Notting Hill Genesis (201909608)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909608

Notting Hill Genesis

17 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
1. his neighbour’s antisocial behaviour (ASB), including:
  1. noise nuisance;
  2. aggressive behaviour;
  3. using the resident’s bin;
  4. leaving litter in communal areas;
  5. keeping an unauthorised dog;
  6. noise caused by their faulty door;
2. subsidence at the property;
3. its employee breaching its data protection responsibilities;
4. a water leak at his property;
5. repairs to the communal front door lock;
6. increases to his rent.
The complaint is also about the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a secured tenant at the property of the landlord since 24 September 1984. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a ground floor flat in a block containing two other flats.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes that a stage one response will be provided within 10 working days, and a stage two response will be provided within 20 working days.
The landlord operates a compensation policy. The policy notes the landlord may offer goodwill compensation for any inconvenience or distress caused to a resident, up to £250.
The landlord operates an ASB policy. The policy notes that the landlord will contact a resident within one working day of receiving a report of ASB and that where a crime has been committed, it will advise residents to contact the police. It notes the landlord can deal with reports by offering mediation or issuing warnings. It further notes the landlord will only consider legal action in exceptional circumstances. It notes the landlord will close a case following its investigation and any appropriate action, or where it is unable to gather sufficient evidence to take any action.
The landlord operates a repairs policy. The policy notes the landlord will respond to routine repairs within 20 working days.

Summary of events

It is not disputed that the resident has reported ASB from both of his neighbours since 2015. It is also not disputed that the resident has been the subject of ASB complaints from his neighbours, and that he was served a ‘Noise Abatement’ notice by the local authority’s environmental health team in 2010. The landlord has provided this service with copies of the resident’s ASB complaint communications, and it is evident that the resident has made at least 80 reports of ASB throughout the course of the complaint. The reports include: instances of loud noises, bangs, or raised voices; dog barking; aggressive language; leaving communal doors unlocked; and litter in communal areas. It is evident that the resident has forwarded his reports of ASB onto the police on multiple occasions.
While the landlord has provided this service with many communications throughout the period of 2015 – 2018, it is evident that not all copies of communications are present and that some correspondence between the resident and landlord took place over the phone, which has not been documented. The information above is included to provide context to the resident’s current complaints.
On 25 June 2019, the resident reported that his neighbours had left the communal front door on the latch, which could compromise security. The landlord replied on the same date and advised it would contact the neighbours to remind them not to do so. This service has not been provided with copies of any correspondence between the landlord and the neighbour on this issue.
On 25, 28, and 29 June 2019, the resident reported that his neighbour had rang on his doorbell at 10pm asking for assistance with a gas meter and that he would rather have no contact with them. He also reported loud banging, as well as a dog whining. On 3 July 2019, the landlord replied and advised it would raise these issues with the neighbour. It also requested that the resident did not report one–off incidents of noise from objects falling on the floor and said that it was unable to address day to day domestic noises. The resident subsequently replied on 5 July 2019 that the noises were not one-off incidents, but an ongoing issue.
On 10 July 2019, the resident advised that his neighbour had left bin bags at the front of the property and on 11 July 2019, he reported that there was dog barking coming from his neighbour’s property between 02:00am – 04:30am. On the same date, the landlord replied and advised that the bin bags would be collected in due course by the “dustbin men,” but that it would raise the issue with the neighbour if they were not collected. Regarding the dog, the landlord advised it had been informed the dog belonged to a visitor of the neighbour, and that “all dogs bark so I am not deeming that a noise nuisance unless the dog has been left in the property on its own then I will investigate.”
On 15 July 2019, the resident reported further instances of dog barking, and that the communal front door was again being left on the latch. The landlord replied on 16 July 2019 and advised it would discuss the issue with the neighbour the same day. On 22 July 2019, 2 August 2019, and 6 August 2019, the resident made further reports of dog barking and also that the bin bags remained at the front of the property. On 12 August 2019, the landlord advised it had spoken with the neighbour and informed them that the dog was not allowed to stay overnight. It also advised that it would be making regular unannounced visits to ensure this was being complied with. The resident subsequently disputed that the dog belonged to a visitor and that he considered it stayed full time with the neighbour.
On 16 August 2019, the resident made further reports of dog barking and noted there was a “foul stench” coming from his neighbour’s property which he associated with the dog. On 19 August 2019, the landlord advised it would again visit the neighbour to discuss and on 23 August 2019, the landlord advised it had informed the neighbour they were no longer allowed to have the dog visit. It requested the resident keep it informed of any further incidents.
