North Devon Homes (202233401)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233401

North Devon Homes

28 March 2024 (amended at review)

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 reports that the resident had assaulted her neighbour.
The Service has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy started on 12 September 2016. The resident occupies a ground floor 1 bedroom flat.
The landlord has a record that the resident has a long term mental health condition, which is stress induced. She also has chronic fatigue syndrome. Through her correspondence the resident has advised that she had a nervous breakdown. She said that she had been discharged in 2019, with ongoing support from her GP. In later contact with the landlord and the Service the resident’s brother has acted as her representative.

Legal and policy framework

The tenant’s handbook sets out the terms and conditions of the tenancy. Under section 12, headed “Antisocial behaviour” it provides a list of actions that the resident must not do, including setting out what it considers to be antisocial behaviour. This says that the resident must not do “anything which causes, or is likely to cause, a nuisance or to annoy anyone living in or visiting the local area”. It further says that the resident must not “harass, threaten to harass, or use or threaten violence towards anyone in the local area or the landlord’s staff and representatives”.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy sets out how it will respond to reports of ASB. It has a triage approach to enable it to identify serious cases of ASB and vulnerability at an early stage. The policy states that the “majority of ASB cases will be dealt with more effectively through multi agency working…” The landlord is a member of the local crime and disorder reduction partnership to enable effective information sharing. The policy says that where it is considered that a resident poses a threat to the landlord’s staff it will record a warning marker on its database and an appropriate risk assessment will be carried out.
The landlord’s triage ASB and neighbourhood complaint procedure was reviewed in July 2021. The purpose of the procedure is to enable the landlord to prioritise its response to reports of ASB. This is designed to enable it to draw a distinction between ASB and neighbour disputes. It also ensures that all reports are risk assessed. Cases may be assessed as low, medium, or high and logged either as ASB, low level ASB or a tenancy breach. Where there is no evidence of a tenancy breach and the incident is identified as a neighbour dispute, mediation details will be shared with all parties involved.
The landlord’s complaints and customer feedback policy establishes the importance the landlord places on feedback and how it can be used to refine and inform changes in how it delivers its services. It says that its approach, procedures, and timescales align with the expectations set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The policy does not include details of these timescales. The landlord has a separate compensation policy that says it may make discretionary compensation payments following a complaint or failure in service. Where the resident has suffered inconvenience, the landlord may make a goodwill payment.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 20 May 2020 to report incidents of harassment from her neighbours. It was recorded that she said that there were “squabbles” and “petty bickering”. She also said that she had been shouted at by her neighbours, reporting a specific incident when she asked a neighbour to move so she could water her roses and they had started swearing at her. The record of her call indicates that she was distressed. This was referred to her neighbourhood manager to follow up. The resident had also contacted the police about the communal garden and issues around social distancing. The police contacted the landlord who confirmed that it had received a number of calls about these issues. It noted that it would be putting up new signage but at the time was unable to carry out any visits. The landlord’s records show that it spoke with the resident and noted her anxiety about the incident and it further spoke with a neighbour around a report of threats made.
The landlord involved its mediation service to try to resolve issues between the neighbours. It recorded that as not all parties had wished to engage the mediation service sent closure letters in July 2020.
On 20 July 2021, the landlord received a report of an incident involving the resident and one of her neighbours. It is noted that the resident may not agree with how the incident was captured; however, we have set out the evidence as presented to the Service. Its record of this says that the resident’s upstairs neighbours had “returned home drunk the previous evening” and had been unable to find their keys. They had then taken a ladder from a neighbouring garden to gain access to their home. The owner of the ladder had pursued them to get it back and then agreed to help them. Seeing people in her garden it noted that the resident came outside and shouted at them, asking them to leave. The report indicates that the resident then shook the ladder, which led to one of the men falling from it. The report indicates that he “may have hit his head on the fence” and that the emergency services were called. It is not clear if they attended or as to the extent of any injuries sustained. A further record of this incident was captured on 22 July 2021. In this it is noted that the resident shouted at the men to leave her garden, shook the ladder, and then pushed one of the men into some plant pots. This report further says that the resident has harassed her neighbours and is “generally disruptive in the block”. Neither record captures the address of the complainant. There is a note that a joint visit between the neighbourhood officer and the police is to be arranged.
