Lambeth Council (202109436)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109436

Lambeth Council

30 March 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 anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour.
2. The associated formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, of a one bedroom basement flat. The neighbour is a tenant of the landlord and lives in the basement flat directly next door to that of the resident. The two properties are accessed via a communal front entrance door, which only the two properties share.
The resident informs that she sublet the property on two occasions between 2020 and 2021 and both sets of tenants ended their tenancies for the property due to ASB by the neighbour.
The resident reports that she has experienced ASB by the neighbour for several years before she complained in 2021. The evidence provided to this Service, shows that in March and May 2020, the resident reported ASB by the neighbour in the form of verbal abuse and aggressive behaviour. Following the reports, the landlord issued warning letters to the neighbour. It also made a referral to a third party support agency for the neighbour, in May 2020. This Service has not been provided with information about the outcome of the referral.
After the report in May 2020, the resident did not make another report of ASB by the neighbour again until 9 April 2021, 11 months later. The Ombudsman expects a formal complaint to be made within a reasonable time of the matter complaint about occurring, normally within six months. Therefore, whilst these historical reports made in March and May 2020, provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events following the resident’s report of 9 April 2021.

Summary of events

On 9 April 2021, the resident reported that the neighbour had been using incense sticks in the hallway which they said had burnt the carpet in the communal hallway, almost causing a fire. She said that the neighbour had been using incense sticks since March 2021 and believed that the neighbour was using them to mask the smell of the marijuana.
The resident wanted to make the report anonymously as she had complained about the neighbour before but noted that it was likely the neighbour would realise who the report came from. She advised that given the history of the neighbour’s reported behaviour, the landlord ought to remind the neighbour to also refrain from threatening or interrogating other residents.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s report on 12 April 2021 and sent a warning letter to the neighbour on 15 April 2021. The letter stated that the landlord had received reports of the neighbour using incense sticks and threatening and interrogating other residents. The letter explained that it was condition of the tenancy that residents must not cause nuisance or, harass others therefore, such behaviour was considered a breach of the tenancy conditions.
On 24 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord asked that it contact her urgently as she had not heard from it, and was concerned that the neighbour would cause another fire risk in the communal hallway. She also reported that the neighbour was leaving the communal door open, which was a security risk.
On receipt of the email, the Neighbour Housing Team made a referral of the ASB case to the Tenancy Enforcement Team (TET), on 26 May 2021. The team explained that the reason for the referral was because it understood from the resident’s correspondence, that the nuisance it warned the neighbour about had continued.
The day after the referral, the TET contacted the resident and agreed to issue a verbal warning to the neighbour. The landlord informs that when it called the neighbour, it could not reach them, so it sent a warning letter the same day. The landlord informs that between 7 and 8 June 2021, the housing officer sent a letter to the block and the TET caseworker, conducted a virtual door knocking exercise but no other residents could substantiate the allegations made about the neighbour. In addition to this, the landlord visit the property but the neighbour did not answer. The landlord reports that when it visited, it did not see any indication of ASB within the communal area.
On 1 July 2021, the resident contacted the Home Ownership Team to complain about the neighbour again. She said that her tenants, who were living in the property at the time, had to call the fire brigade. No further information was provided at the time about the incident. The Home Ownership team asked the TET to contact the resident and the TET did this via email on 22 July 2021.
When the TET caseworker emailed the resident, they mentioned that they had tried to call the resident but could not reach her. The caseworker asked the resident to make contact and provide information about the incident which resulted in the fire brigade’s attendance. The resident did not respond to the email.
The resident did not make any further reports about ASB by the neighbour again until 29 September 2021. After speaking with a member of the Neighbourhood Housing Team, the resident sent an email to the staff member. In the email, she advised of the history of ASB by the neighbour and informed that her tenants had ended their tenancy for the property. She advised that she had to call the police for the neighbour on several occasions, the most recent being on 17 September 2021, due to verbal abuse. In addition to this, she reported that her neighbour:
1. Was verbally aggressive towards her and other residents, displayed erratic behaviour and sometimes plated loud music.
2. Had made allegations that her tenants were racist and were tampering with the post and had placed notices within the communal areas stating these allegations. The resident said that the landlord had not removed the notices but, she tried to and the neighbour replaced them.
3. Deliberately left the communal front door open.
4. Had caused a fire in their flat in June 2021, which resulted in the fire brigade attending. The resident said there were no smoke alarms in the communal hallway and said that after the fire brigade attended, the neighbour verbally abused her tenants for providing the fire brigade access.
