Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202347973)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347973

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

10 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Concerns about the management move process.
3. Concerns about staff conduct.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident held an assured tenancy with the landlord, which ended in May 2025. The property is a 1-bedroom flat situated in a 12-storey tower block comprised of 44 flats. The resident has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), agoraphobia, and anxiety. The landlord had a record of these vulnerabilities.
In April 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that he was experiencing ASB from 3 neighbouring properties. The reports specifically related to neighbours fighting, screaming, shouting, hammering, and a smell of cannabis.
On 8 November 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He said:
1. He had reported ASB “numerous times”. He had used the noise app as requested, which he felt was “adequate proof” of the noise and felt it was “disgusting” his neighbour was “allowed to get away with it”.
2. He had mental health difficulties and in addition, he had a newborn baby who was only 1 day old. Since the baby had been born, there had been noise nuisance and a strong smell of cannabis.
3. He had been told that it was not his upstairs neighbour causing the noise, that the walls were “super thin” and his property was affected by noise transference. The landlord had said there was nothing further it could do.
4. The landlord needed to take action as soon as possible as the issue was making him not want to live in the property anymore.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 17 November 2023. It summarised the actions it had taken to date. It did not uphold the complaint on the basis that it had not been able to find any evidence of service failure. It said it was satisfied that appropriate actions had been taken in response to the resident’s ASB reports. It also stated that it required a “significant body of evidence” for action to be taken. Following further reports of noise nuisance from the resident, it had agreed to consider the new evidence provided and conduct an investigation.
The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 27 January 2024. He said the ASB had been ongoing for 6 to 8 months and he had sent in over 200 noise recordings during that time. He stated the landlord had sent letters, but the noise had got worse, and the complaint was a “last resort”. He said he and his partner were “getting sick of the noise nuisance” and it was also now waking their 2-month-old child.
The landlord logged the resident’s concerns as a new complaint. On 19 February 2024, it provided a further stage 1 response. It did not uphold the complaint on the basis that it had not found any evidence that it had failed to take appropriate and proportionate action. It said:
1. In line with its complaints policy, it was unable to investigate any incidents prior to 17 November 2023 as these had already been subject to a formal investigation.
2. While the resident had submitted “a significant number” of noise recordings, only some of these were considered to be noise nuisance and the rest did not evidence ASB.
3. It worked within a legal framework. It had reviewed the ASB case, and it did not have sufficient evidence to apply for an injunction. It had not “been able to establish, with accuracy, the cause of the noise” reported by the resident.
4. It had offered some solutions to the resident, including noise monitoring equipment and a management move, but he had declined these offers.
The resident escalated his complaint on 21 February 2024. He said he found it “disgraceful” that his neighbour had to pass away for the landlord to “believe” him, even though he had provided recordings of the noise nuisance. He said there were also discrepancies in the stage 1 response, as he did not decline a property but asked for more time to move due to his situation. He asked the landlord for help with moving to another property. He stated he had initially declined noise monitoring equipment but when he agreed to it, the landlord said it was no longer an option. He also raised questions regarding the conduct of the case officer who had been handling his ASB reports.
On 20 March 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said:
1. It was satisfied that the case officer had taken appropriate action in response to the resident’s reports of nuisance.
2. It had not disputed that the noise was occurring, but it had needed to establish who was causing the noise.
3. To progress a case of nuisance as a breach of tenancy, it was required to gather sufficient evidence to support its actions. It had determined that although it could evidence excessive noise nuisance, it could not “sufficiently evidence” where the noise was coming from.
4. Noise monitoring equipment would not have helped with “corroborating” where the noise was coming from without further evidence. It apologised if this was not communicated clearly to the resident at the time.
5. It did not consider the case officer’s request for information about the resident’s sister to be a breach of privacy, but it had made them aware of his concerns in relation to this.
6. The rehousing offer was made to him as a management move, and it could not hold a property under this process. It apologised if this was not communicated clearly to the resident at the time.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaint process

The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 21 March 2024. He said he was still experiencing ASB from his neighbours.