A further incident relating to the same group of flats was recorded on 22 July 2021, when one of the occupiers fired an air rifle in the garden. This had necessitated the attendance of armed police. It appears from the landlord’s records that this involved one of the resident’s neighbours. There is no record of the action taken by the landlord as a result of this incident.
The neighbourhood officer called the resident on 22 July 2021 to advise that she would be carrying out a visit with the police on 26 July 2021. The resident initially terminated this call. She later called the landlord back. The neighbourhood officer then explained that she would be visiting to discuss the report of an assault on a neighbour. It is recorded that the resident terminated this call.
The visit was carried out as arranged on 26 July 2021, but the resident did not answer the door. The neighbourhood officer called the resident again on 27 July 2021 to arrange a further joint visit. It is noted that on this occasion the resident got “angry”, saying that she had been “accused of something she had not done” and terminated the call. There is a record that the police spoke with the resident on 29 July 2021 and that a further joint visit was to be arranged. This was carried out on 3 August 2021, but the visit was unsuccessful.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 August 2021. This was headed “formal tenancy warning”. In this it said:
1. following its investigation into recent reports of an alleged assault on an elderly neighbour and,
2. following 2 missed joint visits with the police, it was reasonable to believe that she had breached the terms and conditions of her tenancy agreement.
3. that the tenancy agreement was a legal contract in which she had agreed not to cause “nuisance, annoyance or harassment to her neighbours or visitors to the area”.
4. that it believed she had breached the agreement by:
  1. continuing to cause nuisance to neighbours.
  2. her refusal to engage in mediation which she had agreed to.
  3. not answering the door to the police and neighbourhood officer.
5. it advised that she “avoid similar instances” in future and that it was happy to discuss how it could support her.
On 4 August 2021 the resident contacted the landlord. She said that she did not wish to allow the neighbourhood officer into her home. She said that she was not being listened to and felt intimidated by the landlord’s officer. She felt that her neighbours’ side had been taken before she is asked what had happened. She further said that she wanted to be given notice so she could arrange for someone to be with her. A final visit with the police was arranged for 11 August 2021.
On 11 August 2021 the landlord sent the resident a letter headed “notification of assigned hazard warning marker”. This said that:
1. it had placed a “hazard warning marker” on her file. This followed the incident on 20 July 2021.
2. it had received evidence to suggest that the resident had been involved in a “potentially serious assault on a neighbour” within the locality of her property.
3. the decision to add the marker had been made to protect its staff and their health and safety.
4. the marker was a warning triangle with the addition of a note “VIP-risk to contractor and staff”.
This letter set an appointment for a further visit by the police and neighbourhood officer to the resident’s home on 17 August 2021. It said that it operated a “policy of zero tolerance of verbal or physical abuse towards its employees and representatives”. It explained that the marker would be reviewed at 12 month intervals. It advised the resident that for this to be removed she should:
1. avoid abusive and threatening behaviour towards staff.
2. use its complaints procedure. It further advised that she could appeal its decision to apply the marker and that this would be dealt with under this procedure.
3. understand that the landlord “cannot give everything that you desire”. It delivers its services in line with its policy and procedures.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 August 2021 to raise a formal complaint. She sent a follow up letter on 20 August 2021 having been in contact with Citizens Advice (CA). In these letters she said:
1. that she had received a letter dated 11 August 2021 in which the landlord had “branded her as violent and a risk to its staff” and she felt that this “amounted to defamation”.
2. her neighbours had harassed her, threatened to hit her and been verbally abusive towards her. She had contacted the police in November 2020, but they had refused to investigate.
