Notting Hill Genesis (201902173)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201902173

Notting Hill Genesis

26 February 2021

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the following issues:
1. Noise nuisance from neighbours from October 2017 onwards.
2. ASB report following an assault by a neighbour in February 2018.
3. Damage caused by a leak from a neighbour’s flat in February 2018.
4. Its decision to restrict the resident’s contact with the landlord.
The report will also address the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord for a one-bedroom basement flat.
The Ombudsman has previously dealt with a complaint from the resident about noise disturbance from her neighbours. The Ombudsman’s determination in April 2019 was about the resident’s compliant in 2017, which was the subject of the landlord’s final compliant response in September 2017. Given this background, this present report will look at events from October 2017 up until the final complaint response on 22 April 2020. The Ombudsman understands that there have been other issues reported by the resident (e.g. various repairs) but as these issues were not included as part of this complaint, they will not be addressed in this report.

Policies, procedures, and agreements

ASB policy:

The landlord’s ASB policy sets out how it responds to ASB reports. It states that upon receiving a report of ASB, it will contact the tenant within one working day and offer to visit them within five working days. Its initial response is to investigate and monitor any risk. If a crime has been committed, it will advise the tenant to contact the police.
In determining the seriousness of the ASB and what the proportionate action for resolving it would be, it will consider the nature of the ASB, the frequency of incidents and the impact that the behaviour is having on the tenant and the wider community. It will be clear and realistic about potential outcomes and it will develop an action plan with the tenant and provide them with information on other agencies who might be able to offer additional support.
With regards to enforcement action, it states that it will consider legal action where there is sufficient evidence of a tenancy breach. Eviction is only considered either in exceptional circumstances or where all other interventions have failed. As appropriate, it will make use of legal notices, injunctions, and possession proceedings.
After a report of ASB has been investigated, it will be closed if there is insufficient evidence to support any further action.

ASB procedure:

The landlord’s ASB procedure document sets out in more detail how it will handle ASB reports:
1. If no serious or immediate risk of harm, then the tenant should be interviewed within five working days of the ASB report.
2. After interview an action plan should be agreed, and a copy sent to the tenant.
3. How the complaint is investigated will depend upon the nature and seriousness of the ASB, risk of harm to others and whether another agency such as the Police is leading. The Local Officer, working with the Local Manager, has the discretion to determine what action would be appropriate for the case.
4. It should aim to meet with the alleged perpetrator within five working days and gather evidence.
5. If there is evidence of ASB but not enough to take action – then continue to monitor for an agreed set time.
6. Actions taken to tackle ASB should be proportionate to the seriousness of the case.
7. Legal action should be avoided where other methods of intervention would be effective and possession proceedings should be considered as a last resort.

Responsive repairs policy:

This sets out that if the repair is an emergency, the landlord should aim to attend within four hours and restore services within 24 hours. If the repair is routine, the landlord’s aim is to complete the repair within 20 working days from the date of the report.

Unacceptable customer behaviour policy:

The policy defines unacceptable or abusive behaviour as being ‘any behaviour which has a significant negative effect on our ability to provide services to customers’. It gives examples such as, ‘demanding to only deal with a particular member of staff or continual phone calls or emails to staff members’.
Actions used will be proportionate and take into account any disabilities or vulnerabilities of the customer, as appropriate. One of the measures the landlord uses to tackle unacceptable behaviour is through ‘customer contact agreements’.
The policy states that the landlord will ‘monitor and evaluate our approach to unacceptable customer behaviour’.

Complaints policy:

This sets out that the landlord has 10 working days to investigate the complaint and issues its Stage 1 response. If the tenant is unhappy with the Stage 1 response and wants a review, the landlord has 20 working days from receipt of the review request to issue the review response.

