Midland Heart Limited (202327859)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327859

Midland Heart Limited

29 August 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

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

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 11 January 2019. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord said it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The resident made several reports to the landlord about ASB from 2 neighbouring properties (referred to as ‘property A and property B’ for this report) from 3 February 2023. The ASB reports included alleged assault, harassment, banging on walls and slamming doors. The resident also reported banging coming from the loft area above his bedroom. The neighbour from property B had made counter allegations about the resident acting in an intimidating manner and noise nuisance from his property throughout the same time period.
  3. In September 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that:
    1. he was being bullied and harassed by his neighbours
    2. he was being affected by deliberate banging and doors slamming
    3. the neighbour from property A and her partner had assaulted him in April 2023
    4. someone had accessed the void space above his flat and was banging and stomping around
    5. the situation had been ongoing for months and was affecting his mental health
    6. the case officer had no urgency to resolve the issues
    7. he felt there was a huge bias towards the occupant of property B
  4. The landlord dealt with this informally in the first instance, as per its complaint policy. The landlord carried out a review of the ASB case and the actions taken by the officer up to that date.
  5. On 17 November 2023, the resident informed the landlord that he had contacted this service for advice. The landlord logged his complaint on 30 November 2023.
  6. On 6 December 2023, the landlord sent its stage 1 response in which it said:
    1. it had logged the resident’s ASB reports and opened a case following the resident’s first report on 3 February 2023
    2. it had attempted to speak to the resident to discuss his reports and left a voicemail message
    3. it had reviewed the resident’s noise recording from 24 February 2023
    4. it explained to the resident that the recording was not clear and the landlord had not been able to hear anything
    5. the ASB case was closed on 7 March 2023 as the resident had not reported any further incidents
    6. it opened a new ASB case on 24 April 2023 following the resident’s reports of noise nuisance
    7. it had contacted the resident to discuss the reports
    8. the resident’s reports concerned property B going to and from the property several times and slamming doors in the process
    9. the landlord had explained to the resident that someone leaving their property several times was not a breach of tenancy
    10. the landlord had asked the resident to use the noise app to record the incidents
    11. the resident said that the noise app did not pick up the noise but he had his own recordings
    12. there was no further contact from the resident until 3 August 2023 when the resident reported he was again affected by noise from his neighbours
    13. the landlord had contacted the resident to discuss his reports
    14. the resident had reported that there had been a further incident with the neighbour from property B when the neighbour had been videoing the resident in the communal courtyard
    15. the landlord had taken appropriate action with the neighbour following this incident
    16. the resident raised concerns regarding his neighbours having access to the loft area above his property
    17. the landlord conducted a home visit to the resident on 6 October 2023
    18. the landlord changed the key safe code for the access to the loft to ensure no unauthorised persons had access
    19. the landlord had put a community trigger in place
    20. the landlord arranged for the out of hours caretaker team to attend the property to witness the noise. They would assess the noise and report any findings to the landlord
    21. the landlord had reviewed all noise recordings submitted by the resident
    22. the landlord had remained impartial
    23. the landlord would continue to review the ASB case
  7. On 6 December 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. The resident said:
    1. the loft was not examined, the hatch was opened but no one went up into the loft
    2. the out of hours telephone number was not working when the resident first used it
    3. he wanted to know why the landlord was closing the complaint when there were ongoing issues
    4. he wanted to know if the landlord agreed or disagreed with the noise that was being made
    5. he wanted to know if the landlord believed the case had been handled fairly by the case officer
    6. he was still being followed by an occupant of property A and threatened
  8. On 12 January 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it said:
    1. the loft space
      1. the landlord visited the building on 24 October 2023 and had established the loft could only be accessed via the hatch in the resident’s bedroom
      2. the landlord checked the hatch in property B and established that there was no access to the loft area
      3. on 24 October 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to thank it for checking the hatches and said this had given him ‘peace of mind’
      4. the landlord had agreed to conduct a further inspection of the loft area on 12 January 2023 to reassure the resident
      5. the landlord had attended the property on 12 January 2023 but the resident refused access
      6. the resident said he had previously cancelled the appointment for 12 January 2023
      7. the landlord asked the resident to contact the landlord to rearrange the appointment
    2. the out of hours number not working
      1. the landlord accepted it had given the resident the incorrect number on 6 October 2023
      2. the landlord gave the resident the correct number on 7 November 2023
      3. the landlord apologised for its mistake
    3. closure of the ASB case
      1. the landlord confirmed the ASB case was still open and would not be closed without the agreement from the resident and having investigated all elements
      2. the landlord may decide to close the file if there was no case to answer but it would discuss this with the resident before doing so