3. these issues had arisen through lockdown and that her neighbours were making false accusations against her.
4. she felt that she had not been taken seriously and that she had been pressurised into mediation. Further that when she raised this with her neighbourhood officer, they had said that they had done all they could and that she should call the “mental health services”. As a result of this, communication with the neighbourhood officer had broken down as the resident was unhappy with the way she had been spoken to.
5. that she understood that she was now being accused of an assault and set out in her letter what had happened. She said that a neighbour had come into her garden at 10.45 pm uninvited and that he had appeared drunk. She said that he had shoved a ladder at her. She asked him to leave and called the police.
6. that the neighbourhood officer had refused to listen to her explanation of what had happened and wanted to know what evidence the landlord had. Further she said that her neighbourhood officer had tried to visit her at home on 3 occasions, accompanied by the police. As she had felt intimidated by this she had gone out. As she had no history of violence or a criminal record, she did not understand why these visits had been carried out.
7. that when she had contacted the police they had told her that the case was closed due to “insufficient evidence”, but her landlord had said that it had evidence that she was responsible for the assault. She asked to see this.
8. She said that she was grateful for her home and the security and stability it had provided her as she recovered her health.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 August 2021. It recorded the resident’s concerns were:
1. That she felt that the landlord did not listen to her side of story.
2. That she felt that the way that the neighbourhood officer had spoken to her was unacceptable.
3. She did not understand what evidence was referred to.
On 25 August 2021, there was a conference call between the landlord and CA, acting on behalf of the resident. The resident was present during the call. This discussed the 2 letters sent to the resident by the landlord on 3 and 11 August 2021. The landlord’s notes for the meeting detail that:
1. CA were aware of the reasons for the marker being placed on its system but did not capture any further detail.
2. CA felt that it had been inappropriate for the neighbourhood officer to have attempted to visit the resident’s home with the police. It suggested that it would have been better for the meeting to have taken place elsewhere.
3. CA further expressed the resident’s feelings that she was not being listened to.
4. It explained that its neighbourhood officer had tried to contact the resident on a number of occasions but that she had not engaged with it.
5. An arrangement was made for the resident and her CA representative to attend the landlord’s offices on 15 September 2021 to meet with the neighbourhood officer and a representative of the landlord’s specialist support service.
6. Mediation had previously been offered and that this may be a future option.
7. A subject access request was made by the resident as part of this call.
On 27 August 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. The letter was headed “customer complaint – the way you have been treated by [the landlord]”. In this it reconfirmed its understanding of her complaint. It said it had investigated the complaint, having spoken with the neighbourhood officer and its neighbourhood team managers and it had concluded that:
1. its notes demonstrated that there were ongoing issues with her neighbours and that it had responded to these issues. It said that it had offered mediation. The resident had initially accepted this and then later declined during a telephone call with the mediator.
2. it had arranged a meeting at its offices for 15 September 2021. This was an opportunity for the resident and her representative to meet with the neighbourhood officer and its specialist support team leader. The system warning and eviction threat would be covered at this meeting, together with the evidence referred to.
3. it noted that the neighbourhood officer has previously tried to meet with the resident, together with the police to discuss the incident and the evidence it had on 2 pre-booked appointments, but that the resident had failed to attend.
4. it believed that the neighbourhood officer’s approach had always been “professional and appropriate” to the circumstances. It further said that the landlord’s staff were entitled to be treated in a respectful and courteous manner. It said that “in telephone conversations where a customer is raising their voice or profanities are used the staff member is entitled, after issuing a warning, to terminate the call”.
5. her complaint had not been upheld. It provided advice as to how she may escalate her complaint.
6. Further it confirmed that it had received her request for copies of the information it held on its records relating to her and that she would be contacted separately about this.
