LiveWest Homes Limited (202212273)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212273

LiveWest Homes Limited

12 January 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about service charges.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the resident.

Background

The resident lives in a two-bedroom flat with her 2 children under an assured periodic agreement. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
In June 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour had assaulted her, a neighbour had thrown rubbish into her garden, and she had a disagreement with a neighbour over the placement of bins. The landlord raised a stage one complaint for the resident. However, the resident chose not to pursue the complaint on 13 August 2021 as she told the landlord at the time, she had several commitments. She said she would continue to keep a diary.
It is not clear in the evidence if the resident’s reports in 2021 and later in 2022 relate to an individual neighbour or multiple persons who she alleged were acting in an anti-social manner towards her. For the purpose of this report the term ‘neighbour’ will be used throughout.
On 16 November 2021 the resident reported her neighbour had thrown rubbish and glass into her garden. The landlord cleared the glass and made the area safe, but it is unclear when this was completed. It took no further action as the resident was not willing to provide details of who she felt was responsible.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 March 2022 and sent an email with further points on 22 March 2022. She raised the following:
1. Repairs required to the external areas of her property.
2. Her neighbour’s ASB including the following:
  1. Her neighbour grabbed her phone out of her hand and injured her arm.
  2. Her neighbour was a drug user.
  3. Her neighbour was pointing two CCTV cameras into her garden.
  4. Her neighbour had been throwing rubbish including glass into her garden.
  5. Her neighbour was harassing her about a parking space.
  6. She had been verbally assaulted by her neighbour about bins.
3. She was paying a service charge but not receiving all the services she paid for. She confirmed the services not received were window cleaning, communal cleaning and she did not use her TV aerial. She said she only received the benefit of grass cutting in the summer.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response on 29 April 2022. It did not uphold the points the resident had raised about her neighbour’s ASB, or the repairs required to the external areas of her property. It was satisfied it was charging the resident the correct service charge amount and provided her with a service charge breakdown for the 2022/2023 financial year. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 May 2022 as she was dissatisfied the landlord had not upheld any part of her complaint.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 19 May 2022. It did not uphold the resident’s reports about ASB from her neighbour or the repair issues she had raised but committed to continue to support her. It confirmed it had audited the service charge costs and agreed with its stage one complaint response that it was charging her the correct amount. It said this amount was a reduced cost compared to other properties as the resident had her own separate entrance which was not required to be cleaned. It provided details on how to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman.
The resident continued to raise concerns addressed in her stage two complaint and on 15 June 2023 raised a further complaint about the quality of the gardening service at her property. She asked if her service charge could be reduced as she did not have access to internal communal cleaning, external storage facilities, outside window cleaning and fly tipping removal. She raised concerns about her health and the impact this was having on her.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report about her service charge.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman cannot assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint of 15 June 2023 in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This is because there is no evidence that this complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Should the resident wish to pursue this complaint she should do so in accordance with the landlord’s complaints process.
The Ombudsman will not normally assess complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which “concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.” We are unable to assess whether the resident is liable to pay this amount but will assess the landlord’s communication about the charges and arrears, and response to the resident’s queries.
The Ombudsman will not consider the amount of or increase to service charges nor whether the amount being charged is reasonable. The Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s communication, including its response to the concerns raised about specific charges and the services provided in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. In this respect, the Ombudsman will consider whether a landlord has acted fairly, given all the circumstances of a case, whether it has identified and put right service failures and, where appropriate, whether it has learnt from the outcomes of the individual complaint to improve its overall service delivery.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports relating to communication about the service charge.