    4. the reports of noise
      1. the landlord had listened to some of the resident’s recordings and viewed videos. It confirmed it had witnessed the sound of doors closing and echoing through the corridors but it had not witnessed loud internal noise which would constitute noise nuisance
      2. there was no evidence of walls being banged or noise from the roof
      3. the landlord said it was not saying there was no noise but that sounds in the corridors can often be unavoidable
      4. the landlord had arranged for the corridor doors to be adjusted to minimise slamming and banging
      5. the landlord would continue to review the evidence and would act to resolve any deliberate noise or to mitigate noise which was deemed unintentional
    5. the handling of the ASB case
      1. the landlord said the case had been challenging with a number of residents involved, each with their own versions of events
      2. the building was a block of flats where the acoustics and design contributed to issues such as echoing
      3. the case officer had listened to the resident’s concerns
      4. the case officer had tried to put an action plan in place
      5. the case officer had tried to identify breaches of tenancy which could be actioned
      6. the landlord had found no fault with how the case officer had handled the case
      7. the landlord had assigned a new case officer to provide a fresh outlook and if any other solutions could be offered
      8. the landlord had investigated the resident’s report that the case officer had said to him, “you are big, you go to the gym, you are black you do seem aggressive”. It said it had spoken to the other employee who had been present and they said no racial comments were made
      9. the landlord had listened to the resident’s concerns that he was being treated differently
      10. the landlord said it took such allegations seriously but had been unable to identify that any employee had been racist or treated the resident differently
      11. the landlord had discussed the resident’s mental health concerns with him and signposted him to his GP
      12. the police had completed a mental health referral to support the resident
    6. an occupant of property A was following the resident
      1. the resident had reported being assaulted by this person in April 2023 which he had reported to the police
      2. the resident decided not to press charges
      3. the resident reported this person for staring at him as he drove past, making the resident feel intimidated
      4. the landlord had spoken to the alleged perpetrator who denied staring at the resident
      5. the landlord was unable to determine the facts without evidence
      6. the allegation had been noted and checked with the police who said they had filed the report
      7. the landlord would continue to investigate and would take appropriate action if there was evidence to support the resident’s allegations
      8. the landlord noted it had failed to investigate the resident’s report of assault in April 2023 from a tenancy perspective and it had relied on the outcome from the police
      9. the landlord acknowledged this was a failure and apologised to the resident
      10. the landlord said it would investigate this incident thoroughly and take appropriate action to ensure the resident felt safe in his home
  9. The landlord accepted its ASB case handling had fallen below its standards concerning the following:
    1. the delay in inspecting the loft area
    2. it had provided the resident with the wrong telephone number for the out of hours service
    3. it had failed to investigate the reported assault in April 2023
    4. The landlord offered compensation of £850
  10. The resident has informed this service that, as an outcome, he would like:
    1. the landlord to move him to another property
    2. more compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to him

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In the interest of fairness, the Ombudsman has limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s complaint in November 2023, which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 12 January 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this service. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident raised a further complaint in April 2024. This complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process and, therefore, does not form part of this investigation. The resident can address these issues directly with the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident said the incidents he reported caused him significant distress and anxiety. However, it is important to note it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it received and whether it had followed proper procedure and followed good practice, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
  2. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord deals with reports of noise via the landlord’s ASB policy. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will apply a reasonable approach to all reports of suspected antisocial behaviour and will intervene only where it is in the best interests of the landlord and its residents to do so. Consideration will be given to how regular or persistent the behaviour is. It will intervene when the behaviour poses a risk to a person’s tenancy and/or there is a risk of harm.
  3. The landlord said that it first received reports of noise from the resident in February 2023. This related to banging and door slamming by his neighbours from properties A and B. He also said that he could hear someone making loud noises in the loft area above his flat. The resident sent the landlord a recording of the noise, which the landlord listened to. The landlord could not hear anything on the recording. The landlord said it tried to contact the resident to update him but was unable to reach him. It left a voicemail explaining that it could not hear anything on the recording. The landlord said it closed its case on 7 March 2023. Although this service would have expected the landlord to make further attempts to contact the resident before closing the case, it was reasonable in the circumstances that the landlord closed the case because there was insufficient evidence to show that a breach of tenancy had taken place and because the resident had not made any further reports.