The resident advised that her tenants often did not report the incidents, due to their work commitments and because they did not want to provoke the neighbour. She also said that after the reported fire incident, the landlord had not installed smoke alarms or contacted her. She expressed that she felt the landlord was not taking the ASB reports seriously or taking action to stop the neighbour’s behaviour.
The resident’s email was sent to the TET and the team submitted a disclosure request to the police on 1 October 2021. It received a response from the Police the same day, who had no evidence of any reports being made by the resident about the neighbour, within the last 12 months.
The TET caseworker emailed the resident on 4 October 2021, advising that they did not receive a response when it emailed her on 22 July 2021. The caseworker advised that it was now contacting the resident to enquire whether there was an update her complaints. The caseworker advised the resident that they could use a noise app to record noise from the neighbour’s flat and explained that mediation or conflict surgery could help the situation between the residents. It provided the resident with information on how they could pursue these suggested interventions.
The resident responded to the caseworker and said that they had tried to contact them but was unsuccessful. She did not specify when the attempts were made. She asked that the landlord confirm what action it was going to take regarding the ASB and when it would be doing so. The resident also provided their evidence of the ASB she complained about. This comprised of:
1. Audio recordings of the neighbour’s interaction with another resident. Due to the format of the recording, this Service has not been able to access this.
2. A video, taken from the resident’s flat, where loud music could be heard coming from the neighbour’s property.
3. A video where the neighbour can be heard stating to the resident’s tenants that they ‘don’t do racism’ and ‘hate crime’.
4. A video where the neighbour can be heard speaking to the resident about the cleanliness of the external communal areas. The neighbour states in this video, that they felt that the resident had neglected the external area.
5. Images of the notices the neighbour had placed in the communal hallway with the allegations about resident’s tenants.
6. Emails the resident received from her tenants in 2020 and 2021, which explained their wish to end their respective tenancies due to ASB by the neighbour.
A housing officer attended to the property on 11 October 2021 and removed the notices that the neighbour placed in the communal area. The landlord informed the resident of this action on 18 October 2021.
On 13 October 2021, the resident wrote to the Neighbourhood Housing team to inform that she was dissatisfied with the service she had received from the TET team. She spoke about previous interactions she had with her caseworker in the team, including her contact attempts. She advised that the caseworker had suggested the use of the noise app, mediation or conflict resolution but said she did not believe it was necessary, as she had previously sent the landlord evidence and had been complaining of ASB by the neighbour for several years. The resident also said that she felt the landlord should have considered whether the neighbour had a mental health issue or drug problem, that would impact on their ability to take part in mediation. She confirmed that she was not willing to participate in mediation due to the anxiety, fear and depression the ASB had caused her.
The landlord confirmed to the resident that a senior staff member within the TET would review her email, discuss the case with the team about the concerns she raised about the service and propose an action plan to her. The resident was invited to the virtual meeting with the TET, that was scheduled for 19 October 2021. In addition to the review by the TET, the landlord agreed to arrange an inspection of the communal areas so that it could remove anything that may be causing offence or obstruction.
The resident submitted a formal complaint 14 October 2021 following a call she received from a member of the landlord’s staff the same day. She complained that she believed that her TET caseworker provided false information about the actions they had taken in response to her reports of ASB. She also complained that the member of staff who called her that day, admitted that they had not reviewed her recent correspondence (detailing her dissatisfaction with the TET caseworker) and made a suggestion that she speak with the caseworker she complained about.
After the landlord notified the resident on 18 October 2021, that it attended on 11 October 2021 and removed the notices the neighbour placed in the hallway, the resident confirmed that the neighbour put more notices up with similar content and sent the landlord images of these. She asked when the landlord would remove the notices and what it was going to do about the repeated behaviour.
The TET review took place on 19 October 2021 but the resident was not in attendance due to technical issues on her part. Following the meeting, the TET emailed the resident and advised that it did not have sufficient evidence to progress legal action on the case. It confirmed the following action plan:
1. Reports of harassment and intimidation should be reported to the police and the case worker immediately. If the resident felt threated or unsafe in the property, at any time, she would need to call the police.
2. The resident was to use the noise app provided, to record any noise nuisance experienced from the neighbouring property.
3. That a housing officer would attend that day (19 October 2021) to remove the notice that the neighbour put up in the communal area, since the notice removed on 11 October 2021, and a strong warning letter was to be sent to the neighbour.
4. Individual letter boxes would be provided to both residents’ flats.
5. To reduce the fire risk, the landlord offered to change the carpet in the communal hallway to vinyl. This Service understands that the resident declined this as she wanted the carpet to remain.

