his neighbour”. Internal communication to the Homes and Communities Team (HCT) confirmed “if you take any legal action in relation to this case…it is important to keep a record and will ensure that we can prioritise any further out of hours calls about this location.”
Further requests were made in October by the resident, as a matter of urgency, for the landlord to call him back after he had “no response.”
The resident called the landlord on 24 November 2020 to report “banging of doors and on the floor” on a “daily basis”. He said that the residents were going to be written to, but he had not seen evidence that it had been done.
The resident contacted the landlord by telephone on 7 December 2020. He said that he had made three complaints the previous year and had only received a reply regarding one of the complaints and the matter was not taken seriously. He was not happy that the landlord had “blamed him” for not responding, following an MP enquiry into the ASB. The issue with Mrs A and Mr A had improved since a threat of eviction.
The landlord said that it had no current complaints recorded, and the last formal complaint was in April 2020, which was logged with the Homes and Communities Team (HCT).
The resident called the landlord on 4 January 2021, to report “doors slamming” and “loud stomping” which was becoming a nuisance again and that he’d never received a call back, despite his reports. He asked if a block letter could be sent to the residents.
In an email to the landlord on 9 January 2021, the resident confirmed that:
1. His mental wellbeing was at an “all-time low” because of the behaviour which he considered the landlord had allowed to continue.
2. He had been subjected to ASB for far too long and had received no response to his complaints. Friends of Mr A were “lingering on the walkways, playing music and leaving rubbish all over the place.”
3. The ASB was having a “major, negative impact” on him and his letters and phone calls were not getting him anywhere.
The resident reported ongoing banging and nuisance which was “stressing him out” on 29 January 2021. He said he was told a manager would call him last week, but he was “not being listened to.” He requested a call after no-one had been in touch.
During a telephone call on 2 February 2021, the landlord advised the resident that a block letter would be sent, reminding the resident of the terms of their tenancy. The resident chased the block letter on 22 February as it had not been sent at that point and requested a call back in relation to the ASB from Mrs A’s property.
In a call to the landlord on 5 March 2021, the resident reported Mr A having a party in the stairwell and “doing as he wants”. He stated Mrs A was not living at the address. He confirmed a serious incident which involved Mr A being arrested the previous year, which the landlord was aware of, yet he was back at the address. He was not able to sleep and requested a call back.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 11 March 2021. It said:
1. It apologised that the resident was unhappy that it had suggested he had not provided evidence of the ASB, and that numerous complaints had been made over the last few years.
2. The block did not appear to be well soundproofed, which caused noise to reverberate. A block letter would be sent that day.
3. It partially upheld the complaint, as it could see that the resident had reported noise from Mrs A and Mr A for the past three to four years. However, it noted ASB could be “long and laborious to resolve,” and the collation of relevant corroborating evidence was crucial for enforcement action to be considered.
A ‘block letter’ was sent to all residents on 11 March 2021. In an email of the same day, the resident stated:
1. He hoped the block letter would resolve the issues; however it was overdue as he was advised it would be sent in February.
2. He had suffered “constant” ASB from Mr A for the last five years which caused sleepless nights, because of loud music, thuds in the middle of the night, and people in communal areas playing music and smoking drugs.
3. He was threatened in April 2020, by Mr A, after he confronted him at 11pm, regarding the ASB. After complaining to his MP, Mrs A was issued with a Notice Seeking Possession (NOSP).
4. It had improved but he was still awoken by Mr A. Even though he reported it via the website and telephone, nothing was done. He stated that “no-one has bothered to realise that there is a problem”. He felt unsafe in his home, which impacted his mental health and affected him in a “hugely negative way.”
5. Mrs A no longer lived at the address, and he had reported the issues multiple times and spent more time than he should have done in the estate office.
6. He had done his best to collect evidence, that many months later had still not been reviewed by the landlord.
7. He should have received a response at the Chief Executive stage.
In correspondence with this Service on 8 April 2021, the resident advised that despite his requests, the landlord had not made contact regarding his complaint escalation request.
The resident made further reports against Mr A, for “rowdy behaviour” at 2.30am in May 2021. The report was forward to HCT to acknowledge and respond with 24 hours.
A stage one review response was issued on 21 May 2021, in which the landlord apologised for the delay, noting that the case had not been re-allocated following the case officer leaving. It considered the delay an “uncommon failing” and confirmed:
1. It was sorry for the delay in the “block letter” being sent.
2. It had upheld the complaint regarding its handling of the ASB and the lack of responses provided. It apologised that the service had not met the resident’s expectations.
3. Appropriate enforcement action had been taken with regards to the neighbour causing ASB.
4. The resident should continue to report ASB, and incidents of threatening or criminal behaviour to the police.
The resident requested an escalation of his complaint on 30 May 2021. He said that in his opinion the landlord failed to deal with multiple reports and failed in its “duty of care” which allowed Mr A to “run riot” while he had lost countless hours dealing with the matter.
After the landlord failed to acknowledge the escalation request, the resident contacted this service.
A Chief Executive response was issued on 23 December 2021 which confirmed:
1. It was sorry to hear of the problems regarding ASB and the effect it had on the resident.
2. Its earliest report of ASB was 17 April 2020. He was advised to continue to report incidents of ASB, and as previously advised it could take time to build a case before enforcement action could be taken.
3. It was unable to give further details regarding a NOSP which had been served on Mrs A due to data protection.
4. It understood a block letter had been sent regarding the soundproofing.
5. It awarded a total of £200 compensation for the delays in responses.