Summary of events

The information provided by the resident shows that she reported noise nuisance to the local authority Environmental Health (‘EH’) team on 3 and 17 October 2017. EH attended on both occasions. The subsequent letter from EH to the resident on 18 October 2017 stated that a Statutory Nuisance had been observed and that ‘…the Council has the power to serve an Abatement Notice on the persons responsible…I am however currently awaiting a response from [the landlord] as to how they intend to resolve the matter before considering formal action’.
The landlord’s records show that on 23 November 2017 it had advised the resident that it had fully investigated the noise nuisance in Flat x and that they do not believe the source of this is from Flat x. The officer found that the cause of the noise was a washing machine in a different flat and that tenant had been warned not to use this during unsociable hours.
On 6 February 2018 the resident reported a leak from the upstairs flat causing damage to her property. The landlord’s records show that this was dealt with as an emergency and a plumber attended the same day.
On 18 February 2018 the resident reported an assault on her by her neighbour, which she had reported to the Police.
The landlord’s correspondence shows that it wrote to the resident on 7 March 2018 with an update:
1. It had been liaising with the Police and was considering what further action it can take e.g. an injunction and/or tenancy action. Once it had more information from the Police it would decide the best course of action.
2. It would be visiting the other party this week and reminding them of their tenancy conditions.
3. It would carry out a joint visit with the Police to the resident’s home and talk through the options and it would review any recordings and witness evidence.
The landlord’s repair records for 14 March 2018 show that the leak from the upstairs flat had been rectified and it would now carry out the remedial works. However, the contractor that attended was of the view that the walls needed to be dried out further. On 16 March 2018 the landlord authorised dehumidifiers to be installed and agreed for a surveyor to attend.
With regards to the assault, the landlord updated the resident on 26 March 2018 that it was awaiting the outcome of the Police investigation and that it would not be taking any action until the Police outcome was finalised. It also said that that it would be liaising with Victim Support to see what else it could do to help.
The repair records show that the landlord agreed with the resident for the remedial works to be completed on 20 April 2018.
On 11 April 2018 the resident attended a meeting with the landlord and Victim Support to discuss the assault. The resident made the landlord aware that she felt unsupported, which the landlord acknowledged.
The email correspondence between the resident and the landlord on 12 April 2018 showed further updates were given about the leak repairs and the assault. It confirmed that the landlord was still liaising with the Police. The resident was asked to complete ASB diary sheets and submit them once a week.
On 16 April 2018, the landlord received a formal disrepair claim from the resident’s solicitor regarding the leak damage. It was confirmed that the landlord would now deal with the remedial works under its disrepair process.
The landlord’s records show that on 4 June 2018 it was confirmed that the property was now sufficiently dry for the dehumidifiers to be removed and for the remedials works to be carried out.
On 5 June 2018 the resident wrote to the landlord confirming that she was no longer pursuing a disrepair claim. The repair records show that the remedial works were carried out on 6 June 2018 and were completed by 25 June 2018.
On 9 August 2018 the EH team emailed the landlord about further noise nuisance reports that had been made by the resident. The EH team confirmed that there was a statutory nuisance. The landlord responded on 13 August 2018 saying that it was investigating this further.
On 18 August 2018 the EH team wrote to the resident saying they had visited again and ‘the Officers cannot clearly identify a source without access to other flats. To take action for Statutory Noise Nuisance the source needs to be identified and Statutory Nuisance established. As there are problems gaining access I have asked [the landlord] to investigate as landlords as they have a right of access (with notice) and have accordingly supplied them the visiting Officers notes’. The EH team also wrote to the landlord saying, ‘visited and noise nuisance was not witnessed’.
The correspondence on 22 August 2018 shows that the landlord acknowledged the EH notes and that no noise nuisance had been found. There was intermittent noise, but this was deemed to be household noise.
The landlord’s decision to restrict the resident’s contact was made on 22 August 2018 and it wrote to the resident to explain its decision. It said that its decision was based upon ‘the fact that you have made unreasonable demands and persistently contacted…through different routes regarding the same issue. You have sent 11 separate emails to …since 18 August 2018. On this particular day you sent eight emails in one day which was regarding the same issue or issues that have already been dealt with’.