The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for maintaining the outside of the property and keeping any shared areas in repair and fit for use. The resident must keep her garden and any other external areas she is responsible for in a good and tidy order. The landlord will send the resident an estimate of service charges each year. The services provided as part of the resident’s service charge include:
1. Cleaning of communal areas.
2. Gardening contract.
3. Refuse collection.
4. Day to day estate management.
5. Communal water rates.
6. Fire alarm (PAT and Health and Safety).
7. TV aerial repairs.
8. Managing agent fee.
9. Administration fee.
The landlord’s Service Charges Policy states: “A service charge is a payment made by a tenant or leaseholder towards the cost of providing and maintaining any shared facility or service. A tenant is charged for any service when they derive a direct or indirect benefit from that service.” It calculates service charges to recover all permitted costs plus admin charges and any surplus or deficit. Service charges will be apportioned equally between properties and its service charge forecast budget and statement of account will clearly show how it apportions cost.
The resident was informed of the total rent and estimated service charge of £143.66 per week before she moved in. This was broken down as £135.62 in weekly rent and £8.04 in a weekly service charge. This Service has seen evidence the landlord sent rent review letters to the resident following this as follows:
1. On 22 February 2022 it sent Rent Review Letter 2022 to the resident, confirming the total rent from 4 April 2022 would be £156.06 per week. This was broken down as £144.18 per week rent and £11.87 per week in a communal service charge.
The landlord’s stage one and two complaint responses advised the resident she was paying the correct service charge amount which it said was half the amount other properties pay. It provided a breakdown of the resident’s service charge with its stage one complaint response and acknowledged she did not receive services such as cleaning and alarm testing that other properties did. However, confusingly for the resident the breakdown of her service charge it provided did include charges for both communal cleaning and alarm testing. There is no evidence following this that the landlord supported the resident in understanding the breakdown of her service charges.
Moreover, although the landlord stated the resident paid half the amount of other properties”, this Service has seen no evidence the landlord provided any breakdown of this to the resident. To clarify this the landlord would need to provide a breakdown of the resident’s service charge showing what she has not been charged for and how this reduced her service charge compared to other properties. This would confirm the landlord’s approach and provide reassurance for the resident.
The service charge breakdown for 2022/2023 stated the resident’s total weekly communal service charge was £11.81 per week. However, this contradicts the information provided to the resident in the Rent Review 2022 of 22 February 2022 where it said the service charge for the resident was £11.87 per week. This caused additional confusion to the resident as to what she was paying.
The landlord said at stage 1 it had liaised with its service charge team and the service charge was correct. At stage 2, it stated it had audited the resident’s service charge costs, but this Service has seen no evidence of why the landlord specified this was correct. The landlord could have done more in its response to explain the audit process and why it was satisfied with the amounts charged, to help the resident understand and have confidence in the landlord’s response to her.
Following completion of its internal complaint procedure the landlord began investigating the resident’s further complaint of 15 June 2023 about service charges. On 20 June 2023, the landlord stated in internal correspondence; “no reductions to communal cleaning or any communal services as these are all contracted costs”. It told the resident on 23 June 2023 that the service charge for communal areas was charged to all customers who reside there or have benefit from its upkeep. It said it could not amend her service charge as it did not amend charges based on individual usage but said it could provide information on the frequency of communal services. This contrasts with the landlord’s responses on 29 April 2022 and 19 May 2022 which advised her service charge was reduced as she was not receiving a communal cleaning service, bringing doubt on the accuracy of the earlier information.
In summary the landlord has kept the resident informed about the service charge she was required to pay in a timely manner in accordance with its Service Charges Policy. It did this through its Rent Review Letters in February 2022 and 2023. Its stage one and two complaint response were appropriate in confirming to the resident the service charge she was paying was correct and provided her with a breakdown of the service charge. However, it did not support her in understanding the service charge cost which was unreasonable and prolonged the uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident.
In its complaint response the landlord informed the resident she was paying a reduced rate of service charge for services she was not receiving but other than providing a breakdown of costs failed to explain this appropriately causing confusion to the resident. The landlord’s further response of 23 June 2023 has caused further confusion about the accuracy of the landlord’s responses of 29 April and 19 May 2021. As such the residents’ concerns have been prolonged further and there is continued uncertainty over what the correct information is.

Window cleaning

The resident raised in her stage one complaint that her windows were not being cleaned. This Service can find no information in the tenancy agreement or policy information which suggests the landlord provided a service to clean the resident’s windows or that the resident pays a service charge for this.
The breakdown of the resident’s service charges attached with its stage one complaint response provided information on the component parts of the service charge she pays. However, this did not include window cleaning and caused confusion to the resident who believed she was paying the service charge for window cleaning. Following this there is no evidence that the landlord explained or reassured the resident why she was not receiving or paying for a window cleaning service. This prolonged the uncertainty and inconvenience for her.