Events after the completion of the internal complaints process

The resident continued to make reports in January and February 2023 against Mr A. In February he reported that Mr A had threatened him with a hammer. It is unclear what action the landlord took following the allegation.
The resident confirmed to this Service that he felt the landlord had failed in its duty of care, which had “made his life a misery” as well as significantly impacting upon his mental health. He said that because of the deterioration in his mental health, and his lack of concentration due to sleepless nights, he was reappointed to a different role within his company, as he was “unable to perform his job to his ability.”
The ASB case was referred to the landlord’s legal department for further action to be taken in May 2023.

Leak

On 23 August 2020, the landlord logged a repair for an operative to attend a “profusely leaking overflow pipe” outside the resident’s property, which was “soaking onto the public walkway”. An operative attended the same day and overhauled the ball-valve. It was noted that if the problem re-occurred, the ball-valve would need replacing.
On 9 September 2020, a further leak was reported by another resident and a new ball-valve was fitted. On 21 September 2020, a cracked downpipe was reported following an estate inspection. The job was attended on 24 September 2020, and a blockage was cleared. The landlord noted that the clay gully was broken but was not fixed at that time.
On 3 November 2020 a repair was logged for the overflow pipe leaking. It attended on 6 November but found no signs of a leak from the communal overflow. The operative noted that the leak could be coming from the roof but was more likely to be from Mrs A’s boiler, given the proximity to where the resident had reported a damp patch. It raised a further investigatory job.
The resident chased the repair on 24 November, at which time the landlord advised access was denied to Mrs A’s property. The resident stated the leak was causing further damp and mould growth and requested a call back. The landlord has not provided call logs to confirm this happened.
On 26 November 2020, internal correspondence stated, “to cut a long story short, one resident is not allowing repairs to take place, and by doing so, is disturbing, and upsetting their neighbour. That’s it…I am unsure where to go with this now, other than to say that the resident who is not allowing works to take place needs to be contacted and advised to allow access, for the sake of the other resident.”
A contractor attended Mrs A’s property on 7 December 2020 to remedy the leak, but access was again denied. Internal emails sent on 23 December confirmed Mrs A should be contacted and “if access was not granted moving forward, it would pursue necessary action to achieve this.”
A stage one response to the complaint was sent on 28 December 2020, which the landlord headed as “damp and mould”. It confirmed:
1. After interrogating the repairs database, it had found no service requests regarding a blockage in the last 12 months, and as such the repairs team had not had the opportunity to inspect or conduct necessary works. A works order would be raised to investigate the blockage.
Internal correspondence sent on 7 January 2021 detailed that Mr A had again refused access for the leak to be investigated.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 January 2021. He said:
1. He appreciated the landlord’s response, which he noted came after the third time of asking, but it had not dealt with the matters within his complaint.
2. It was not a complaint about damp and mould, it was a leak from Mrs A’s overflow pipe, which had been unresolved for three years.
3. He’d reported it many times and had to walk through dirty water to access his property. He suggested that the landlord reviewed its phone records, regarding his reports.
4. Operatives could not gain access that week to Mrs A’s property so a temporary fix of running a pipe from the leak, into a small drain outside his property was completed. It had not resolved the issue. He asked who would fix the leak, clean, and paint the walls, and clear the moss. He stated he had continued to repair the internal damage to the wall in his property, caused by the leak, but could not continue doing this.
An operative attended the block on 11 January 2021, and found the pipe had not been repaired and remained “broken and exposed”, despite being reported in September 2020. The same day the resident chased the repair to the leak, noting that the issues it was causing remained. A further 3 calls were made by the resident between 29 January and 5 March after it had failed to resolve the leak.
On 9 March 2021, an operative attended Mrs A’s address and reported “overflow dripping from the property, Mr A refused entry”. It advised that the “whole repair issue needs to be investigated.”
The resident pursued the landlord again on 11 March 2021 and reiterated his previous frustration with the lack of access. He added that instead of the landlord following its procedure for a breach of tenancy, it carried out temporary fixes which lasted a matter of weeks and was “overflowing heavily on a daily basis.”
The resident contacted this Service on 8 April 2021, after not having received a stage two response, despite his escalation request. This service requested that a response was provided.
On 27 April 2021, the landlord issued a stage one review response:
1. It apologised for the response being three months late, due to unforeseen circumstances. In recognition of the inconvenience caused, £75 compensation was offered.
2. There appeared to be a misunderstanding, as the original complaint mentioned a blockage. However, it understood that the resident was referring to a leak, not a blockage.
3. It had not received previous complaints from the resident and “refuted” that it had not responded. It had reviewed its repair database and found:
  1. A works order was issued for the leak in November 2020. The plumber had attended, reporting no signs of a communal overflow pipe leaking.
  2. A further works order issued on 3 March 2021, for a plumber to address a leaking overflow pipe and to remove moss on the walkway. Access was denied by the neighbour.
1. It was awaiting feedback to be able to provide the resident with an update. It also added that once the leak was resolved, any internal works required because of the leak would be conducted as well as a damp and mould inspection.
2. It would request that the moss was removed from the walkway. The resident was advised to complete a public liability insurance claim and submit it to the landlord, after reporting an injury from slipping on the moss. He was also advised to submit a claim for damaged personal items if he did not have his own contents insurance.
On 30 May 2021 the resident requested all matters were escalated to stage two.
After intervention from this Service, the landlord issued a Chief Executive stage response on 23 December 2021. It stated:
1. It was sorry for the delay in responding and noted this was due to an increase in escalation complaint requests.
2. It confirmed the leak was first reported in October 2018 but was unable to gain access to Mrs A’s property in November and December 2018. No sign of an overflow leak was found following the report in November 2020. A further repair was raised in March 2021 regarding the same leak, but access was denied again to Mrs A’s property.
3. As the resident had completed his own remedial works following the leak, it was unable to verify the extent of damage and would not complete further remedial works.
4. It offered a total sum of £200 in compensation (£75 for the stage one review response being delayed, £50 for the delay in stage one investigation and £75 for the delay in this response).