During contact with us in August 2025, the resident said he had moved out of the property in May 2025 via a management move. As an outcome, he told us he would like the Ombudsman to review how the landlord manages ASB reports.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports impacted his mental health. We are not medical specialists, so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident may choose to seek independent advice regarding this aspect, or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord said it had opened multiple ASB cases following reports from the resident between December 2020 and April 2025, indicating that the resident had been experiencing issues over an extended period. However, we encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner to give landlords a fair opportunity to investigate and address issues while they remain ‘live’. This is important because relevant evidence that may have existed at the time may no longer be available. Accordingly, our investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports from November 2022, covering the 12-month period prior to the complaint being raised. This approach is in line with the Scheme.
The resident continued to experience issues related to ASB after the landlord’s final complaint response. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the landlord’s internal complaints process. We will therefore consider events up to 20 March 2024, but the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues that occurred after this time. The resident can address any new issues directly with the landlord. He can progress this as a new formal complaint if required, which he may escalate to us for separate investigation if he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

Reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy says its approach is “holistic” and sets out 4 key areas of action it will take when dealing with ASB:
1. Prevention and early intervention – It will use a range of tools and powers including mediation, warnings and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs).
2. Support – It will use a Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM) to identify and respond to risk for victims and witnesses.
3. Partnership working – It will work in partnership with a range of agencies to “prevent and tackle” ASB.
4. Enforcement – It will make use of the full range of non‐legal and legal actions available to it, taking legal action where necessary to “protect victims and witnesses and to stop problems escalating”. It states any legal action it will take will be “proportionate and supported by sufficient evidence”.
The ASB policy further states the landlord is “committed to responding early” to reports of ASB and aims to respond to telephone calls and emails within 2 working days. It says it will agree action plans with residents, which will be provided by email or letter. In investigating ASB reports, it states it will “seek ways of independently corroborating or refuting allegations by interviewing other witnesses/local neighbours; using sound recording equipment/applications; requesting information from other agencies etc”.
In cases relating to ASB, it is not our role to establish whether ASB occurred or who is responsible, but rather to assess the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports. We will determine whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own policies and procedures.
Between November 2022 and March 2024, the landlord opened 5 ASB cases relating to 3 different neighbouring properties, following reports of ASB made by the resident. For the purpose of this investigation, we will focus on the landlord’s handling of 2 of these cases, both of which concerned the resident’s upstairs neighbour, as these were central to his complaint.
On 4 April 2023, the resident reported noise nuisance, including fighting, shouting, and swearing from his upstairs neighbour. He advised the landlord that his partner was pregnant, and the noise was affecting his anxiety. The landlord appropriately responded within its timescales, opening an ASB case the same day and sending an acknowledgement letter the next day (5 April 2023). The letter confirmed a case officer would contact the resident within 5 working days.
The resident made further reports on 6 April and 12 April 2023, adding that there was also now a smell of cannabis coming from his neighbour’s property, which he said was worsening his heart problems and causing dizziness. On 12 April 2023, the landlord emailed him for more details in line with its acknowledgement letter. However, a phone call may have been more appropriate, allowing a fuller discussion and better understanding of the health impact he had described. In addition, the landlord did not signpost the resident to report his concerns about cannabis use to the police. This was inconsistent with the approach set out in its policy and a missed opportunity to involve other agencies at an early stage.
The landlord visited the neighbour on 14 April 2023 to address the ASB reports, which was proportionate and in line with the approach set out in its policy to intervene at an early stage. It discussed the reports, gave appropriate advice regarding the noise, and advised it would be carrying out further investigations. The ASB case records indicate a letter was sent to the neighbour on the same day. However, a copy of this letter has not been provided to us and as such, we are unable to verify its contents and assess whether it appropriately addressed the issues raised.