On 29 November 2018 the resident received a letter from the Police confirming that the neighbour had been convicted of racially/religiously aggravated common assault in respect of the assault on 18 February 2018. The resident sent a copy of this to the landlord. The landlord acknowledged this and said it would consider what action to take.
As the resident had not received a response from the landlord, she contacted it again on 15 January 2019 asking about what action it would be taking against the neighbour. She was also unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the noise nuisance issue.
The landlord responded on 21 January 2019. It said that it had to consider alternative options first before taking any possession proceedings against the neighbour. It would consider serving a Notice of Seeking Possession but it would not be seeking to terminate the neighbour’s tenancy. It said that the following factors were considered in reaching this decision:
1. This was an isolated incident and there had been no further incidents.
2. Following the incident an acceptable behaviour agreement was signed and had been adhered to. In addition, CCTV had been installed to pick up any ASB and provide additional security.
3. The neighbour had not breached the terms of the acceptable behaviour agreement or her bail conditions.
4. The court sentencing suggests that they had viewed the offence as a Category 3 “lesser harm and lower culpability”, and the landlord needed to take this into account when taking further action.
5. Considering all of the above, it did not believe that it would be proportionate or reasonable to seek legal action against the neighbour. It said it would continue to monitor the situation and would act on any further reports that come in that constituted a breach of tenancy. The neighbour had been warned about the consequences of any further breaches.
The resident was unhappy with this outcome and she raised a complaint on 23 January 2019 about the noise, ASB and the contact restriction. The landlord responded on 13 February 2019 and said that a joint inspection with EH would be carried out. It apologised for the delay in arranging this said this was partly down to EH availability, and that an inspection was now arranged for 15 February 2019. It also reconfirmed its reasons for not terminating the neighbour’s tenancy as this was not a proportionate response.
The records show that a joint visit took place on 15 February 2019 with EH. There is no evidence of the outcome of this visit.
On 15 March 2019 the resident requested that the landlord escalate her concerns. The evidence suggests that the landlord had not logged a formal complaint at this stage. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 3 and 8 April 2019 and then contacted this Service on 17 May 2019. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 May 2019 and stated that it had already investigated her concerns, as had the Ombudsman, and as such it would not be responding to historic issues again. It said that its earlier response was done as a courtesy and it reminded the resident of the contact arrangement.
The resident contacted this Service again on 12 June 2019 and said that she had not had a response from the landlord to her complaint about its failure to respond to her concerns about the noise nuisance. This Service contacted the landlord and said that the last determination that had been issued in April 2019 was for matters up until September 2017. Any new complaint issues after this date would require a new complaint.
The resident contacted this Service again on 9 October 2019 as she had not heard anything further from the landlord. The landlord told this Service on 30 October 2019 that it would set up a new complaint and issue its Stage 1 response accordingly. The resident chased the landlord again on 12 December 2019, and the landlord then issued its Stage 1 response on 17 December 2019:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered £100 compensation for this.
2. It said that with regards to the noise nuisance from the neighbour, it did not have sufficient evidence to support action being taken against the neighbour. It asked that the resident to keep notes of any incidents and to continue reporting any incidents to the Police and EH and the landlord would liaise with them as necessary.
3. With regards to the handling of the leak damage, it maintained that it had carried out the necessary repairs, but if the resident thinks there are outstanding issues, it will look into this further and arrange a contractor to re-attend.
4. It reiterated and explained its reasoning for not taking further legal action against the neighbour following the assault conviction.
5. It reiterated its decision to put restrictions in place to limit the resident’s contact with the landlord and said it would monitor this for the next three months and review it at that point.