Events after the completion of the internal complaints process

It is unclear if there were further reports made between 2021 and 2023, although on 30 January 2023, the resident advised the landlord that the leak was unresolved. Access was denied to Mrs A’s property on 3 April 2023. Evidence shows that the landlord considered alternative ways to obtain access to the property at this time.
In communication with this Service in May 2023, the resident said that the leak remained outstanding and asked that the landlord remedy the leak which had been unresolved for 3 years.

Legislation

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to ensure that the “structure and exterior of the dwelling house is kept in good repair”.

ASB policy and procedure

ASB is defined in the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014, as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that it is “important to define the effect and impact such behaviour has on other people.” Within the landlord’s procedure, it considers noise nuisance, unruly behaviour, and threats of violence as ASB under its policy.
The landlord’s ASB procedure confirms that where there are unauthorised occupants causing ASB, cases should be opened where residents are affected. It confirms that actions can be taken against occupants that are not residents, which include injunctive action and closure orders.
After receiving a report of ASB, the landlord will respond to serious cases within 24 hours, and all other cases within five working days. Following receipt of a report of ASB, the landlord should complete a form (ASB01) immediately.

Repairs policy and procedure

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy confirm its obligation to keep the structure and outside of the property in repair, which includes gutters and external pipes. The landlords published information confirms that it will respond to routine repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord’s repairs guide confirms that it is responsible for repairing water leaks and water penetration issues affecting the home.
The landlord’s repair policy confirms that the landlord is obligated, under the Right to Repair Regulations 1994, to carry out qualifying repairs within a set timescale.
The landlord’s repair policy confirms that it will “make good” after completing a repair.