Communal cleaning

The resident stated in her stage one complaint she was paying for but not receiving communal cleaning. The tenancy agreement confirms cleaning of communal areas forms part of the service charge the resident is responsible for. As previously mentioned in this report the landlord agreed in its stage one and two complaint responses that the resident was not in receipt of communal cleaning and thus was charging her a reduced service charge rate. It did not clarify in its responses when the charge at the reduced rate began.
The landlord provided clearer information about this at a later stage. Following its final complaint response of 19 May 2022, it told her in its reply on 23 June 2023 the services mentioned in her budget (on the services charges breakdown) were based on contractor or landlord costs and could not be reduced. It said it could provide her with information on the frequency of cleaning in communal areas. It did not clarify at this later stage that though the communal costs are based on contractual cost, it did not matter as far as the resident is concerned. This is because she was not being charged for this, as confirmed in the landlord’s stage one and two complaint responses. This addressed the resident’s concerns, but it should have provided this by its final response. As a result, this caused prolonged uncertainty to the resident.

Use of TV aerial

In her stage one complaint of 18 March 2022 the resident stated she did not use the TV aerial. The tenancy agreement confirms repairs to the TV aerial forms part of the service charge the resident is responsible for. The breakdown of the service charges included with the stage one complaint informed the resident she was paying for the repair to TV aerials as part of her service charge. However, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns in its stage one and two complaint responses that she was not using the TV aerial but was being charged for repairs to it.
On 23 June 2023 the landlord provided clearer information explaining that it does not amend service charges based on individual usage. However, this was outside of the landlord’s final response of 19 May 2022. It should have provided this information during the internal complaints procedure to mitigate any uncertainty experienced by the resident.

Garden maintenance

The resident told the landlord in her stage one complaint of 18 March 2022 she only received the benefit of garden maintenance during the summer. A gardening contract does form part of the service the resident pays a service charge for. The landlord did not specifically respond to the residents’ concerns about the gardening service being seasonal in its stage one and two complaint responses. It has however suggested in its response outside of this complaint on 23 June 2023 it could provide the resident with information about the frequency of grounds maintenance. However, it should have provided this whilst the internal complaints process was in progress.

Summary of Service Charge issue

There is some confusion in the evidence provided by the landlord in whether the resident is paying a reduced cost for services such as communal cleaning. The landlord’s internal communication on 23 June 2023 has undermined the accuracy of its responses on 29 April and 19 May 2022. This has added to the confusion felt by the resident and prolonged her uncertainty and inconvenience in receiving an accurate response to her concerns.
The landlord provided information on the amount and breakdown of the residents service charge but failed to provide a clear explanation she could understand and failed to work with her to further support her understanding of the communal service charge. It has not made it clear if she should receive a window cleaning service. It did appropriately explain the services she received for garden maintenance and a TV aerial.
There has been service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident concerns about not receiving services she pays a service charge for. This is due to providing inaccurate information about the cost of her service charge in 2022/2023, failing to sufficiently explain the breakdown of the service charge to her and the inconsistent information between 19 May 2022 and 23 June 2023 about a reduction in the service charge she pays. The Ombudsman orders compensation of £200 be awarded to the resident as the landlord attempted to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.
The landlord must review the resident’s communal service charge to ensure it is accurate. Once this has been completed and any necessary alterations made it must fully explain the breakdown of the service charge to the resident including any reductions it applies for services she does not receive. It must also provide the resident with the accurate figure for the communal service charge in 2022/2023.

The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the resident.