On 20 January 2020 the resident requested that her complaint be escalated. This was acknowledged. As part of the escalation request review, the landlord liaised with the EH team. On 10 March 2020 the EH team confirmed that ‘To date 5 different officers have visited [the resident] on different occasions in order to try to witness the alleged noise nuisance about which she is complaining. They have visited at differing times based on knowledge from [her] that these times when the visit occur are the most likely to provide evidence of the noise nuisance about which she is complaining. A further two visits will take place this week between 02:30 am 3:00am to witness the alleged noise nuisance. If officers are not able to substantiate the noise complaints about which she is complaining, I am afraid it will leave me with no alternative but to close her case, we cannot indefinitely keep a case open when there is no evidence to support these allegations’.
The email correspondence from the local authority to the resident’s MP on 27 March 2020 confirmed that its officers had visited multiple times but had not been able to prove the allegations being made by the resident.
The internal emails from the landlord on 30 March 2020 confirmed that it did not have enough evidence to pursue the noise nuisance. It said it would continue to work with the EH team.
On 3 April 2020 the landlord updated the resident and said it was working with the Police and the EH team to see if it had enough evidence to take further action, but as it stood, no one had been able to substantiate the noise nuisance.
On 8 April 2020 the EH team wrote to the resident with their findings. They confirmed that they had visited the property on numerous occasions over a period of a year, with the last visits being in October and November 2019, January, February, and March 2020. On each occasion ‘none of the officers who attended your premises at your request were able to corroborate your complaint’. They agreed to install a noise recording machine and said they would take further action if any noise was recorded, but if no noise was detectable on the recordings, they would close the case.
The resident contacted this Service on 21 April 2020 as she had not received a response from the landlord. She advised this Service that she was now having to sleep in her shed because of the noise disturbance.
The landlord issued its Stage 2 final complaint response on 22 April 2020:
1. It apologised for the delay in issuing the Stage 2 response and it offered £50 compensation for this and it said this was partly due to changes in working arrangements due to COVID.
2. With regards to the noise nuisance, it explained that it had been working with the EH team over a number of years, but it has not been able to substantiate her complaint. The noise nuisance that was witnessed in October 2017 was acted upon and the neighbour was given a warning. It was noted that the EH team did not take any further action at the time. Since that incident no further noise nuisance has been evidenced by either the Police or the EH team. It listed all the visits carried out by the EH team and the conclusion each time was that no noise nuisance was witnessed. ‘Since 2017, no agency have been able to substantiate any further complaints of noise nuisance’.
3. It agreed to continue to monitor the situation, but due to no substantiated evidence of noise nuisance, it would not be taking any action against the neighbour at this time. It agreed to install noise monitoring equipment to try and substantiate the noise nuisance and said it would continue to work with the other agencies and the neighbour.
4. With regards to the leak repairs, it maintained that the repairs were completed in a timely manner, and any delays were due to the resident logging a formal disrepair claim. The Independent Reviewers have found no unnecessary delays and found that it had acted in accordance with its policies and procedures.
5. With regards to the handling of the assault, it explained that it had acted in line with its policies and had informed the resident that it would need to wait for the outcome of the court proceedings and then decide on what action was appropriate. Once the court proceedings were over, it served the neighbour with a Notice of Seeking Possession, which it believed was appropriate and proportionate.
6. With regards to the decision to restrict contact, it explained that this was due to persistent unreasonable contact about the same issue. It has reviewed this again and found that the resident had not abided by the terms of the contact arrangement and had contacted various members of staff an unacceptable number of times. For this reason, it said it had extended the contact arrangement for another six months, after which it will be reviewed again.
7. In summary, it did not uphold any aspects of the complaint and it confirmed that this was its final response.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord undertook a separate review in September 2020 of some of the issues raised in this complaint and agreed to offer the resident the following:
1. £250 compensation for delays in communication and complaint handling especially for the period between July 2019 to December 2019.
2. £150 compensation for the failure to periodically review the contact arrangement.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably. It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate the ASB itself or to apportion ‘blame’. Our role is to consider and assess the landlord’s response to the ASB report(s) it received and consider whether its response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, in accordance with its policies and its obligations under the tenancy agreement and any relevant legislation.