Complaints policy and procedure

The landlord’s corporate complaint policy, which was in place at the time of the complaint, provided a stage one, stage one review, and a Chief Executive stage response. Stage one responses must be issued within 21 calendar days of receipt of the complaint. A stage one review response must be provided within ten working days and the Chief Executive response within 28 calendar days.
The landlord published an updated complaints policy on its website on 23 March 2023. This provides updated complaint stages and timeframes for dealing with stage one and stage two complaints which correspond with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Compensation policy and procedure

The landlord’s refunds, compensation, and remedies procedure states that it considers disrepair or severe inconvenience in cases where “considerable inconvenience is caused” and an assessment should consider how the problem is affecting the resident’s ordinary everyday life. The landlord applies three bands which it considers reasonable, according to the degree of inconvenience as follows:
1. Slight inconvenience – £500-£1000
2. Moderate inconvenience – £1000-£1500
3. Severe inconvenience – £1500 – £2500

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance

The landlord does not dispute the resident’s account that the ASB has been ongoing for 3-4 years and has acknowledged that it has been a longstanding issue. However, its earliest record of an ASB report was April 2020. The resident referenced a NOSP being issued to Mrs A, and that he had previously raised concerns with his MP. Given the circumstances, it would be reasonable for evidence relating to the events leading up to the NOSP, and any reports thereafter, to be stored and kept securely by the landlord. It has not referred to these matters either, when investigating this complaint.
To understand the history and handling of the ASB, and to establish whether the landlord’s response to the reports, was fair, and line with its legal and policy obligations, this service requested key information relating to the ASB case on 26 April 2023. The information provided by the landlord was not specifically relevant to the resident’s case, and a further request for evidence was made on 9 May 2023. The landlord failed to provide records which has impacted this Service’s investigation of the complaint. The gaps in evidence have meant that this service has been unable to confirm when the ASB was initially reported, and what, if any action the landlord took at that time. This is a further concern, and an indication of poor record keeping.
Effective case management is essential when dealing with cases of ASB. This is because by maintaining records, the landlord is provided with the opportunity to review its handling of the case, through its complaint procedure. In addition, it provides contemporaneous evidence for Ombudsman investigations, and to support any legal proceedings. The absence of evidence, and records, presents a risk that these processes cannot be fully utilised, disadvantaging the resident as a result. In the absence of clear evidence, this service is unable to know what action the landlord took in the lead up to April 2020.
In April 2020, the evidence confirms the resident reported noise nuisance during unsociable hours, 4am until 5.30am. Additionally, he reported Mr A loitering in the communal areas with groups of friends, which he reported as causing a nuisance and smoking illegal substances. He reported “being abused, threatened” and felt “harassed.” The landlord has not demonstrated that it made contact in a timely manner following the reports, or that it completed a risk assessment, as detailed in its ASB procedure.
An initial risk assessment is used to “identify potential risks and to make decisions on how they can be managed.” The procedure adds that following a risk assessment, if there is a “high risk” of violence towards the resident, or the resident does not feel that they can remain in their home, the resident will be referred for temporary accommodation.
While the resident expressed feeling unsafe at times, there is no evidence that the landlord discussed his concerns or gave any consideration to any additional safety measures for example, a camera doorbell, additional locks, extra lighting, or temporary accommodation. Nor is there evidence that the landlord advised the resident regarding his options to transfer from his property.
Where a risk assessment deems there to be no immediate risk, the resident may request a transfer where there is reasonable evidence to support the ASB, and there are no viable alternatives to protect the resident in their home. Because it did not complete a risk assessment, the landlord was unable to adequately determine the risk posed to the resident. This was inappropriate.
The landlord has not evidenced that an interview was conducted with the resident following his reports. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to “obtain as many facts as possible” and demonstrate it had “done its upmost to fulfil its commitments” as set out in its ASB policy. It is a concern that the landlord did not take the reports as seriously as it should have done. Furthermore, its lack of adherence to its ASB procedure meant it was unable to evidence a thorough investigation into the reports. The resident was not provided with an action plan, to manage his expectations around possible outcomes for this case. This was a further failing.