  4. On 24 April 2023 the resident reported that he had been assaulted the previous day by his neighbour’s partner from property A. The resident reported the incident to the police. The resident also informed the landlord that his neighbour from property A had assaulted him on 18 April 2023. He told the landlord that another neighbour had witnessed this incident.
  5. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will complete an initial risk assessment to determine the case priority. This is normally completed by the landlord’s customer hub or by the case officer, once the case is allocated. The landlord would then prioritise the case as follows:
    1. Personal (highest level of priority): antisocial behaviour which is perceived to be targeted at an individual or group rather than the community at large. The landlord will make an initial response within 1 working day.
    2. Nuisance (medium level or priority): antisocial behaviour which is causing trouble, annoyance or suffering to the local community at large rather than to an individual. The landlord will make contact with the complainant within 5 working days.
    3. Environmental (lower level of priority): the antisocial behaviour incident is not aimed at an individual or group but targets the wider environment. The landlord will make contact with the complainant within 7 working days.
  6. The landlord allocated the resident’s report to a case officer on the same date the resident contacted the landlord. The case officer said it would contact the parties involved. There is no evidence that the landlord completed the risk assessment either at the time the landlord received the report or when the case was allocated. In completing risk assessments and focusing upon the harm caused, landlords can ensure that they can put measures in place at the first opportunity and reduce the impact of the ASB. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
  7. As the resident’s report related to an alleged physical assault, this would mean the case would have been categorised as the highest level of priority with a response time of 1 working day. There is no evidence to show that the landlord contacted the resident within the timescale. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
  8. The records show that the landlord sent a letter to one of the parties on 4 May 2023 about a ‘breach of tenancy towards other neighbours’. However, the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of this letter and therefore we have been unable to establish who the letter was sent to or what it said.
  9. On 16 May 2023, the resident informed the landlord that he had decided not to press charges regarding the alleged assaults in April 2023. Although the resident had decided not to pursue criminal charges this did not mean that the landlord should not take any further action. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out its own investigation into the reported incidents. The landlord should have contacted the resident in the first instance to listen to his account of the incidents. It should have explained to the resident that even though he did not wish to press criminal charges the landlord could still investigate the incidents to establish if there had been a breach of tenancy. Carrying out such an investigation would have given the landlord a better understanding of the severity of the behaviour, the amount of harm caused and enabled it to make a decision as to what action it might take, if any. The landlord did not carry out an investigation into these incidents which was a significant failure in this case.
  10. On 16 May 2023, the resident reported that he was still affected by noise from his neighbours and from the loft area above his flat. He believed that one of his neighbours had access to this area and was making the noise deliberately. The landlord spoke to the resident on 18 May 2023 to obtain further details from him. The landlord completed a risk assessment, which it recorded as low. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy.
  11. On 10 August 2023, the resident asked the landlord if he could be moved to another property. The landlord informed the resident that it did not move residents for antisocial behaviour but provided the resident with rehousing advice to contact the council and consider a mutual exchange. This service would expect the landlord to have a management transfer policy which should include provision for the landlord to consider a move for residents who are affected by ASB. It is a regulatory requirement that landlords have policies which sets out how they allocate properties. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have assessed the resident’s transfer request and then to have provided him with a decision. There is no evidence to show that the landlord assessed the request to move home appropriately. This was a failure in the landlord’s service to the resident.
  12. On 24 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord for an update on his ASB case. During this communication he mentioned that the situation with his neighbours was affecting his mental health. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will aim to recognise support needs as early as possible and throughout the case and work with partner agencies to provide appropriate levels of support. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to have explored this further with the resident and considered what support it could put in place to support him. The landlord is likely to have discussed the resident’s support needs at the start of the case as this forms part of the risk assessment. However, there is no evidence that the landlord discussed support with the resident again until December 2023 when it agreed to contact his GP on his behalf. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
  13. On 26 September 2023, the landlord spoke to the resident regarding a report that he had removed the neighbour’s doorbell at property B. The resident informed the landlord that he felt the landlord was biased towards the neighbour and taking their word for it over his. Whilst the resident was not happy that the landlord was questioning him about this incident, it was appropriate for the landlord to discuss this report with him so that it could obtain and record his views on the incident. This would enable the landlord to make an informed and proportionate decision on whether the landlord needed to take any action.