The landlord’s handling of the noise nuisance

It is clear to see from the resident’s submissions that she has raised numerous reports of noise nuisance from her neighbour(s) to both the landlord and the local authority. This has been the subject of historic complaints and determinations by the Ombudsman which have found no maladministration on the part of the landlord in respect of its handling of the historic noise nuisance reports.
In this particular case the evidence shows that the landlord responded in an appropriate manner to the various reports of noise and it took steps to investigate the reports in line with its ASB policy and procedure. With regards to the involvement of the local authority EH team, it is noted that they did witness a statutory noise nuisance in October 2017 and notified the landlord of this. The landlord acted appropriately by investigating this and issuing the neighbour with a warning. Given that the EH team decided not to take any further action against the neighbour at this time suggests that the warning was deemed to be sufficient in the circumstances.
The reports made in August 2018 also involved the EH team attending. The evidence shows that the landlord liaised with the EH team and it was concluded that the noise did not meet the threshold for a statutory nuisance and was deemed to be daily household noise. The landlord’s reliance upon the findings of the EH team was not unreasonable. The landlord acted appropriately by agreeing to have a joint inspection with the EH team.
It can be seen that the landlord has been working with the local authority EH team in a co-ordinated effort to try and assist the resident. Although there was a delay of around three months in arranging a joint inspection with the EH team, this was not solely due to the landlord, and was dependent upon the availability of the EH team.
The evidence from the EH team overall shows that, despite several visits to the property, there simply was not enough evidence of a statutory noise nuisance, and as such, the landlord was not in a position to take any action against the neighbour(s).
The landlord acted appropriately when it offered to provide the resident with sound recording equipment in April 2020. However, given the circumstances of the case, and the frequency of the reports from the resident over a very long period of time, the landlord failed to act proactively or in a customer-focussed manner, and it should have offered the use of sound recording equipment earlier. It is not clear from the landlord’s submissions why this was not offered sooner. The findings of the EH visits notwithstanding (and the landlord is entitled to rely upon those findings), had the resident been given the equipment earlier, it would not only have reassured her but it would also have enabled all parties to have a better understanding of the problem and take appropriate action.
In light of the above, there was a service failure by the landlord in not providing the resident with sound recording equipment sooner.

The landlord’s handling of the ASB report relating to the assault

It is noted that in respect of the ASB report from February 2018, the landlord has said that it followed its policy and procedure and kept the resident fully informed of developments. However, looking at the available evidence, this is not clearly substantiated in the landlord’s records. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the landlord responded to the report in a timely manner. For instance, its email correspondence suggests that it did not interview the neighbour until around three weeks after the incident. It is noted that it was liaising with the Police about the incident, but it appears that it did not act in line with its ASB policy and procedure which required it to interview the alleged perpetrator within five working days of the report. This would constitute a service failure.
Similarly, the ASB policy and procedure requires it to visit the resident within five working days of the report. The available evidence shows that the landlord did not meet the resident to discuss the assault until 11 April 2018, some two months after the incident. This again would be a service failure.
It can be seen that the landlord did indeed liaise with the Police and offer appropriate support to the resident. However, given the seriousness of the ASB report and the nature of the incident itself, the landlord should have met with the resident sooner. Had it done so, this would have helped reassure the resident and address her concerns and demonstrate that the matter was being treated with due regard.
The resident is unhappy that despite the neighbour having been convicted in a court of law for the assault, the landlord has failed to take decisive action and evict the neighbour. While the resident’s comments are noted, it is not always the case that a landlord will be able to start eviction proceedings in such situations. The landlord is guided by its ASB policy and procedure which sets out how it will consider enforcement action for any tenancy breaches. The landlord’s policy sets out that it has the discretion to decide what action it deems appropriate for the case. It also needs to be borne in mind that any action needs to be proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
In this case, it was reasonable for the landlord to wait for the Police investigation and the subsequent court proceedings to be completed before considering what further action was appropriate. It can be seen that the landlord was actively liaising with the Police and it carefully considered the court judgement. The landlord has adequately explained its reasoning for not starting eviction proceedings and this seems reasonable. The resident may well want stronger action to be taken by the landlord, but the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s decision-making and rationale shows that it carefully considered its options and it deems this to be a reasonable and proportionate response.
While the landlord may not have taken the action the resident was asking for, it has made it clear that this does not in any way diminish the seriousness of the incident. It is noted that the landlord has also sought to involve other agencies to help and support the resident. It is evident that the landlord was involved in a combined approach involving other agencies, including the Police, Community Safety teams and Victim Support. Nothing in the evidence seen for this case indicates that the landlord doubted or disputed the resident’s concerns and/or questioned the seriousness of the situation.
Looking at the overall handling of the matter overall, aside from the service failure with regards to the delay in meeting the parties, the actions the landlord took in this case demonstrate that, on the whole, it responded appropriately to the ASB report and it considered all available options in line with its ASB policy and procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the leak damage