On 15 September 2021, the resident and her CA representative attended a meeting with the landlord. No notes of this meeting have been provided by the landlord. The record of the meeting captures a follow up email sent by the CAB. In this it says that following the meeting the representative had called a friend of the resident to come to support her. It further said that it felt that the 2 recent incidents, the “ladder incident” and someone discharging an air rifle should have been taken more seriously by the landlord. It said that “if someone put a ladder up in one’s garden late at night, without warning, this would make anyone fearful and anxious”. It went on to record the outcomes of the meeting as:
1. That neighbourhood officer was to step down and that the specialist support officer would work to find someone appropriate to take over.
2. That the landlord would seek suitable alternative accommodation with a garden for the resident.
3. It accepted that the resident needed specialist support and it would try to secure this through another agency.
4. Future meetings were to be arranged away from the resident’s home with enough notice to allow her to arrange for a friend to attend as support, to rebuild trust with the landlord.
The landlord’s records show that it had no contact with the resident following this meeting, until she wrote to it to request her complaint be reviewed. This she did on 21 February 2022. In this she explained that she remained unhappy about how the landlord had dealt with her reports of harassment from her neighbours, which had started in March 2020. She provided detail of an early incident and what had then become “nuisance making”. She said that other neighbours had witnessed her being shouting at and “ganged up on”. She believed that the neighbourhood officer had failed to follow up on the issues she had raised and that she had not provided her with diary sheets to record future incidents. She had been provided with no evidence of the alleged assault, other than the reports made by her neighbours. She felt that the landlord had failed to listen to both sides of the story and that there had been unnecessary reference made to her mental health.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 23 March 2022. During this call the resident expressed her reluctance to engage with the landlord due to the warnings that had been put in place. She expressed her feelings of having been treated unfairly, and that she believed that this was due to her history of mental ill health. She asked why the warnings remained in place and further said that she felt that her previous complaint had been “swept under the carpet”. She said that she was being harassed by her neighbours and asked why she had never been provided with a nuisance diary. The landlord agreed to follow this up and expressed its wish to “rebuild new relationships and communication between itself and the resident”.
On 30 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it had concluded its stage 2 investigation. It said that ahead of writing to her it would like to meet with her in person to discuss its findings. This was followed up on 1 April 2022 and it spoke with the resident on 4 April 2022. In this it expressed its understanding of the resident’s feelings and said that it was “interested in trying to work things out”. It expressed its willingness to listen and to ensure that this was facilitated in the best way to make the resident feel comfortable. There are no records as to whether a follow up call or meeting occurred.
The landlord provided a written stage 2 response on 7 April 2022. In this it summarised the resident’s complaint. It noted that she felt that the landlord had not listened to her side of the story, that her neighbourhood officer had spoken to her in an unacceptable way and that she was unclear as to the evidence the landlord had referred to. It said that it had further investigated her complaint and had upheld the outcome of its stage 1. It said that it had noted that the resident was concerned as she did not understand what evidence the landlord had referred to. In response to this it said;
1. that this point had been reasonably responded to in the outcome of the complaint at the time and in the stage 1 response. It had also agreed to meet with the resident to discuss the evidence it had. It understood that she was still seeking an answer.
2. the evidence had been discussed with her at the meeting held on 15 September 2021. The following outcomes had been agreed.
  1. The neighbourhood officer would be changed.
  2. The landlord would support the resident in finding alternative accommodation.
  3. A specialist support referral would be made.
  4. That future meetings would be conducted at a mutually convenient location with time allowed for the resident to have an advocate to accompany her.
3. It further recorded that the resident had been in recent contact with it and had agreed to a meeting to discuss her support needs. It said that this was the first step in meeting the agreed outcomes.
4. It then explained why warnings were used on its records. It provided an extract from its policy which said “that hazard warnings are used to highlight customers thought to pose a threat of such behaviours [aggressive, violent or potentially violent behaviour] towards employees”. It said that as there had been no incidents or further complaints from her neighbours since August 2021, it was suggesting that the warning be removed. It would leave an alert on its system that officers should meet with the resident in pairs. This would be at a mutually agreed location and allow the resident also to be accompanied. This was intended to protect both parties from miscommunication. It was hoped that this would help to rebuild the relationship with the resident and improve its communication.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to the Service for further consideration.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Through her correspondence the resident has said that the allegations made against her and the actions of the landlord have caused her stress and anxiety and had a detrimental effect on her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health and understands the impact this situation may have had on her wellbeing. However, the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience because of any failings on behalf of the landlord.