On 17 April 2023, the landlord completed a RAM with the resident and updated him following its visit, explaining that the neighbour had denied causing excessive noise nuisance. It asked the resident to provide examples of the reported nuisance and supplied details for using the noise app to record them, which was an appropriate step. While the landlord’s policy does not specify timescales for completion, we find that the RAM should have been carried out sooner. Completing this 2 weeks after the initial report was unreasonable, particularly in light of the resident’s stated vulnerabilities and health concerns. Furthermore, the RAM recorded that the incidents had not affected the resident’s physical or mental health, which contradicts other available evidence. It is important that landlords conduct accurate and timely risk assessments for victims of ASB so that appropriate support can be offered at the earliest opportunity. In this case, the landlord did not do so, which contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
Between 17 April and 3 May 2023, the resident sent 24 emails to the landlord reporting ongoing noise nuisance and the smell of cannabis, highlighting the impact on his mental health and his pregnant partner. In response, the landlord attempted to call the neighbour on 3 May 2023 and made an unannounced visit on 18 May 2023, at which time it delivered a letter with an appointment for 23 May 2023. This was a proportionate response given the escalation in the resident’s reports.
On 22 May 2023, the landlord reviewed 12 noise app recordings submitted by the resident and confirmed that loud banging could be heard on all of them. After a further attempted visit to the neighbour on 23 May 2023, the landlord hand-delivered a letter stating that it was satisfied “so far as it could be” that they were responsible for causing ASB and it would be applying to the court for an injunction. However, a copy of this letter has not been provided to us, which points to a record keeping issue. The landlord appropriately updated the resident on 26 May 2023 stating that it would be taking legal action and applying to court.
Between 27 May and 4 August 2023, the resident made 74 further reports by email to the landlord about noise nuisance. These included reports of loud music, banging, hammering, drilling and shouting. He said his PTSD and anxiety were being impacted by the noise, it was getting “too much”, and he was “really sick of it”. During this period, the landlord reviewed the case on 2 occasions:
1. 12 June 2023 – The landlord acknowledged that an injunction was required but stated that it lacked the capacity to pursue this at that time. This was unsatisfactory. If the landlord was confident it had sufficient evidence to take legal action, it should have prioritised doing so. The landlord also failed to update the resident about the expected delays in legal action, which was neither fair nor reasonable, and caused him avoidable distress and inconvenience.
2. 12 July 2023 – The landlord noted that it had reviewed 55 noise app recordings made between 3 May and 7 July 2023, all of which evidenced noise nuisance. Despite this, the landlord did not take steps to progress the case at this stage. This was unreasonable given the volume of evidence the resident had provided and his time and effort in reporting incidents and submitting recordings.
On 4 August 2023 – 10 weeks after it had first advised the resident of its intention to take legal action – the landlord issued a tenancy warning letter to the neighbour advising of its intention to pursue court action. The length of this delay was unreasonable, particularly given the significant impact the reported ASB had on the resident, as he had described.
The resident continued to report noise nuisance to the landlord almost daily after 4 August 2023, with the frequency of contact demonstrating the significant impact the ASB was having on him. On 22 August 2023, he also contacted his local MP for further support. In response to the resident’s ongoing reports, the landlord took reasonable and appropriate steps. These included offering a face-to-face visit to the resident, giving rehousing advice, and offering to install noise monitoring equipment. It also spoke with other neighbours about the reported noise and signposted the resident to the police regarding concerns about cannabis use.
On 11 September 2023, the landlord’s Neighbourhood Safety Officer (NSO) requested for a manager to review the ASB case, expressing doubt as to whether the recordings on the noise app evidenced excessive noise nuisance and therefore met the threshold for legal action. While it is acknowledged that the landlord sought to corroborate the evidence provided by the resident, and that its policy requires any legal action to be supported by sufficient evidence, we find it should not have advised the resident in May 2023 that it intended to take that course of action if it was not yet satisfied that the evidential threshold had been met. Doing so raised the resident’s expectations and contributed to his uncertainty, distress and inconvenience.
Following further noise recordings submitted by the resident, the landlord informed him on 3 October 2023 that it had now gathered sufficient evidence of the nuisance. It told him that it would be preparing an application to court and asked him about providing a witness statement. This position was reiterated in the landlord’s response to the MP enquiry on 5 October 2023. However, the landlord’s records indicate that it did not follow through with this course of action, which was unsatisfactory and caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
On 16 October 2023, the landlord visited both the resident and his neighbour to investigate the reported noise. During these visits, it identified another neighbour who admitted to carrying out DIY work on their balcony, which was attributed as the source of the hammering and drilling the resident had reported. On 18 October 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it was satisfied the noise was not coming from his upstairs neighbour. It subsequently closed the case, which was unreasonable. The resident had also reported other forms of noise and ASB from his upstairs neighbour including shouting, loud music, and the smell of cannabis. By closing the case at this stage, the landlord failed to address these wider concerns and missed the opportunity to monitor the situation to ensure it was fully resolved. This led to the resident reporting further ASB on 7 November 2023, and making his first complaint on 8 November 2023, which added to his time and effort in resolving the issues.