The Ombudsman’s role is not to establish whether the reported ASB occurred or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the resident or the/a neighbour. It is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports were aligned with its legal and policy obligations, and whether its actions were fair in all the circumstances of the case.
As a public authority if the landlord has determined a reported behaviour to be ASB it must give due regard for Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, ensuring any action taken is reasonable and proportionate.
The landlord’s ASB Policy states it takes reports of ASB seriously and it is committed to taking proportionate action and supporting residents to resolve ASB issues. It believes that responsibility is shared by residents and other agencies. In many cases it may not be appropriate for it to intervene or lead and any criminal activity should be reported to the police. Residents are expected to report ASB as soon as it happens, and they are unlikely to consider action if it relates to historic events. It expects residents to assist in reviewing cases and providing evidence such as witness statements. Where a landlord identifies a complainant as vulnerable, it will give appropriate support and make a safeguarding referral where necessary.
The landlord’s ASB Policy categorises ASB as follows:
1. Red, Priority 1. Classed as high risk of harm.
2. Amber, Priority 2. Classed as standard risk of harm.
3. Lifestyle differences.
The tenancy agreement confirms the resident must not act or behave in a way which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress. Regarding noise nuisance, it states the resident must not act in a ‘noisy way’ giving examples such as shouting and screaming.
This Service has seen evidence the resident raised a complaint about ASB from her neighbours in June 2021 which included an injury to her arm allegedly caused from her neighbour, glass and rubbish being thrown into her garden and disagreement over bins. The landlord’s housing officer initially spoke with the resident about her concerns, but following an unplanned call from them the resident said she would only speak with the landlord through a solicitor.
The resident’s complaint was taken up by a different member of the landlord’s staff and they asked to discuss the complaint with the resident on 27 July 2021. This Service has seen evidence the resident had chosen not to pursue her complaint on 13 August 2021 as she had several “other commitments” at the time, including the death of her children’s father. She told the landlord at the time she would record (ASB incidents) in her diary.
The Ombudsman’s remit requires complaints to both complete a landlord’s complaints process and be raised to the Ombudsman in a reasonable timeframe. As such the resident’s complaint about ASB from her neighbours in June 2021 will not be assessed here. However, the initial report of ASB from the resident’s neighbours is relevant to the complaint under investigation for contextual purposes.
The resident confirmed in her initial complaint of 24 March 2022 whilst reporting ASB from her neighbour, that she was a lone parent, had a health condition and classed herself as vulnerable. This Service has seen no evidence following this that the landlord completed a risk assessment of the resident and her family or acknowledged her concerns about being vulnerable. The resident told the landlord again on 23 May 2022 she had “suffered five years of ASB” and was vulnerable, however there is no evidence of further action taken by the landlord because of her making this report.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 response it could consider reasonable adjustments put forward by the resident to support her meeting with it. However, this was not fully considerate of the resident being vulnerable and only addressed issues she may have in meeting with it.
Furthermore, in her complaint of 24 March 2022 the resident said she wanted to be moved as she felt her 11-year-old daughter was being influenced by the impact of the alleged ASB from her neighbours. The landlord did not respond to this point in its stage one complaint response. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, the landlord’s stage two complaint response did appropriately advise it could discuss housing options. This Service has seen evidence in October 2022 she was able to find information for and place herself on a scheme waiting list to swap homes.
As a result of the landlord’s failure to consider the resident as vulnerable it missed an opportunity to support the resident and failed to follow its ASB policy which required it to refer the resident for safeguarding. Its failure to consider her as vulnerable also affected the way in which it considered her complaints and the impact her reports of ASB were having on her emotionally and physically. The impact the ASB was having on the resident and her family was highlighted by her request to move which was missed by the landlord.
The resident’s reports were various and included examples within each of the classifications in the landlord’s ASB policy. The details of these are as follows:
1. The landlord’s ASB Policy for ‘Red, Priority 1’ ASB reports provides examples such as serious assault, threats of violence and hate crime. It aims to respond to such reports within 24 hours of receipt.
2. The landlords’ ASB Policy for ‘Amber, Priority 2’ ASB reports provides examples such as drug use, intimidation, harassment, damage to property and persistent noise/noise nuisance. It aims to respond in 24 hours and investigate within 5 days.
3. The landlord’s ASB Policy for ‘Lifestyle Differences’ ASB reports provides examples such as parking disputes, bins and recycling, noise from normal living and DIY. It expects tolerance in such instances and for residents to approach one another in a “neighbourly way”.

Report of neighbour taking the resident’s phone out of her hand and hurting her arm.

In June 2021 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about her neighbour grabbing her phone out of her hand and injuring her arm due to a disagreement about the siting of the bins. It told her on 9 June 2021 to report the issue to the police and provide it with the reference details so it could offer further support. It also provided her with its ASB policy. In not pursuing her complaint of 9 June 2021 on 13 August 2021 the resident told the landlord she would keep a diary of events, which suggests she remained concerned about the issues.
The resident reported to the landlord on 22 March 2022 “in the previous year” her neighbour had snatched her phone out of her hand and hurt her arm. Although likely to have been the incident reported by the resident in June 2021, the landlord was not certain and should have sought clarity on whether it was a live issue and taken appropriate action. This Service has seen evidence it considered the resident’s report internally on 24 March 2022 and believed she had previously raised this before but “did not engage with the complaints process”.
The landlord spoke with the resident in person on 13 April 2022 and provided her with its stage one complaint response on 29 April 2022. It informed the resident it could not uphold this part of the complaint telling her she “needed to engage in the ASB and nuisance report process, working with the landlord to explore a resolution”. The wording of this was not correct as from June 2021 the resident had engaged with the landlord’s complaint process but ultimately chose not to pursue the complaint for her own reasons. The resident chose on 22 March 2022 to re-raise her complaint. The landlord should have done more in its stage one complaint response to support the resident with her concerns she had been assaulted by her neighbour, as it went on to do in its stage two complaint response.
In its stage two complaint response of 19 May 2022 the landlord offered appropriate support to the resident regarding the alleged assault, offering to support her to take the matter forward, speak with her Housing Officer but advising her she would need to provide a statement. It told her it had taken the reports seriously and in line with its ASB policy, this may have been true for the action it took in June and July 2021 but was not true for its stage one complaint response of 13 April 2022. It told her it was not responsible for the actions of the resident’s neighbours which is in line with its ASB policy. There is no evidence following the landlord’s stage two complaint response that the resident raised the issue with it again.
The resident chose not to pursue her report of her neighbour assaulting her on 13 August 2021 which was her right to do so. She chose to raise the issue again on 22 March 2022, but the landlord failed to provide options to support her in its response of 13 April 2022. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident causing her to feel she was not being treated fairly. Its final response of 19 May 2022 rectified its earlier inaction in offering appropriate support to the resident if she wished to further raise the issue in accordance with is ASB policy.