Further reports of noise nuisance during unsociable hours, at 1am until 3am, were reported by the resident in September 2020. While this Service has not seen sight of a letter, the resident has said that a named officer wrote to him and advised that he “liaise with his neighbour” regarding the ASB. It is clear from the events reported in April, that the resident had reported his attempt to speak to Mr A, which he said had resulted in him being verbally abused, and intimidated. Therefore, while local resolution should be promoted, the landlord’s advice at this time was not proportionate.
This service recognises the resident’s continued efforts in trying to engage with the landlord. There are numerous incidents where the resident had to chase the landlord for call backs. The landlord is expected to contact the resident every two weeks, as detailed in its ASB policy, to keep the resident informed of progress in the case. That it did not is a further indication of the poor communication on the landlord’s part and lack of adherence to its policy, which resulted in the resident spending an unreasonable amount of time pursuing the matter.
A block letter was sent in March 2021, albeit later than promised. This was a reasonable step to take, which appropriately sought to address the resident’s concerns of noise transference and prevent the situation from escalating.
It is unclear what transpired between October, until early December 2020. However, in December 2020, the resident made further contact with the landlord, as he was frustrated by what he thought was a lack of proactivity to investigate reports between April and December 2020. The landlord’s procedure confirms that it should “investigate the report, in order to, as far as possible; substantiate the allegation” or, if “a criminal activity is involved inform the police or other agencies should be involved.” There is little evidence to show that the landlord made enquiries with the police, or evidenced how it investigated the reports to prove or disprove the resident’s reports.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to the police if it was a criminal matter, the landlord is still expected to consider the reports of ASB in accordance with its own policies and communicate clearly with the resident as to the action it can and cannot take, and its reasons for this.
The resident continued to report noise nuisance with four reports between January and February 2021. Other than the block letter being sent, there is little evidence that the landlord took any other action. It would have been appropriate to carry out some soundproof testing, given that it had established there was an issue with it. That it did not was a failing. The landlord did not show that it made attempts to corroborate the ASB and noise with other neighbours, that it carried out ad-hoc visits to the area, or did anything else to try and gain evidence. This resulted in the resident feeling that the landlord was “doing nothing” and only compounded his frustrations with the lack of communication from the landlord.
Further reports were made between March and June 2021 of parties and rowdy behaviour, reported during the early hours. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged these reports, or advised the resident on a course of action that it would take, to remedy the issue. The landlord also failed to acknowledge or empathise with the detrimental impact the resident stated the situation was having on his mental health.
The resident was advised by the landlord to continue to submit evidence, as “action is taken on the basis of evidence.” However, it was equally important for the landlord to review submissions to satisfy itself and the resident that the action taken was proportionate to the reports. Again, the lack of proactivity in communicating with the resident following his reports was inappropriate.
The landlord has confirmed in correspondence with this service that it dealt with the ASB as “low level.” It is unclear if the landlord relayed this to the resident during his complaint. It was reasonable to have considered many of the reports to be low level ASB but given the reports during unsociable hours and the threatening behaviour, this service would have expected detailed investigatory evidence to corroborate its finding. The landlord’s conclusions do not appear to be based on evidence.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered non-legal solutions, given that the resident continued to report ASB in the subsequent months. For example, warning letters, ad-hoc visits, requesting police to speak to Mr A. It is unclear why other options were not explored. The landlord failed to take proportionate action in response to reports made.
The resident reported a serious incident to the landlord in January 2023 where he said he was threatened by Mr A with a hammer. It is unclear what if any action the landlord took following his report. Given the serious nature, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have considered the incident, in the context of previous reports, and consider whether there had been an escalation in the seriousness of the reports, which would necessitate a more rigorous intervention. That it did not, is a further failing.
This Service understands that the case was passed to the landlord’s legal team in April 2023. The landlord could have and should have done more in response to the reports of ASB to try and prevent the situation from escalating, over a period, which impacted the enjoyment the resident had in his home.
This investigation has found significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports, its case handling, case management, and communication, and a determination of maladministration has been made.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leaking overflow pipe