On 24 August 2019, the resident reported that during a discussion between his neighbour and an employee of the landlord, the employee “broke the law by stating that legal action should be taken against me.” He did not elaborate on any further details regarding this incident. He also reiterated there were ongoing issues with the dog at his neighbour’s property. On 3 September 2019, the landlord advised it would further investigate the reports regarding the dog. On 9 September 2019, the resident subsequently noted the landlord had not addressed the “breached matters of confidence.”
On 9 October 2019, the resident reiterated the issues with the dog were ongoing and requested an update regarding “the matter of a breach of the data protection act when my personal information was verbally leaked by a [landlord] worker to a third party.” The landlord replied on the same date that it would provide an update regarding the dog in due course. Regarding its employee, it advised it had spoken with the employee who “explained that she did not make any such statements about you.” The resident subsequently advised he considered that the landlord was “covering for your colleague,” and that he may consider claiming compensation.
On 4 November 2019, the resident made a formal complaint. He noted the dog was continuing to bark and that the neighbour’s property had a foul smell; that he had repeatedly reported bin bags at the front of the property; that he had suffered threats and verbal abuse from visitors of his neighbour, which he had reported to the police; that he had also reported noise nuisance to the local authority; that he considered the landlord’s employee to have breached its data protection responsibilities; and that he considered the property to be subsiding. He also noted his preferred resolution to the ASB issues was that the landlord should take legal action against his neighbour.
It is not evident that the landlord acknowledged this complaint. The resident sought assistance from this service on 18 November 2019, and this service subsequently contacted the landlord to request a response. The landlord acknowledged this request on 26 November 2019. It is not disputed that the landlord subsequently provided a “holding response” on 11 December 2019, requesting the resident contact the landlord to discuss the complaint further. This service has not been provided with a copy of this correspondence.
Following further reports from the resident regarding the ongoing ASB issues, the landlord replied on 2 January 2020 that it would raise his concerns with the neighbour and keep him updated. It is not evident that the landlord provided an update and on 7 March 2020 the resident subsequently sent a lengthy correspondence to the landlord outlining his dissatisfaction with its service. On 16 March 2020, the resident again reported to this service he was yet to receive a stage one response, and this service subsequently requested an update from the landlord. On 26 March 2020, the landlord contacted the resident to arrange a time to discuss his complaint. On 29 March 2020, the resident replied that he had nothing further to add and requested the landlord provide its formal response, however, on 30 March 2020, the landlord again attempted to arrange a time to discuss the complaint further.
On 6 April 2020, the resident reported that the neighbour was making excessive noise and not social distancing and that he had reported it to the police. The landlord replied on 7 April 2020 and advised that it was unable to enforce social distancing rules and the police were the correct body to report this to. It advised it would send the neighbour a letter regarding noise. On 12 April 2020, the resident also reported that his neighbour was putting rubbish in his bin. On 26 April 2020, the resident reported that the communal front door lock was faulty and on 1 May 2020, he also reported that bin bags were still being left at the front of the property. The landlord replied on the same day and requested photographic evidence of the bin bags, however, the resident replied that he wanted the landlord to inspect the area itself.
Following further reports on 17 May 2020 of bin bags left in the garden, on 18 May 2020, the landlord requested that the resident send his correspondence to a new landlord employee, noting the current email address he was using was for an employee who was not related to the issues. It also again requested the resident provide it with “physical evidence” or further information. The landlord subsequently sent a letter to all residents reminding them of their responsibilities regarding leaving litter outside the property. It is evident that the resident continued to use the original email address, as well as for an address of a former employee of the landlord and on 15 June 2020, the landlord advised that any emails sent to these addresses would no longer be actioned.
On 19 June 2020, the landlord provided its stage one response. It apologised for the delay to its response and advised its employee who had been dealing with the complaint had left the organisation “and had not given a clear handover of your complaint.” It noted that it had arranged for its cleaning contractors to clear the bin bags at the front of the property and that it had visited the resident’s neighbour to advise them “be mindful of each other.” It also advised the neighbour had also informed it that the dog was removed from the premises. Regarding the resident’s further reports of bin bags at the property, it noted it had explained during a telephone call with the resident on 20 May 2020 that due to COVID-19 restrictions, it was unable to attend the property, and so had requested evidence of the bin bags, but that the resident “became rather aggressive towards me, as well as dismissive of my suggestions.” It further noted that the resident advised “that you had taken a degree of pleasure in speaking with me in the manner you did during my call to you.” It noted however, it was “committed to making sure that you have all your queries resolved” and invited the resident to contact it to discuss the issues further. The landlord reiterated its apology for the delays caused by its staff leaving and noted it now had a system in place to prevent the lack of handover occurring again. It subsequently offered the resident £125 as a gesture of goodwill.