It is also noted that issues with the resident’s neighbours have persisted since the landlord issued its stage 2 response. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Service. As such, while the resident has made us aware of her ongoing concerns, as these have not been subject to a formal complaint, they would need to be raised with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint, if required. Should the resident remain unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure, she may refer the matter to us as a new complaint.

The landlord’s handling of reports that the resident had assaulted her neighbour

The resident first raised concerns around the behaviour of her neighbours towards her in May 2020. The landlord took steps to engage mediation between the group of residents, but this did not progress. There is no record that the landlord took any further action at this time.
Reports of ASB on behalf of the resident were recorded by the landlord in July 2021. The first report relates to the behaviour of the resident’s dog towards a neighbour’s cat, and a concern that it was being allowed to roam in the communal garden. The second report related to a more serious allegation of an assault. This was reported as being caused either by the resident shaking a ladder causing an individual to fall off or by pushing the individual into some pots in the garden. There is a further incident captured within the landlord’s ASB records which refers to another resident firing an air rifle.
The landlord’s records do not present a detailed picture of either incident or the actions it took to deal with these, and the individuals involved. The report against the resident was made by 2 separate individuals. However, there is no evidence that the landlord followed up with these residents to obtain detailed statements as to what had occurred.
The landlord’s records contain little detail as to those who were involved in the incident, who it spoke to in follow up, or detail of its engagement with the police. It is also unclear how the incident with the air rifle relates to the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have spoken with all neighbours regarding the incident and collected statements from them. If it did so these have not been presented as evidence to the Service. It is vital that landlords keep clear and accurate records of the actions it takes when responding to reports of ASB, especially so if the report concerns allegations of assault. Not only so that evidence can be provided to the Ombudsman, when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in understanding the bigger picture surrounding the reports it has received. This will ensure that any action that is taken in response to a report is supported by evidence. That the landlord has failed to maintain and provide such records to the Service is a failing.
The landlord did engage with the police and attempted to carry out joint visits to the resident. It is not clear why a joint visit was felt necessary in the early stages of the landlord’s investigations. The resident expressed her unhappiness with this approach and failed to engage with the landlord. The landlord could reasonably have considered a different approach when these visits proved unsuccessful, considering an unaccompanied visit by the neighbourhood officer or to arrange to meet at a neutral location. It is noted that the resident engaged in a telephone call with the police but indicated her wish not to meet with the neighbourhood officer. Further to this there is no evidence of continued engagement with the police. It is also noted that confirmation that the police took no further action appears to have been gained as part of the evidence gathering for the Service.
The landlord subsequently made the decision to issue a tenancy warning letter, for breach of tenancy. It advised that the reason for this was that the resident had refused to engage in mediation and that she had refused to answer the door to the police and the neighbourhood officer. It is unclear why these were cited as the reasons for issuing the tenancy warning letter as neither of these elements are a condition of the tenancy. The decision to issue the tenancy warning was therefore inappropriate, heavy-handed and the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident also expressed concern about the decision to add a hazard warning to her file. When the landlord issued its stage 2 response, it advised that warnings are used to highlight customers thought to pose a threat of such behaviours [aggressive, violent or potentially violent behaviour] towards employees. It said that as there had been no incidents or further complaints from the resident’s neighbours since August 2021, it was suggesting that the warning be removed. The landlord’s actions in relation to the hazard warning are unclear and confusing. While the landlord had received reports about alleged ASB on behalf of the resident towards her neighbours, there is nothing to suggest that she had been threatening and abusive towards its staff. It is noted that on occasion the resident was reported to have become “upset”; however, we have not been provided with any evidence demonstrating that the resident had behaved in a manner that was perceived as threatening or abusive by landlord staff. It follows that the basis for the landlord’s decision is unclear and it appears to have misapplied its policy. In the circumstances, the decision to add the warning was not justified; and as such, the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by this could reasonably have been avoided.