The landlord has confirmed that the earliest report of the leaking overflow was recorded in 2018. It made attempts in November and December 2018, to access Mrs A’s property, where the leak was originating from, but was unsuccessful in gaining access.
While access was denied, the landlord was responsible for ensuring that a repair was conducted. As such, it would have been reasonable for it to ensure that a further attempt to gain access was made. The repair logs provided to this service does not contain sufficient detail to show what action was taken next by the landlord.
In the absence of evidence, it is unclear if a repair was completed following the resident’s reports in 2018. However, a further report was made regarding the overflow leaking in August 2020. The landlord attended the report within its timeframe of 20 working days and over-hauled the ball-valve which was an appropriate response.
The insufficient detail and evidence provided in relation to the leak is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord should take steps to review its record keeping practices, to ensure that they are sufficient, and assist the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations, as well as providing information to the Ombudsman and others, when requested.
In September 2020, following another leak, an operative attended and cleared a blockage. However, the operative identified the gully was broken and needed to be replaced. Despite the landlord being aware that further remedial works were required, it did not replace the gully until January 2021. From the evidence provided to this service, it is unclear why the repair was not carried out for four months. This was a further failing, missing an opportunity to mitigate further leaks, as well as a significant departure from the timescales of 20 working days to repair, as detailed within the landlord’s repairs policy.
In November 2020, it is evident that the landlord was unable to gain access to Mrs A’s property, following a report of an overflow leak. During this time, the resident had reported that he had damp and mould in his property. The internal communication on 26 November 2020 confirms that “one resident (Mr A) is not allowing repair access” and that access was required “for the sake of the other resident.” In notifying the landlord of damp and mould in his property, the landlord should as a minimum, have inspected the damp and mould and instructed remedial works where appropriate. That it did not, was a failing.
In December 2020, the resident informed the landlord that despite his “reporting and chasing”, the leak had remained outstanding and he raised a formal complaint. The evidence confirms that on 20 December 2020, despite verbally agreeing and confirming in writing with Mrs A, Mr A refused access “again”. This indicates that the landlord and/or its operatives had experienced issues prior to this date.
The evidence confirms in December 2020, that the landlord advised internally that it would look at taking legal action, if Mr A continued to refuse access to enable them to remedy the leak.
Access was again denied following the resident reporting a leak on 11 January 2021. A temporary fix was completed to the “broken and exposed pipe” which had been identified in September 2020. This temporary fix took 112 days to complete. This is a significant departure from the 20-working day timeframe, set out within the landlord’s repairs policy. While the temporary fix resolved the issue of pooling water on the walkway, its attempts did not result in a permanent fix, and the actions taken did not provide a permanent solution for the resident.
There is no evidence to confirm what, if any action the landlord took following the temporary repair, to gain access to Mrs A’s property from January until the resident pursued the landlord again in March 2021. This was inappropriate and does not demonstrate that the landlord took a proactive approach to remedying the leak and preventing further damage to the resident’s property.
As a result of the resident’s follow up, a contractor attended who advised that the overflow was dripping from Mrs A’s property and requested that the landlord contact to request access. There is no evidence to confirm that the landlord requested access, or if it did, what the outcome was. As a result, the resident chased the landlord again, requesting that it remedied the leak.
Despite confirming in December 2020, that it would proceed with legal action if Mr A continued to refuse access, access was again denied in March 2021, to remedy the leak. It is unclear why the landlord did not take further action at this time. In failing to do so, the landlord failed in its repairing obligations following the resident’s reports. The landlord missed the opportunity to prevent further damage to the resident’s property or minimise the distress and inconvenience he was caused.
The landlord made a further five attempts to access Mrs A’s property to remedy the leak between March 2021 and April 2023. There is insufficient evidence to show that the landlord dealt with the leak fairly, or reasonably, which led to what appears to be an ongoing “intermittent” leak for a significant time. The landlord’s poor handling of the situation resulted in the matter becoming severely protracted.
Despite continued efforts on the resident’s behalf, the landlord failed to take ownership of the issue, despite multiple requests from the resident. As a result, the resident contacted this service in April 2021.
The landlord confirmed within its complaint responses that it would “make good” following repairs to the leak. It also confirmed that it would instruct a damp survey. However, following an inspection of the resident’s property, it was unable to access the damage caused, owing to the resident completing his own remedial works. The landlord did not consider reimbursing the resident for the costs of the work, that the landlord was reasonably expected to complete. As such, the landlord failed to do what it said it would, or restore the resident to his original position, to put things right.
The landlord’s final response did not acknowledge any service failings in relation to the handling of the leak, or for the time taken in resolving the matter. Therefore, it did not acknowledge or consider the significant impact of the time and delay, or distress and inconvenience that the resident suffered, because of its poor handling of the matter. Furthermore, the resident has again reported the leak in 2023. The landlord has not confirmed that it would keep the matter under review, or that it would consider compensation, on completing the repair.
The landlord’s response showed a lack of understanding, and empathy to the resident’s situation. As the landlord had not found any failings in its handling, it was unable to use the complaint process to demonstrate the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, in being fair, putting things right, and learning from outcomes.
Despite the resident consistently raising his concerns regarding the leak, the landlord repeatedly failed in its repair obligations, and management of the leak, which remains unresolved at the time of this report. Its inappropriate handling of the issue means that this service considers it appropriate to make a finding of maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident advised that he had tried to raise complaints previously and provided the landlord with two reference numbers relating to his complaints. In response, the landlord said that it had no record of previous complaints, other than one in April 2020. The resident consistently said that he had tried to raise complaints previously, and that the landlord could not find them is suggestive of either poor administration or poor record keeping.
The landlord’s policy states that the relevant service area will respond to complaints in the first instance. This caused confusion to the resident, as each stage one response he received, did not address all the concerns he had raised. While it may be the case that different teams are best placed to give certain responses, in this case, the landlord’s approach led to incomplete responses.