In addition to action plan, the landlord raised an instruction for the installation of a fire alarm to be installed in the communal area.

The landlord responded to the complaint at stage two. It explained that its Covid 19 risk assessment, prevented its TET officers from conducting intrusive home visits to complete assessments. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the aforementioned risk assessment. Within the response, the landlord provided the resident with a timeline of its contact with her regarding her ASB reports between 4 March 2020 and 4 October 2021.This included the reports made during this period and the actions it took in response to reports. The landlord informed that it submitted a police disclosure and was awaiting a response. It said that it would take further action, depending on the outcome of the disclosure.
In the complaint response, the landlord confirmed that it had reviewed a video the resident had sent it of a conversation between her and the neighbour. It said that it found that the video did not relate to an ASB issue but that the neighbour was expressing themselves concerning the bin area. It concluded the response, with advice that the resident contact the police and their case worker, if she experienced any racial abuse or behaviour from the neighbour and apologised for any inconvenience, distress and upset caused to the resident.

Events after the complaints process

The resident reported again on 27 October 2021, that the neighbour placed another notice within the communal hallway. The landlord attended the following day and removed the notices. It reports that it had a conversation with the neighbour when it attended and explained the conditions of the tenancy to the neighbour.
The landlord did not receive any further reports of ASB again, until February 2022. After this, it met with the resident on 9 March 2021 and done a case review. This Service has seen from the notes of that case review that, by that time, the landlord had not installed the fire alarm or installed the separate letter boxes to the flats.
The landlord also requested a disclosure from the fire brigade in March 2022. The report from the fire brigade confirmed that a visit to the property took place on 30 June 2021, found no fire and was deemed a false alarm.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s Tenancy Enforcement Policy sets out its approach to ASB where its tenants or leaseholders form part of the dispute.
The landlord states that it will work with key partners and other agencies where necessary to identify multi agency solutions to resolve ASB. In the case of vulnerable residents, it will work with the relevant voluntary agencies to provide support they require.
A risk rating is applied to reports of ASB or neighbour nuisance. The rating determines the urgency of the case and how quickly an initial visit or contact should be carried out by an officer, who is responsible for assessing and determining the risk of report. The risk ratings and response times are as follows:
1. Low risk cases – 5-10 working days – This is where there is a minor neighbour dispute or minor breach of tenancy, boundary and land issues.
2. Medium cases – 2-5 working days- Where there are allegations of illegal activity, verbal abuse and noise nuisance.
3. High risk cases – 24 Hours- 1 day – Where there are threats of physical assault, serious intimation or harassment, racial incidents or serious damage to council properties.
The policy explains that the landlord will explain the investigation process to the person reporting the ASB and explain how the information they have provided will be used. It states that it will take the views of the reporting persons or witness into consideration when it takes further action and use tools such as actions plans to keep the reporting person involved in the decision making.
Where there is evidence of tenancy conditions being broken, the policy explains that tenancy enforcement officers can respond in a range of ways, from taking no action, to informal action to legal action, including demoted tenancies, injunction or possession action.