Between 7 November 2023 and 5 February 2024, the resident made 21 reports by email to the landlord about noise nuisance. These included reports of TV noise, loud music, banging, hammering, shouting, arguing and fighting. He also reported the noise was often worse when his neighbour had visitors, noting frequent comings and goings at the property, and stated that some of the noise appeared to be in response to his newborn baby crying. In response, the landlord took reasonable and appropriate steps. It opened a new ASB case, discussed the reports with the resident, and advised him to recommence use of the noise app. It also spoke with the neighbour and their visitors, issued an advisory letter, liaised with the police, spoke to potential witnesses, and asked the block caretaker to monitor the situation. While these actions were in line with the landlord’s policies and demonstrated a proactive approach, the persistence of the noise meant that the resident continued to experience significant disturbance and distress.
During the period from 30 November 2023 to 5 February 2024, the landlord’s records indicate that it reviewed approximately 40 noise app recordings submitted by the resident. In its second stage 1 response on 19 February 2024, it explained that only some of the recordings were considered to be noise nuisance, while the remainder did not evidence ASB. It also noted that other neighbours had not reported hearing the same level or frequency of noise the resident had reported. The landlord further confirmed that it had reviewed the case to assess whether there was sufficient evidence to apply for an injunction but concluded that the threshold had not been met. While this was understandably frustrating for the resident, it was appropriate for the landlord to update him and set out its limitations.
On 7 February 2024, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm his neighbour was no longer at the property and that the ASB case would therefore be closed. On 12 February 2024, it contacted the resident again to check whether the noise had stopped, which he confirmed it had. The landlord responded by stating “so despite everything, we can now say with certainty that it was [upstairs neighbour]”. It was appropriate for the landlord to follow up with the resident. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s comments were likely frustrating for the resident, given the volume of evidence he had provided to it and the lack of urgency shown in progressing the case.
The landlord’s lack of clear and effective communication with the resident contributed to its overall failings. While overall, it maintained regular contact with the resident, we find he was often left uncertain about the status of his case, as the landlord committed to actions it did not follow through on. We have seen no evidence throughout the timeline of our investigation that the landlord provided the resident with a formal action plan outlining its intended actions and his responsibilities. This was inconsistent with the requirements of its ASB policy. The landlord should have clearly set expectations and issued regular updates to the resident. Its failure to do so was unsatisfactory and likely contributed to the resident’s frustration and lack of confidence in the process.
Furthermore, the landlord did not complete regular risk assessments with the resident. There is no evidence that following the initial RAM completed on 17 April 2023, this was reviewed or repeated at any stage, despite the resident’s reports continuing over a 10-month period up to February 2024. While the landlord’s policy does not specify how frequently risk assessments should be carried out, given the resident’s vulnerabilities it would have been good practice to review this at regular intervals. Throughout the timeline of our investigation, the landlord frequently referred to the support referrals it had made for the resident in November 2022, and to his lack of engagement with these. However, had the landlord repeated the RAM with the resident, it would have created opportunities to identify and discuss what support could have been offered at the time – for example, victim support or in-house tenancy support, if available. It did not do this, which was not consistent with the approach set out in its ASB policy.
Overall, while the landlord did some things appropriately, we find there were also failings which had a significant impact on the resident, resulting in prolonged distress and inconvenience. It failed to appropriately progress the case and follow through on its stated actions. It also did not demonstrate the practices of good case management, such as completing regular risk assessments and providing clear action plans. Considering the above, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will consider compensation under certain circumstances, including a failure in its service. It does not provide any specific details of the awards it will make but states it will assess each case individually. It says compensation will be calculated based on what it considers “to be fair taking into account the particular circumstances of the case”.