Report of neighbour drug use.

The landlord’s ASB Policy acknowledges that drug use impacts the wider community.
This Service has seen evidence the resident reported her neighbour using drugs on 9 June 2021 and on the same day the landlord advised the resident to contact the police. There is no evidence following this the resident took this action. The resident raised concerns about her neighbours talking drugs again on 22 March 2022.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s further points about her neighbour’s drug use. Although the resident had previously raised this on 9 June 2021 the landlord failed to investigate the residents further concerns. As such it was unable to take any further action in line with its ASB policy in supporting the resident, referring to other agencies or taking intervention with the neighbour. This resulted in the resident feeling she was not being listened to and caused distress to her and her family.

Reports of the resident’s neighbour pointing a camera at her property.

The resident first reported her neighbour’s two CCTV cameras were pointing at her garden which she believed were recording her children on 22 March 2022. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint said it would speak with the neighbour and if the CCTV camera was covering her home, it would “pick this up with them”.
Following this the landlord did not confirm what action it had taken with the neighbour until its stage 2 complaint response. This caused uncertainty and distress to the resident whilst she was unaware of the follow up actions taken by the landlord. The landlord’s stage two complaint, which was prompted by the resident’s escalation request confirmed it had spoken with the neighbour about positioning of the CCTV cameras. It advised the resident it was unable to control the use of personal cameras and could support her with an invasion of privacy report to outside agencies.
Following this there were no further reports from the resident to the landlord about the CCTV cameras and she did not request support with raising invasion of privacy concerns. This was a reasonable, although delayed intervention and as the resident raised no further concerns, it suggests it had provided a resolution to the issue.

Report of neighbour throwing rubbish including glass into the resident’s garden.

The resident initially raised concerns about her neighbours throwing rubbish and glass into her garden in June 2021 but chose not to pursue the complaint on 13 August 2021. The resident raised this again in November 2021 and the landlord acted appropriately in clearing glass from her garden to make the area safe. The resident was unwilling to provide details at this point of who she believed was responsible which left the landlord unable to take any further action.
On 22 March 2022, the resident raised again that a neighbour had thrown rubbish and glass into her garden which almost hit her daughter. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord stated it had spoken with the resident and determined the issues went back to 2021 and it had taken her reports seriously and took appropriate action at the time. It also said in 2021 it found it difficult to find a resolution as the resident requested no contact from her housing officer and wished to speak through a solicitor.
The landlord confirmed at stage 2, it had responded to the resident’s reports in accordance with its ASB Policy and included a copy of the policy for the resident. The Ombudsman finds this to be correct in that the landlord took all the action within its ability in November 2021 by making the resident’s garden safe, given the resident refused to divulge who she believed was responsible for the ASB.

Report of issues with neighbour from the resident about a parking space.

The resident reported on 18 March 2022 her neighbour often parked in front of her doorway and had not been able to use her allocated parking space as her neighbour verbally abused her when she did use it. In its stage one complaint response the landlord stated pictures the resident had provided it of inconsiderate parking were on the public highway. It was correct in advising the resident it had no jurisdiction over vehicles parked on the highway, as this is the responsibility of the local authority. It did provide a commitment to monitor allocated spaces to ensure inappropriate vehicles were not parked there. However, the report of verbal abuse from the neighbour was not addressed at the stage one complaint. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
However, the landlord’s stage two complaint response did support the resident with the parking dispute in that it appropriately directed her to its website for support in approaching her neighbour about the parking issues. It also provided a commitment to speak with her neighbour if the resident was able to provide further details of when parking issues took place. This Service has not seen further evidence following this that the resident provided this information to the landlord.