The landlord’s response to the reports of ASB

When the resident raised the report on 9 April 2021, concerning the neighbour’s use of incense sticks in the communal hallway, that the resident said had burnt the carpet, the landlord promptly acknowledged the report within one working day. It took action regarding the report within four working days and issued a warning letter to the neighbour.
The action taken by the landlord was within its response timeframes for medium risk cases, which was appropriate given the nature of the report indicated illegal activity and damage to the communal carpet.
This Service notes that at the time the report was made, the landlord did not attend to inspect the carpet that the resident said had been burnt. But it attended in June and October 2021, and on both occasions, it found no evidence of a burn to the carpet.
Although, the landlord did not provide the resident with a timely update on the actions it had taken in regard to her report on 9 April 2021. After it acknowledged the report on the 12 April 2021, it did not get in touch with the resident again until 27 May 2021, after the resident made a second report of ASB by the neighbour on 24 May 2021.
When she made the second report of ASB by the neighbour, the resident indicated that she still had concerns about a fire risk in the communal hallway and she reported that the neighbour was leaving the communal front door open. The landlord made the decision to refer the case to the TET on this basis, as it understood from the concerns raised in the resident’s email dated 24 May 2021, that the reported nuisance from the neighbour persisted after it had sent a warning on 15 April 2021. Given the indication that the nuisance was ongoing despite the warning issued to the neighbour on 15 April 2021, the referral to the TET was appropriate as this team had the ability to assess and consider whether any enforcement action was required in the circumstances.
The TET contacted the resident within three working days of her report and this was in line with its timeframe for low risk reports, which the report of 24 May 2021 would be considered, as there was no indication that the resident was in direct harm as a result of the neighbour’s behaviour. The TET followed its policy as it provided the resident with an update on the action it was going to take in response to the report, which was that it would issue a verbal warning the neighbour.
The landlord has informed this Service that it could not reach the neighbour to issue the verbal warning as it agreed and said that it sent a warning letter. In addition to this, the landlord informs that between 7 and 8 June 2021, it took actions to issue a block letter, conducted a virtual door knocking exercise and visit the property. However, the resident was not kept informed about the progress of the action plan that the landlord agreed with her on 27 May 2021, or the additional actions it carried out between 7 and 8 June 2021.
After it spoke with the resident on 27 May 2021, the landlord did not get in contact with her again until 22 July and its contact on that occasion was prompted by a third report it received from the resident on 1 July 2021. The fact that the landlord did not contact the resident again until after it received another report from her, demonstrates that it did not proactively keep the resident informed about the progress of the ASB case.
When the resident reported on 1 July 2021, that the fire brigade had to be called to the property, they said that they wanted to complain about the neighbour but provided no further context about the circumstances which resulted in the incident. It took two weeks after the report, before the landlord contacted her on 22 July 2021. The resident did not respond to the email, but the landlord did not follow up with her again after this. The evidence the landlord later received from the fire brigade in March 2022, confirmed that the call out was deemed a false alarm as there was no fire.
Nevertheless, this Service finds that the length of time the landlord took to contact the resident after she raised the report on 1 July 2021, was unreasonable. Considering the minimal information that it had received about the incident when the report was made, it is expected that the landlord would have considered the report a medium to high risk that it was required it to respond to as a matter urgency. This is particularly the case because, three months prior, it received and responded to the report about the neighbour using incense sticks in the hallway, which it acknowledged was a fire risk.
After reporting the incident on 1 July 2021, the resident did not report the neighbour again until 29 September 2021. When she contacted the landlord on this date, she indicated in her email that her and her tenants had experienced further ASB by the neighbour, in the form of verbal abuse, noise nuisance and allegations of racism and theft. The resident also informed the landlord that they called the police for the neighbour on 17 September 2021.
On receipt of the correspondence from the resident, the landlord promptly requested a police disclosure within two working days of the resident’s contact. This was appropriate given the resident’s indication that the police had recent involvement in the dispute between her and the neighbour. The police disclosure confirmed that the police had not received any report from the resident about her neighbour within 12 months.
The TET got in touch with the resident within three working days of her email dated 29 September 2021. When doing so, it did not acknowledge the contents of her email reporting further incidents with the neighbour but asked the resident for an update. The TET confirmed what the resident could do to record noise from the neighbour and offered the resident the option of taking part in mediation or conflict surgery. The use of the noise app and mediation are both proposals the landlord can offer as part of action plans to address ASB in line with its policy.
However, the landlord’s failure to acknowledge the specific incidents of ASB the resident reported within her email of 29 September 2021 and its request that the resident provided it with an update, demonstrated that it had not reviewed the information the resident had provided. The fact that the landlord had requested a police disclosure within two working days of the resident’s email of 29 September 2021, indicates that it was aware there had been recent incidents that it was required to investigate and respond to. Therefore, it is not clear why when it responded to the resident on 4 October 2021, the landlord did not provide her with an update on the steps it had taken (to request the disclosure) or any additional actions it would take, in relation to the other issues she raised about the neighbour’s verbal abuse and allegations about racism and post theft.