The resident has said that she is generally unhappy with the length of time it took the landlord to carry out the repairs following a leak from the upstairs flat. She is also unhappy with the surveyor’s opinion as to the cause of the leak. On the face of it, the leak was reported on 6 February 2018 and the repairs were not completed until 25 June 2018, approximately 19 weeks later. It is clear that the repair has taken a lot longer than the timeframe set out in the landlord’s responsive repairs policy.
Looking at the available evidence, it is noted that the landlord’s records appear to be limited and/or incomplete with regards to demonstrating how it handled this particular repair. A landlord’s record keeping is a crucial aspect of its overall service delivery. Maintaining accurate and contemporaneous records assist a landlord to provide an efficient and timely service and also provide an audit trail of its decision making after the event.
In this case, there is evidence to show that the landlord initially responded appropriately to the repair report and a contractor attended to the resident’s property within the same day. However, the records are unclear as to what the landlord did in response to the leak having come from the upstairs flat. The available records show that the landlord did not confirm that the leak from the upstairs flat had been stopped until 14 March 2018, which was a month after the leak had been reported. The failure to swiftly address the cause of the leak in the upstairs flat has unnecessarily delayed the start of any remedial works to the resident’s flat. The contractor’s findings at this time suggested that the leak was perhaps still ongoing as the walls in the resident’s flat were still wet.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord acted appropriately by taking action to address the condition of the resident’s flat at the outset of the report. Its records show that dehumidifiers were not provided until a month after the leak had been reported. This delayed the drying-out process and meant that the remedial works needed to be pushed back by a couple of months.
However, it is also noted that the remedial works were somewhat delayed by the fact that the resident chose to start a formal disrepair claim against the landlord. In the circumstances, the landlord was right to say that this required a more formal approach as its legal team had to liaise with the resident’s Solicitor, which can lead to delay.
The landlord has said that the remedial works were also delayed in part due to the resident’s availability. However, it has not provided any evidence of this.
Once the resident had confirmed that she was no longer pursuing the legal disrepair claim, the landlord acted swiftly to arrange for the remedial works to be completed in a timely manner.