Report of neighbour moving residents’ bins.

This Service has seen evidence that on 11 June 2021 the landlord told the resident she did not pay a service charge for the bin store so should not be storing her bins there and had a garden where she should be storing bins. It said it also informed her of this in 2020.
The resident reported to the landlord on 22 March 2022 her neighbour was storing their bins outside her front door, had left a bag of dog poo there and was harassing her to move her bins. In its stage one complaint response the landlord only referred to the issue of the bins in relation a disagreement over the bins that resulted in the resident reporting her phone had been taken out of her hand and arm injured in 2021. It failed to acknowledge or support the resident, and this was unreasonable causing further distress and inconvenience to her.
At stage 2 the landlord demonstrated that it had taken appropriate action by inspecting the area around the resident’s home for issues over placement of the bins. It also offered a commitment to continue to monitor the area through increased estate inspections over several weeks.
In summary the landlord should have done more in its stage one complaint response to support the resident in resolving the issues she had in a ‘neighbourly way’ as its ASB Policy dictates and as it went on to do in the stage two complaint response. Its inaction in its stage 1 complaint response delayed support and/or resolution for the resident causing further inconvenience and distress to her, until it rectified this by providing an appropriately supporting response at stage 2.

Overall response and support from landlord

The landlord’s complaint responses provided empathy for the resident’s situation and offered ongoing support to improve the relationship between it and the resident. It signposted the resident to several options to help her move forward such as coaching, a referral to its tenancy sustainment team, a Community Trigger application and information on its website to support resolving issues with neighbours.
As part of its stage two complaint response of 19 May 2022 the landlord offered the resident coaching or cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) in line with support it offers as part of its ASB Policy. The resident said on 20 May 2022 she was “insulted” by this offer. It did apologise to her the same day for any upset caused and appropriately informed her it offered CBT to all residents reporting ASB and CBT supported many of its customers but was ultimately an individual choice.
Furthermore, the landlord’s stage two response understood the ongoing issues between the resident and multiple neighbours and offered an effective approach in suggesting arranging and funding mediation between the parties to build better relationships in the future. There is no evidence to suggest the resident took up this offer from the landlord.
The resident had previously reported the issues of allegedly being assaulted by her neighbour, a neighbour throwing items into her garden, issues with bins and her neighbours drug use in June 2021. The landlord should have investigated at stage one in accordance with its ASB policy. It was not appropriate for it to say she failed to engage with the complaints process. The result of this was to cause delay to the complaint causing frustration, inconvenience, and distress to the resident. It must be noted that the stage two complaint response from the landlord rectified the failures and missing information in its stage 1 complaint response. The stage 2 response was supportive and reassuring to the resident.
Had the landlord assessed whether the resident and her family were vulnerable from her raising this on 22 March 2022, it would have had opportunity to respond to her to consider a safeguarding approach to its complaint responses.
In the opinion of the Ombudsman there has been service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It failed to respond to the resident’s reports about her vulnerability, including completing a risk assessment with her vulnerability in mind and then taking this into account in its subsequent consideration of her reports of ASB. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord must award the resident £150 compensation. This is because there was minor failure by the landlord which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident. The Ombudsman also orders the landlord to complete a risk assessment with the resident to determine her vulnerability in line with its response to her ongoing issues.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the resident.

Orders

The landlord shall carry out the following orders:
1. Review the resident’s communal service charge for the financial year 2021/2022 to determine its accuracy, clarifying to the resident the process that it used in reviewing these charges and the evidence that it relied upon. Once this is complete and pending any changes, the landlord to provide a full explanation of the breakdown of the charges including where the resident receives a reduced rate. Appropriate changes to be made as necessary to any subsequent years that are affected following this review of the 2021/2022 service charge.
2. Confirm to the resident the accurate figure for the cost of her communal service charge for the financial year 2022/2023.
3. The landlord should complete a risk assessment of the resident and her property, to establish her vulnerability and take further supportive action as necessary.
4. Pay the resident a total of £350 in compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience for the failure in the handling of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about service charges.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience for the inappropriate handling of the resident’s report of ASB from her neighbours.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.