The result of the landlord not reviewing the content of the resident’s email on 29 September 2021 is that it was not able to address the issues she raised at the earliest opportunity. Specifically, the notices that the neighbour placed facing the communal areas, which accused the occupants of the resident’s flat of racism and post theft, were not removed 11 October 2021, eight working days after the resident had reported this.
Given the nature of allegations written on the notices, the location of the notices within the communal area and the evidence the resident provided of the notices, it is expected that the landlord would have considered this a high risk and attended urgently to remove them. The landlord did not respond to remove the notices within the 1 day timeframe its policy provides for it to respond to high risk cases, which include racial incidents. The landlord also did not provide an update to the resident that it had removed the notice on 11 October 2021, until a week later.
When the resident expressed on 13 October 2021, that she was not happy with the service she had received from the TET, a senior within the team promptly completed a case review. It made the decision that it could not take legal action as it did not have sufficient independent evidence to take legal action against the neighbour. Having seen the response from the police disclosure and the evidence the resident had submitted to the landlord on 4 October and 18 October 2021, the landlord’s decision that it could did not take any legal action at that time, was justified.
Legal action, such as eviction, cannot usually be undertaken except as a last resort where all other efforts at resolution have failed, and where a robust case has been built to present to the courts. At the time of the case review, the landlord was provided with videos and images that the resident and her tenant’s had taken on their own devices and the police disclosure confirmed that no reports had been made within 12 months. The landlord, therefore, had not been provided with independent evidence or, evidence from third parties to substantiate the allegations the resident had been making to justify taking legal action at that time.
Building a robust case entails vital components such as witnesses, and independent verification, such evidence of police reports and recordings made through independent devices (i.e the noise app). It was necessary therefore, for the landlord to propose as part of the action plan, that the resident use the noise app to record noise and report certain matters to both the landlord and the police. The resident doing so, would assist the landlord in obtaining evidence to support a case for enforcement action in future, if necessary.
In addition to the actions the landlord suggested the resident take in relation to any future incidents, the landlord provided actions that it said it would take to address the reported ASB. It agreed to send a member of staff to the property, to remove the second notice that the neighbour put in the communal hallway and agreed to issue a strong warning letter to the neighbour. This was the appropriate action, as it was the second time it was required to attend to remove the notice, after it attended on 11 October 2021. The landlord also agreed to install letter boxes for both flats and this was a reasonable proposal to deal with the allegations of post theft that the neighbour had been making about the residents’ tenants. The landlord did not find evidence of the communal area carpet being burned when it attended to the property, but it offered to replace the carpet with vinyl as a way to reduce the risk of a fire. It is understood that the resident later declined this but the offer was suitable in light of her concerns that the carpet was at risk of burning.
This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord attended on 19 October 2021 to remove the notice or, that it issued the warning letter to the neighbour. However, we have seen evidence that it spoke with the neighbour about the notices when it attended to remove a third notice on 28 October 2021. There is no evidence of a further report about the notices after it had this conversation with the neighbour. The action it took to speak with the neighbour about the notice, deviated from what it agreed to do but as it received no further reports after this conversation took place, it is reasonable to conclude that the intervention it took at the time was effective.
However, the landlord did not install the individual letter boxes to the flats within a reasonable period of time nor did it install the fire alarm. These two actions remained outstanding five months after it agreed them and we have not received confirmation as to whether these actions have been completed and therefore have made an order regarding this below.
As well as being dissatisfied with the service the TET caseworker, the resident also indicated concern about the condition of their neighbour’s mental health and drug use. The landlord did not acknowledge this or, take any steps to assess whether the neighbour required any support or assistance with their behaviour. Its policy explains that in the event there a vulnerability present, it can work with agencies to provide support to vulnerable residents to help them maintain their tenancies and prevent ASB incidents. In this case, there is evidence that the landlord historically, made a referral to a support agency for the neighbour therefore it is a shortcoming that it did not on this occasion, take steps to look into the resident’s concern and establish whether the neighbour required support neighbour at that stage.
The landlord, as part of the case review did not look into the resident’s points of dissatisfaction about the way the case had been managed by the TET team. It also did not investigate this within the complaint, the handling of which will be considered separately.