Stage one response – ASB

It is evident that the resident was confused at receiving, what he perceived to be a further “stage one complaint” in March 2021. He believed that following a response from the landlord to his complaint in April 2020, it should have issued a stage two complaint response. While the resident provided two complaint reference numbers, the landlord failed to explain what steps it had taken, in trying to trace his original complaint, and subsequent responses that he referred to.
The stage one response was issued 94 calendar days after the resident submitted a complaint. This was a significant departure from the timescales detailed within its complaints policy.
The landlord’s stage one response issued in March 2021, was cursory and lacked detail as to how it would address the issues he reported. While it confirmed a “block letter” would be sent, which addressed the soundproofing issues, the landlord provided little in the way of action, as to how it would investigate and remedy the ongoing ASB reported from Mr A.
A stage one review response was issued on 21 May 2021, 71 calendar days after the escalation request and a further departure from its prescribed timescales. The landlord apologised for the delay and confirmed that the case was not re-allocated following the departure of a staff member.
The landlord confirmed that it was focusing its investigations to identify service failures over the previous 12 months, but could not address the ASB itself, as this was not in its remit. It failed to take ownership of the complaint, or set out an explanation as to what, if any investigations it had conducted, with the ASB team, before issuing a response. Therefore, this service is unclear on what evidence the landlord based its findings on, to conclude that the complaint had been addressed adequately at stage one. It failed to set out what evidence it had considered and did not explain whether the actions taken so far to address the ASB were reasonable or proportionate.
While it confirmed that Mrs A was responsible for ASB caused by visitors or household members, it failed to provide the resident with any assurance that it would address the behaviour of Mr A and what, if any action it intended to take to resolve the matter. It confirmed that its aim was to ensure that residents could live “without fear” but did not go further in detailing how it proposed to improve the situation for the resident.
The Chief Executive response was issued on 23 December 2021, after the resident requested an escalation of the complaint on 3 June 2021. This response took 203 calendar days to be issued, which was significantly more than the 28-calendar day timeframe, as set out within the complaints policy.
Again, the landlord’s response was cursory, echoing its previous responses. It failed to recognise the extent of what had gone wrong, and only offered assurance that it was taking legal action. While it offered some compensation for the delays, its complaint policy requires the landlord to put right the problem and apply any lessons learned to improve services. It did not do this, and consequently, compounded previous failings. Its continued failure to address the ASB from Mr A, gave the impression that the complaint was not taken seriously.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns regarding the behaviour of Mr A, the time and trouble taken in pursuit of a response, distress and inconvenience, or the impact on his mental health. While it offered £50 for the delay in its response, it did not acknowledge the detriment caused to the resident, and failed to evidence what, if any evidence had been reviewed during its investigations, or whether the actions taken up until this point were proportionate. This was an inappropriate response which failed in its entirety to assess the actions in line with policy and procedure.
Furthermore, it did not attempt to give any assurance as to how it would try and tackle the issue and placed the responsibility on the resident to continue to report incidents of ASB. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have demonstrated a victim-centred approach. As it was, the landlord’s response appears dismissive of the incidents. Although it “was sorry to hear” of the impact the ASB had on the resident, it did not go far enough to recognise the detriment here.