While it is acknowledged that the report was made about the resident, given the resident’s vulnerability and the situation had been ongoing, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have undertaken a risk assessment. It is understood that the landlord was seeking to investigate what it considered to be a serious assault. However by failing to recognise the resident vulnerability and approach the situation with a level of empathy it has been unable to engage with the resident in any meaningful way. Its investigation into the report it received was frustrated as a result.
The landlord met with the resident and her representative on 15 September 2021. There is no detailed record of this meeting captured within the landlord’s records. The resident has said that she had been left very distressed by the meeting. The notes contained the outcomes agreed at the meeting, as set out by the resident’s representative. The same outcomes were later captured in the landlord’s stage 2 response in April 2022, with no suggestion that steps had been taken to follow these up in the months that had elapsed between the two events.
There is no evidence that the landlord undertook a thorough investigation into the events that occurred in July 2021, or that it acted with any empathy towards the resident. There is an indication within the landlord’s records that there had been previous tensions between the neighbours. As such, it should reasonably have ensured that proportionate action was taken to investigate the reports it had received prior to issuing the resident with a tenancy warning letter. Outside the offer of mediation, the landlord did not consider any other actions it may have taken such as the introduction of good neighbour agreements.
Having agreed outcomes with the resident which included the replacement of her neighbourhood officer, a referral for appropriate support and assistance with rehousing, none of these actions were taken forward. It is unclear why no further action was taken. However, this was a further failing by the landlord.
There is evidence of poor case management throughout in the landlord’s handling of the reported assault and the reports made against the resident. Alongside this the landlord failed to recognise the resident’s vulnerabilities and has failed to demonstrate that it acted proportionately in issuing a tenancy warning and placing a hazard warning on the resident’s file. Its actions amount to maladministration. A series of orders have therefore been made aimed at putting things right with the resident and improving the level of service provided by the landlord going forward.
It is noted that the landlord’s ASB policy came into force in 2016. There have been developments in the relevant legislation and in relation to what is deemed to be good practice for professionals when dealing with ASB since. A recommendation has therefore been made that the landlord reviews its ASB policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports that the resident had assaulted her neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord did not undertake a detailed investigation into the events that took place in July 2021. It actions appear to have been heavy handed in its approach towards the resident and failed to recognise her vulnerability or ensure that she was provided with the appropriate support.
The landlord’s ASB records do not capture the detail of the reports that it received, the action it took, included contact with other agencies such as the police. These do not present a clear picture of what happened, when, by whom and what it did about it.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Issue the resident with a written apology. The apology should be written taking into consideration the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Apologies, which can be found on our website.
2. Identify a new neighbourhood manager to work with the resident and to rebuild the trust between her and the landlord.
3. Review the action points it set as an outcome to the meeting on the 15 September 2021 and the stage 2 reply in April 2022. It should agree with the resident if these are the outcomes she is still seeking, specifically about rehousing and the introduction of tailored support.
4. Pay the resident £800 compensation in acknowledgement of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by:
  1. Its decision to issue a tenancy warning letter;
  2. Its failure to thoroughly investigate the reported assault;
  3. Its failure to take the actions it stated it would between September 2021 and April 2022.
  4. The decision to place a marker on her file.

Recommendations

Within 8 weeks the landlord should:
1. Carry out a review of its ASB policy and procedures to ensure that these are in compliance with the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 and industry best practice. It should carry out refresher training for all its staff on the management of reports of ASB.
2. Consider the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s recent spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights. These include recommendations around the introduction of minimum staff training in areas of customer care and mental health.