  14. In its evidence the landlord refers to an ASB case review panel meeting (community trigger) in October 2023 where the ASB case was reviewed by an external agency. The landlord has not provided a copy of the outcomes or recommendations made by the panel. However, the landlord said the panel recognised that it had done what it could up to that date. The panel recommended that the landlord offer restorative justice to both parties to try and resolve the dispute. The landlord said that it spoke to the resident and the neighbour from property B about attending a restorative justice meeting. Although the resident agreed, the neighbour declined to take part. Whilst this service understands this must have been frustrating for the resident, restorative justice is a voluntary process and it was therefore reasonable of the landlord to respect the neighbour’s decision not to take part.
  15. On 21 October 2023 the resident reported a further incident when he alleged that an occupant of property A had threatened him. The resident reported the incident to the police. The landlord contacted the resident within 1 working day to take the full details from him. The landlord said that it would link in with the police about this incident and speak to the alleged perpetrator. This was appropriate. However, there is no evidence that the landlord spoke to the neighbour or recorded their responses. The landlord is reminded to keep more detailed case notes to show the action it has taken.
  16. In November 2023 the landlord became aware that the resident had contacted the Environmental Health Department to report the noise. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have linked in with this agency to establish if they had received any evidence from the resident which might have helped the landlord’s investigation. There is no evidence that the landlord liaised with the Environmental Health Department, this was a failure.
  17. On 15 November 2023 the resident reported that the neighbour from property B had been filming him in the communal courtyard. The neighbour from property B had also contacted the landlord to report the same incident and another incident involving the resident from the previous day. The landlord informed both parties it would investigate the incidents and speak to any witnesses to establish what happened. The landlord said that following its investigation it found that both parties had acted in a manner which could be deemed as a breach of tenancy. It issued both with a verbal warning and recommended that they stay away from each other. This was appropriate in the circumstances as the landlord had arrived at a decision open to it following a reasonable inquiry into the circumstances.
  18. With regards to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, there is evidence that the landlord carried out the following actions both prior and during his complaint: 
    1. communication – the landlord kept in regular contact with the resident throughout the case. It held regular review meetings with him and agreed action plans. It managed the resident’s expectations by explaining when noise was not considered ASB or there was insufficient evidence available to take action
    2. doors – the landlord inspected and adjusted the communal doors so that they closed softly and did not bang. It also assessed the neighbour’s door to check if any adjustments were required
    3. roof area – the landlord changed the key safe code for the door to the roof so that only employees would have access to this area
    4. loft hatches – the landlord inspected the loft hatches in both the resident’s property and property B. It established that there was only access to the loft space from the resident’s property and that the hatch in property B was a maintenance hatch and did not provide access to the loft space. It updated the resident with this information. The resident informed the landlord on 24 October 2024 that this had given him ‘peace of mind’. The landlord also changed the locks to the loft hatches
    5. noise app – the landlord provided the resident with the noise app so that he could record any incidents of noise which affected him. The landlord listened to the resident’s recordings and logged its findings
    6. noise monitoring equipment – the landlord added the resident to the waiting list for this equipment
    7. outofhours – the landlord arranged for its out-of-hours team to carry out ad hoc visits to witness the noise. It provided the resident with the outofhours telephone number and password so that he could contact the service to witness any incidents
    8. witnesses – the landlord spoke to other neighbours to establish if they were affected by the noise or if they had witnessed any incidents
    9. ASB panel review meeting – the landlord said it referred the case to an external review panel and actioned the recommendations made
    10. early interventions – the landlord considered using a good neighbour agreement and restorative justice to resolve the dispute. Whilst unsuccessful, this was a positive action taken by the landlord
  19. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the above actions taken by the landlord showed that it was investigating the noise reports and exploring what it could do to reduce the noise. It showed that the landlord had considered the early interventions it could use to resolve the dispute. However, there were some delays with some of the actions which, if the landlord had actioned sooner, may have resolved the issues, provided the landlord with the evidence it needed and mitigated the impact on the resident. For example:
    1. loft hatches – these were inspected in October 2023 which was 8 months after the resident made his first report
    2. noise monitoring equipment – this was offered to the resident in November 2023 which was 9 months after the resident made his first report
  20. In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that it had investigated the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. The landlord concluded that it did not have sufficient evidence to enforce legal action or suggest that the neighbouring properties had breached their tenancy agreement. While this was not the outcome the resident wanted, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain this. The Ombudsman is unable to fault the landlord for its conclusions.