While the landlord took actions in response to the reports the resident made between April and September 2021, it did not provide the resident with updates on the actions it was taking in relation to the reports made during that time. After the first report, it did not contact the resident again until more than a month later, after she reported another incident involving her neighbour in May 2021. After the report in May 2021, the landlord promptly agreed an action plan with the resident and took actions in relation to this however, it failed to provide an update to the resident on the agreed plan. It received a third report from the resident in July 2021, that there was a fire incident and did not get in touch with the resident until 2 weeks later, a considerable amount of time given the nature of the report and the limited information the resident had provided when reporting the incident.
When the landlord completed its case review, it proposed an action plan but then failed to complete all of the actions it agreed to take, within a reasonable period of time. Following the case review, the landlord also did not provide its findings or feedback regarding the resident’s dissatisfaction with the way her ASB reports had been dealt with, despite it agreeing to look into her concerns as part of the case review.
In recognition of the findings in the assessment of the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB, this Service has made orders below.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure:
1. Local resolution is the first stage of this process. At this stage, the complaint is investigated by the service area complained about and a response is to be provided within 20 working days.
2. The final review stage is the last stage and at this stage, the complaint is reviewed by the landlord’s corporate complaints team, independent of the service that has been complained about. A response is to be provided within 25 working days.
The landlord’s policy explains that all complaints will be dealt with at its local resolution stage unless there is a reason for the complaint to be considered at a high level. It explains that this could be due to the urgent nature of the complaint or the vulnerability of the individual concerned.
The landlord states that the complaint response should address all of the issues raised within the complaint, clarify whether the complaint was upheld or not and apply a suitable remedy.
In her formal complaint, the resident raised dissatisfaction with the service she received from TET. Specifically, she raised concerns about the standard of communication she had with her caseworker and the way in which her reports had been dealt with as a whole.
The landlord did not consider the complaint at the local resolution stage and only considered the complaint at stage two. While the complaints policy allows it to do so in some circumstances, the landlord has not provided an explanation as to why it made the decision to do so.
The landlord explained in the response how its Covid risk assessment prevented its officers from carrying out intrusive visits to the property. Given that there were various lockdowns from the start of the Covid 19 pandemic in March 2020, and the 12 months following this, it was reasonable that the landlord had such a restriction in place. The timeline it provided within the response, demonstrated that its contact with the resident between March 2020 and October 2021 was over the phone and in writing, which was in line with the risk assessment it informs was in place at the time.
The landlord did not provide an assessment on how the ASB reports had been responded to against its policy. In addition, it did not investigate the resident’s specific complaints about the standard of communication she had with her TET caseworker and made no attempt to bring the concerns to the staff member in question, so that it could provide the resident with a response.
In line with its complaints policy, the landlord was expected to have addressed the issues the resident raised, provide details as to whether it upheld the complaint and offer the resident an appropriate remedy.
The landlord has not demonstrated fairness in its complaint handling. It bypassed the stage one investigation with no explanation as to why it made the decision to do so. It did not investigate the complaint the resident brought to it about the way in which it had dealt with her ASB reports. As a result of this, it did not confirm to the resident whether it found her complaint was upheld or not, something which its complaints policy states that it would do.
The lack of investigation carried out by the landlord has meant that the landlord has missed the opportunity for it to identify the shortcomings in its handling of the ASB case and offer any reasonable redress to the resident for its service failures.
As found from the Ombudsman’s assessment, between April and September 2021, it has been found that the landlord had not proactively kept the resident updated on the actions it was taking regarding her ASB reports and there were delays in its response to some reports.
The landlord stated in the response that it took complains seriously and used them as a tool for organisational learning. It is positive that it has such an approach, but it has not explained in the response, what learnings it had taken from the resident’s complaint.
This Service notes that the landlord apologised for any inconvenience, distress and upset caused to the resident. The landlord did not clarify whether the apology was in relation to the neighbour’s behaviour or the service the landlord delivered to the resident.
The landlord said that it had an action plan, which was that it would take action based on the response it received from the police disclosure. At the time it provided its response to the complaint, the landlord already had already received the information from the disclosure, on 1 October 2021. Therefore, when it responding to the resident’s complaint, it is expected that it would have relayed this information. This is especially because, the absence of the police reports by the resident about her neighbour, as confirmed by the disclosure, justified the advice the landlord provided to the resident that she uses the noise app and reports any racial abuse or behaviour she experienced from the neighbour to the police as well as the landlord, going forward.
In conclusion, the landlord did not consider the complaint in line with its policy. Its failure to investigate matters raised, resulted in a missed opportunity for it to identify and acknowledge the shortcomings in its delivery of service, offer the resident a satisfactory resolution and identify specific learnings from the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