The landlord did not identify any failings in its handling of the reported ASB, and as a result, did not offer any compensation as part of its complaint responses. We consider a payment of £400 to be appropriate compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this report. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures that adversely affected the resident, which the landlord has not acknowledged or put right.

Management move process

The landlord’s management move procedure sets out the steps it will take when a case is considered for a management move. It states that the case officer should discuss the request with the resident, collate the relevant information, and complete a management move request form. The procedure further explains that the form must then be reviewed and approved by the case officer’s manager. Once approval is given, it says the resident should be contacted and informed of the decision, along with the conditions of any future offers. It further states that when a suitable match of an available property is made, it will contact the resident to update them and discuss the conditions of the offer.
The resident has provided evidence of communication he had with the landlord regarding the management move, which was not contained within the landlord’s case records. This has been highlighted below. We therefore asked the landlord to provide a full copy of its records of communication in relation to this matter, but some pieces of evidence remained absent from its submission. This missing information has made it difficult for us to assess this aspect of the case. It is, however, indicative of poor record keeping in relation to the landlord’s handling of the management move process. We will take this into consideration in determining the case.
On 30 November 2023, the landlord’s records show that internal discussions took place about arranging a management move for the resident, due to the impact the ASB was having on him. The landlord noted that it believed the resident would prefer a specific flat, and one had become available. Considering the reported ASB and the resident’s vulnerabilities, it was reasonable for the landlord to explore the option of a management move.
On the same day (30 November 2023), the landlord emailed the resident to seek his views on moving to an alternative property. The resident responded that he did not “really want to have to move” and was content to remain in his current property if the ASB from his neighbour was addressed. He added that “if the other family is desperate for it then they can have it especially as it’s coming up to Christmas now”. Engaging with the resident about the possibility of a move was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s management move procedure. However, the resident’s reference to “the other family” suggests that further correspondence took place between the resident and the landlord. There is no evidence of this in its case records, indicating a record keeping concern.
In its stage 1 response on 17 February 2024, the landlord stated that the resident had declined the offer of a management move, which reflected the information held in its case records. In his escalation request on 21 February 2024, the resident provided the landlord with further evidence of correspondence with it. It is noted that this information was not included in the landlord’s case records, which is concerning. In an email dated 30 November 2023, the landlord stated “what if [we] said the move had to happen now? [We] can’t hold a managed move”. The landlord added that it was not very often that a property became available in the resident’s area of choice so he “would have to snap it up”. Evidence provided by the resident shows an undated reply in which he asked whether it was possible to wait a week, so he could discuss the matter with his partner and have time to process it due to his anxiety. We have seen no evidence of any further correspondence from the landlord or that it considered his vulnerabilities in relation to this request, which is unsatisfactory.
The above evidence was available to the landlord during its stage 2 investigation, but it was not acknowledged in the landlord’s final response on 20 March 2024. It reiterated its position that the rehousing offer had been made under the management move process and as such, the property could not be held as it was considered an urgent priority move. The landlord also noted that as a general approach, it usually made one reasonable offer in an area of the resident’s choice. This advice was consistent with the approach of its procedure. However, there was no evidence that a formal management move request form had been completed or approved for the resident at this stage, or that he had been made aware of the conditions of a management move, as outlined in its procedure. This led to the incorrect conclusion that the resident was no longer being considered for a management move following what it described as an unsuccessful offer. This was neither fair nor reasonable, as it impacted the resident’s rehousing options and caused him avoidable distress and inconvenience.
During contact with us in January 2025, the resident told us that when the landlord had offered him a management move, it had asked him to move the same day. As he had a 1-week-old baby at the time, he had requested 24 to 48 hours to move but was told this was not possible. In April 2025, the landlord told us that it had only discussed the possibility of allocating a property for a management move, and that the resident said he would prefer to move after Christmas when his baby was older. The landlord added that this was a conversation, not a formal offer, which is inconsistent with the information contained within its final complaint response. Furthermore, there is an apparent discrepancy between the parties’ understanding of the situation, which is concerning and points to a breakdown in communication between the landlord and resident.
Overall, we find that the landlord failed to follow the steps set out in its management move procedure before discussing a specific property with the resident. This adversely affected the resident and raised his expectations that a management move might be possible, causing him distress and inconvenience. Poor communication and record keeping also added to the landlord’s overall failings. Considering the above, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the management move process.