Stage one response – leak

The landlord issued a stage one response, in relation to the leak on 28 December 2020, which was 21 calendar days after the complaint, in accordance with its timescales set out within the policy.
The landlord failed to demonstrate a thorough investigation or respond to the points of concern. It inappropriately redefined the complaint as being about damp and mould in response to the resident’s reports of a leak. The landlord confirmed that its usual practice is to telephone the complainant. In this instance, the landlord did not follow practice as it stated the complaint information was “clear”. By not telephoning the resident, which is usual practice, the landlord did not fully understand the complaint.
Furthermore, it failed to set out the period which it had considered, or the evidence that had been reviewed within its investigations. It did not meaningfully engage with the resident’s complaint, which resulted in the resident going to considerable time and trouble to obtain responses that addressed the issues raised.
It noted that it had not received a report of a blockage within the last 12 months and therefore had not been provided with an opportunity to investigate the matter. It is unclear what evidence the landlord relied upon to provide its response. The landlord’s records confirm that a blockage was removed from the overflow pipe on 24 September 2020. This suggests that the landlord did not thoroughly interrogate its repair records before responding to the complaint or did not have the records to investigate.
If a thorough investigation into the complaint had been carried out, it would have been able to establish that the leak had been a longstanding issue which had caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The response demonstrated a lack of understanding or empathy, given the length of time the leak had been ongoing for. In failing to acknowledge what had gone wrong, the landlord also missed an opportunity to set out how it would remedy the leak, and by when. This was a further failing on the landlord’s part to resolve the substantive issue, as well as suitably manage the ongoing concerns raised by the resident.
Appropriately, the landlord apologised for the three-month delay in its response and offered £75 compensation. It confirmed that it was awaiting feedback regarding the access issue and would update the resident regarding the repair element. While this service understands that requesting evidence from other departments can be time consuming, it cannot justify the significant delay in providing a response. There is no evidence that during this time, the resident was provided with holding responses which was inappropriate. Due to the time taken in issuing a response, this service would have expected the landlord to evidence a detailed and thorough investigation, which clearly set out the landlord’s position as to how it would remedy the leak. That it did not was a further failing and a departure from its complaints procedure.
Internal communication confirms that the landlord was aware in November 2020 that the leak was most likely to have been coming from Mrs A’s property, and therefore, at the time of its stage one review, the leak had been outstanding for five months. It did not acknowledge the delays experienced in resolving the leak, or the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result. The response lacked clarity as to how it intended to progress the matter, to an effective resolution. As such, the resident was required to escalate his complaint.
Its final response acknowledged the delays in providing complaint responses and offered a total of £200 compensation. In considering whether this offer was proportionate, this service has considered the Ombudsman’s guidance where there has been “significant failures to follow complaint procedure.” As the landlord took over a year to complete its internal complaints process, a further award has been ordered, which is more appropriate to the time and trouble experienced by the resident, as well as the excessive delays in providing complaint responses.
The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies sets out compensation ranges which are considered when determining cases. This case presents multiple examples of the resident having to repeatedly chase responses; a failure to act over a considerable period, or to act in accordance with policy; repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, leading to considerable delays in resolution. The cumulative failings in the handling of the complaint, constitute maladministration and appropriate orders are made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
2. The resident’s reports of a leaking overflow pipe.
3. The landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The ASB procedure was not followed, and the complaint responses did not acknowledge or address the resident’s concerns. It recognised that the service provided had not met its standard, however it failed to “put things right.” The landlord failed to provide evidence of an ASB case including call logs, ASB reports, risk assessment or action plan. The evidence provided was not sufficient in this case.
The landlord did not demonstrate a proactive approach to resolving the leak. As a result, the resident suffered time and trouble in pursuing the matter. He reported further inconvenience by having to “make good” following the leaks as the landlord confirmed it was unable to assess any damage after the resident had completed his own repairs. The matter appears to remain unresolved, indicating that the landlord has not identified its failings or attempted to put things right. The landlord offered no apology for the inconvenience caused to the resident as well as the damage caused to his property, over a protracted period. The repair records were brief and did not contain sufficient detail on what action was taken to remedy the leak.
The complaint policy was not followed and did not fully address the resident’s concerns. The landlord delayed excessively in providing all but one of its complaint responses and although it recognised failings, it did not evidence that it had taken steps to “learn from outcomes.”

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case, accept responsibility for it, explain clearly why it happened and express sincere regret for its handling of the matter.
2. The apology should identify steps it has taken to provide the resident with assurances that the same failings will not reoccur.
3. Pay the resident a total sum of £1850 in compensation, comprised of:
  1. £500 for the adverse effect caused by the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the ASB.
  2. £600 for the adverse effect caused by the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the leak.
  3. £750 for the adverse effect caused by the failings in complaint handling.
  4. £200 offered within its final stage response for the inconvenience caused by its delays. If this has already been paid, this should be deducted from the total amount.

If reports of ASB are ongoing and if an action plan has not yet been completed, the landlord should contact the resident and agree an action plan. Any action plan completed should be provided to this service once it has been agreed with the resident.
1. The landlord should contact the resident and confirm its position on the leak, providing a timeframe of actions which will be taken to resolve the leak if it is ongoing.
2. Confirm with the resident what remedial works were undertaken that were the responsibility of the landlord to complete. The landlord should calculate the cost of the associated works, which it was responsible for “making good”, and reimburse this amount to the resident.

Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must, as a minimum:
1. Review the failings in this case and consider whether staff training is required in timely and appropriate responses to reports of ASB.
2. Review its repairs record keeping, in line with the failings identified within this report. The landlord should consider if any changes to its practices are required to mitigate the risk of similar failings happening again. As part of its review, it should consider the Ombudsman’s report on Knowledge and Information Management. If relevant action has been taken since the time of this complaint, this should be set out to this service, also within six weeks.