  21. In his complaint the resident said that the landlord’s case officer had shown bias towards his neighbours. He also alleged that the case officer had made a racist comment towards him at the home visit on 5 October 2023. The landlord confirmed in its complaint response that it had investigated the resident’s report. It explained that there had been another member of staff present at the home visit and they had not witnessed any racist comment being made. The landlord said that it was satisfied that its case officer had managed the case in line with the landlord’s policy and procedure and had not shown bias towards either party. However, in order to provide a fresh perspective on the case, the landlord arranged for a new case officer to be appointed. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  22. As a resolution the resident has requested the landlord move him to a different property. The Ombudsman would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord support the resident with his request to move from his current property and discuss his options with him if it has not done so already.
  23. In conclusion, overall, the landlord had taken actions in line with its policy and procedures when handling the residents reports of noise. It was reasonable for the landlord to discuss the concerns with the resident and explain the reason for its decisions in its complaint responses. While communication with the resident overall could have been timelier, the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint and offered several remedies to reduce the noise and mitigate the impact on the resident. However, there were delays, as outlined above, in the landlord inspecting the loft hatches and offering the resident use of the noise monitoring equipment.
  24. The Ombudsman found there were significant failings in the handling of the residents reports of alleged assault in April 2023 as follows:
    1. it failed to contact the resident within its 1 day response timescale
    2. it failed to complete a risk assessment with the resident at the start of the case
    3. it failed to fully investigate the report
  25. The landlord has accepted that there had been some case handling failings with the resident’s ASB case. It acknowledged and apologised for the identified failures and offered £850 compensation to the resident. Whilst this was positive from the landlord, there were other failings identified in this report which the landlord has not acknowledged, as follows:
    1. it failed to recognise the resident’s concerns about his mental health and refer him for support
    2. it delayed in offering the resident use of the noise monitoring equipment
  26. The Ombudsman considers that the compensation should be increased to £1050 to recognise the impact of the failures on the resident and the delay in the landlord recognising its failure. This would be a fairer level of compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that where it can resolve a complaint immediately it will aim to do this as an early resolution, without the need for a formal investigation and response. Where the early resolution does not resolve the matter, or where the issue is particularly serious, the landlord will handle these as formal complaints and the following timescales will apply:
    1. it will acknowledge requests for both formal and review stage complaints within 5 working days
    2. where an investigation (stage 1) is required, the landlord will aim to respond within 10 working days
    3. where a formal review (stage 2) is required, the landlord will aim to respond within 20 working days
    4. during both stages, if the above timescales are not achievable, the landlord will agree an appropriate extension for the response with the resident
    5. it will only extend for 10 working days, unless the resident requests additional time or where the complaint is more complex
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 26 September 2023 and 17 October 2023. In both emails, the resident said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB. The landlord reviewed the resident’s ASB case to consider what action had been taken and to identify if there were any other interventions which could be used. This was reasonable because it was consistent with the landlord’s complaint policy.
  3. In October 2023, the resident contacted this service for advice. On 17 November 2023 the resident sent a copy of his communication to this service to the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 30 November 2023 and sent its stage 1 response on 6 December 2023. This was 18 working days later. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (2022).
  4. In the initial complaint the resident referred to concerns around bias/racial comments by the landlord’s staff. The landlord did not address this in its stage 1 response. Paragraph 5.6 of the Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s initial complaint in line with its complaint’s procedure, meant it missed an opportunity to address and resolve his concerns sooner and left the resident waiting for a resolution to his concerns. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the resident’s complaint.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 6 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 13 December 2023 which was 6 working days later. Whilst this was a delay of 1 day, the Ombudsman does not consider this to be significant.
  6. On 9 January 2024, the resident wrote to the landlord concerning direct discrimination. He said in his correspondence that he wanted the landlord to treat this as a formal complaint. As the resident had previously raised concerns regarding bias/racial comments, the Ombudsman is of the opinion that the resident’s complaint of 9 January 2024 was relevant to his ongoing complaint. It was therefore appropriate, as per paragraph 5.7 of the Code, that the landlord considered this within its stage 2 response.
  7. On 11 January 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to request an extension to the 20-day response time. The landlord explained that it was awaiting information to complete its response. The landlord said it would send the stage 2 response by 15 January 2024. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 12 January 2024. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy and the Code.
  8. In summary, the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s initial complaint in line with its complaint’s procedure, meant it missed an opportunity to address his concerns sooner and left the resident waiting for a resolution to his concerns. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and responded to the resident’s concerns. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint, in that it delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 1.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. pay the resident £300 compensation in addition to that offered via the complaint procedure (£850) (£1150 in total). The additional compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s complaint
  2. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contact the resident to discuss his options for moving home if it has not done so already.