While the landlord has responded to the resident’s reports of ASB made between April and September 2021, it has not provided the resident with updates on the actions it had taken in response to the reports throughout this period. There have also been delays in some of its responses to the reports. The landlord has not identified these issues in its service delivery, despite its agreement to review the concerns the resident had raised about its delivery of service within its case review.
The landlord provided an action plan following the case review which was appropriate but it then did not complete the actions it agreed to within a reasonable period of time. Five months after the action plan was proposed, the landlord had not installed the letter boxes or the fire alarm to the communal area as it agreed to. It has not been made clear to this Service, whether these actions have now been completed.
Regarding the complaint handling, the landlord has not followed its policy when dealing with the resident’s complaint. It reviewed the complaint at stage two and has not provided an explanation for why it did this. It also has not investigated the dissatisfaction the resident raised about the way her ASB reports had been handled nor, confirmed whether it found the resident’s complaint to be upheld or not.

Orders and recommendations

It is ordered that within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:

a. Pay the resident £750 compensation. Comprising of:

£300 compensation for its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by the neighbour between April and September 2021.
£200 for the failure to complete all of the actions it agreed, following the case review in October 2021, within a reasonable time.
£250 for the handling of the formal complaint.

Confirm to the resident, when she can expect the installation of the letter boxes and the communal fire alarm, to be completed. If the landlord has completed this, it is to provide confirmation to this Service.
Assess the understanding of all relevant staff dealing with its complaints, on its policy for dealing with complaints. Where any training needs are identified the landlord is to prepare a timetable for carrying out any necessary training. The landlord is to provide this service with a summary of its assessment and confirmation of any further action taken.

Confirm to this service that it has complied with the above orders.