In its final response the landlord apologised for its lack of clear communication with the resident regarding the rehousing offer but did not offer any compensation. It is noted that since the end of the landlord’s complaints process, the landlord completed a management move request form for the resident in December 2024 and he subsequently moved in May 2025. This shows an attempt by the landlord to address the detriment to the resident and to put things right, which was reasonable. However, this alone is not considered proportionate to redress the failings identified in this investigation.
In the absence of guidance in the landlord’s compensation policy, we consider a payment of £200 to be appropriate compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of the management move process. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord which had an adverse impact on the resident, with some acknowledgement of this but insufficient redress.

Staff conduct

In the resident’s escalation request on 21 February 2024, he said the case officer who had been handling his ASB reports had asked him about his sister and her property which he believed to be “against [his] privacy rights.” The resident provided the landlord with evidence of correspondence which shows in an email dated 25 July 2023, the case officer asked if he knew why the police had been in the area that day and if his sister’s partner was in prison.
In its final response on 20 March 2024, the landlord explained that it did not consider the case officer’s request for information about the resident’s sister to be a breach of privacy but rather an “information gathering request”. However, it acknowledged the resident’s concerns and agreed to make the case officer aware of them. This was a reasonable approach, as while the resident considered his privacy had been breached, there is no evidence that the landlord had acted outside its policies or relevant legislation.
Overall, the available evidence shows the landlord gave the resident’s concerns consideration and it responded appropriately. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are to be responded to within 20 working days from accepting a review. The landlord’s complaints policy states requests for a review after stage 1 should be made within 1 month.
The landlord adhered to the timescales set out within its policy during the complaints process. However, there were other failures. The landlord first responded to the resident at stage 1 on 17 November 2023. However, when the resident raised a further complaint regarding the same issues on 27 January 2024, the landlord treated this as a new complaint and issued another stage 1 response on 19 February 2024. Although the landlord’s policy sets out specific timescales for requesting a review, it would have been reasonable for it to exercise discretion in this case and offer to escalate the previous complaint. This would have been a proportionate response given the Christmas period and the resident’s health and family circumstances. By failing to do so, the landlord created obstacles for the resident, making it harder for him to access the full complaints process. This caused additional time and inconvenience and delayed his opportunity to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s stage 2 response showed a lack of thorough investigation. It said the rehousing offer had been made under the management move process, even though there were no records of a management move request form having been submitted. In addition, the resident provided the landlord with additional evidence of communication on 21 February 2024, which was not in its case records. Given the inconsistencies between the landlord’s case records and the additional evidence supplied by the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate the matter further. It apparently did not do this, which was a failing.
A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for the landlord to review its handling of the substantive issue, as well as the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. However, we find that the landlord did not adequately review both stage 1 responses and assess where things had gone wrong at this stage. In doing so, it failed to uphold the resident’s complaint, which was inconsistent with the evidence. As a result, the landlord missed the opportunity to remedy the substantive issue and rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship. It consequently failed to use its complaints process as an effective tool to put things right.
As a result of not acknowledging the full extent of its failings, the landlord also did not offer adequate redress in its final response. It made no offer of compensation at stage 2, which was inappropriate. The landlord should have considered awarding compensation to the resident for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble its actions had caused.
Considering the circumstances of the case, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s compensation policy does not provide any specific details of the awards it will make in the event of a failure in complaint handling. This Service considers a payment of £100 to be appropriate compensation for the complaint handling failures. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, which it did not appropriately acknowledge or fully put right

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
1. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the management move process.
3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
4. There was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This should be written by a senior member of staff. Its letter should also set out what it has learnt from our report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.
2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £700, which comprises:
  1. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of reports of ASB.
  2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of the management move process.
  3. £100 for the complaint handling failures identified.
  4. This should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.
3. Share our report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord conducts ASB refresher training with its relevant staff, if it has not done so recently. This should focus on good case management practices including the importance of completing and updating risk assessments and providing action plans.
It is recommended that the landlord conducts complaint handling refresher training with its relevant staff, if it has not done so recently.