The landlord’s handling of the contact restriction

The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s decision to restrict her contact with it to once a week. She feels that this is unfair and unreasonable. It is noted that the landlord’s unacceptable customer behaviour policy sets out the circumstances where a contact arrangement is deemed appropriate. Having considered the available evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has acted appropriately and has demonstrated why a contact arrangement was deemed necessary.
It is acknowledged that the resident has concerns about noise and ASB-related issues involving her neighbours, and that these issues are longstanding and historic in nature. It also acknowledged that the landlord (and this Service) has previously dealt with similar complaints from the resident, in particularly regarding the noise issue. It was reasonable for the landlord to say say that it cannot continue to re-visit the same issues that have already gone through its complaints process and have been determined by the Ombudsman. The resident may well not agree with the outcome of the complaints but this does not mean that the issues will be continuously investigated and/or left open-ended indefinitely.
The landlord has shown that the resident has continuously contacted the landlord (and other agencies) repeating the same concerns, and it is not unreasonable to hold that this has adversely impacted the landlord’s capabilities. Where there is new evidence, the landlord has confirmed it will consider the matter further. However, it is reasonable for the landlord to consider restricting the resident’s contact, when for example, it says that the resident sent eight emails on the same day about issues that had already been addressed.
Looking at the issue overall, the landlord has explained its decision and rational for implementing the contact arrangement and this is in accordance with its policy.
However, the landlord has belatedly acknowledged that it failed to review the contact arrangement. It has said that the contact agreement should have been reviewed every six months and it failed to do so on at least three occasions. It has apologised for this oversight and has offered the resident a total of £150 in compensation for this service failure. It has also carried out a review and confirmed that the contact arrangement remains in place until the next review. The Ombudsman considers that the apology and the offer of compensation is deemed to be reasonable redress for this service failure.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out how it handles complaints and the timeframes for its responses. Looking at the facts of this case, it is noted that matters were somewhat complicated by the contact arrangement, but nevertheless, the evidence suggests that the landlord did not progress the complaint efficiently or in line with its complaints policy despite the resident and this Service contacting the landlord over a period of around seven months.
Looking at the evidence, it can be seen that the resident was raising concerns around January 2019 which ought to have been logged by the landlord as a formal complaint. The subsequent correspondence in March 2019 shows that the landlord had referenced a complaint and its response was framed as a complaint response – but it had not formally recorded the complaint. It was not until 30 October 2019, after further correspondence from this Service, that a formal complaint was logged by the landlord. It then took aa further seven weeks for the Stage 1 response to be issued, which is in excess of the timeframes set out in its complaints policy.
The escalation request was made on 20 January 2020, and it took until 17 April 2020 for the Stage 2 response to be issued – almost 17 weeks. Again, this is not in accordance with its complaints policy and would be a service failure.
The landlord has rightly acknowledged in its complaint responses that there has been a delay in its compliant handling, for which it has apologised and offered a total of £150 compensation in its Stage 1 and 2 responses. It has also undertaken another review in September 2020 and has rightly acknowledged that there was a lack of communication and significant service failures in its handling of the complaint, for which it offered an additional £250 compensation.
Looking at it overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s apology and total offer of £400 compensation is reasonable redress for the service failures in its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the reports of noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the ASB report relating to the assault.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the leak damage.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in respect of its handling of the contact arrangement.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in respect of its complaint handling service failures.

Reasons

With regards to the noise reports, the landlord failed to act proactively and consider providing the resident with sound recording equipment earlier.
With regards to its handling of the ASB report, the landlord failed to act in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure in respect of meeting with both parties within a reasonable time.
With regards to its handling of the leak damage, the landlord has not demonstrated that it responded in a timely manner and that it acted in accordance with its repairs policy.
With regards to its handling of the contact arrangement, the landlord has demonstrated why this was put in place and has shown that it acted in accordance with its policy. It acknowledged that it had failed to review the contact arrangement periodically and it has offered reasonable compensation for this service failure.
With regards to its complaint handling, it has acknowledged that there were delays and service failures, for which it has apologised and it has offered reasonable compensation for this service failure.

Orders

Within the next six weeks the landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
1. compensation of £100 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused by its service failures in regard to its handling of the noise reports.
2. compensation of £100 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused by its service failures in regard to its handling of the ASB report.
3. compensation of £100 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused by its service failures in regard to its handling of the leak damage.
Evidence of compliance with the above order to be provided to this Service within six weeks.