On 19/20 June 2020, the resident advised he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested an escalation. He disputed that the dog had left the property and also noted the landlord’s response did not address his complaints regarding the landlord’s employee breaching its data protection responsibilities. The resident reiterated his existing complaints and also added additional complaints which it is not evident he had previously raised, including: that there was subsidence at the property; that there water leaks from his neighbour’s flat on 2 May 2020, and that he wanted repairs to prevent this; that the landlord’s rent increase in 2018 was greater than “current inflation rate plus 1%”; that the neighbour’s door was noisy; and that the communal front door lock was faulty.
The landlord subsequently provided a “revised stage one” response on 6 July 2020. Regarding the dog at the property, it noted it had previously attended the neighbour’s property and not observed a dog. It also advised the neighbour’s social worker had last visited the property on 30 June 2020 and confirmed there has not been a dog at the property for a “minimum of 2 months.” The landlord further advised it would be speaking with the neighbour and “reiterating the need to adhere to their responsibilities as a tenant. This includes but isn’t limited to visitors with dogs making excessive noise at early hours of the morning.” It also noted the “foul smell” at the property should go away, given it was associated with the dog.
Regarding the bin bags at the property, the landlord noted it did not have evidence of who had left them there and so could not take action against a specific individual. It reiterated that its cleaning contractor had cleared the area on 24 December 2019. It also advised that the neighbour had confirmed they had repaired their door and that it should no longer cause noise. Regarding the resident’s concerns about subsidence, it noted the property was not currently due to undergo any major works which could address the issue, but it would look into what else could be done.
Regarding the ASB issues involving the resident’s neighbour, the landlord advised it had spoken with the neighbour and they were “aware that ASB will not be tolerated and will be addressed.” It also noted it had explained to the neighbour that “it is unacceptable to use other’s bins.” Regarding the resident’s concerns the landlord’s employee had breached its data protection responsibilities, it advised it was unable to respond as the resident had “not clarified what you believe the breach to be.”
Regarding the resident’s concerns about the leak, the landlord advised the resident’s neighbour had informed it they had accidently left their bath taps running on that occasion, causing a leak. Regarding the resident’s concerns about the rent increase in 2018, it advised that it had requested its rent team to look into the issue and provide a further update. It also noted the resident’s concerns at the landlord contacting him in the past, which he considered to be an intrusion, but advised it had to do so from time to time as part of its responsibilities as a landlord. It also reiterated its apology for the delays to its initial response and noted it would send a further letter to residents reminding them of their responsibilities regarding litter and noise.
On 9 July 2020, the resident advised he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested an escalation of his complaints. On 14 July 2020, the landlord noted there was a significant amount of correspondence relating to all the resident’s complaints and so requested he clarify which parts of his complaint and its response he wished to be reviewed. The resident subsequently forwarded to the landlord a large number of previous emails relating to his complaints.
On 15 July 2020, the landlord sent a letter to all residents reminding them of their responsibilities regarding litter and noise. On 21 July 2020, it also sent a letter to the resident’s neighbour reminding them dogs were not allowed to visit their property. The landlord has also provided this service with its housing officer’s notes, which noted that they attended the neighbour’s property unannounced on 18 August 2020 and did not discover any dog at the property.
It is evident that the resident made further reports of bin bags outside the property as well as the dog still being at the neighbour’s property. On 2 September 2020, the landlord advised it had attended the property and did not discover a dog. It advised it would raise the issue of bin bags left outside the property again and also offered to “arrange mediation between the two of you, so we can discuss any issues that may seem unclear or unresolved.” The landlord has also provided this service with a copy of its correspondence to the neighbour dated 5 September 2020 reminding them of their responsibilities regarding litter and allowing dogs to visit the property.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 24 September 2020. Regarding the leak, it advised it would arrange for its repair team to attend the property and inspect if any damage had occurred. It subsequently requested for the resident to advise his availability. Regarding any ongoing ASB, it advised the resident to keep diary entries of any further incidents and signposted him to the local authority’s environmental health team regarding any excessive noise or barking he could hear. It also recommended he make recordings of any noise and also report any aggressive behaviour to the police. It further advised it would continue to make unannounced visits to the neighbour’s property to check for any dogs and that the neighbour would have their tenancy reviewed if they were found to be in breach. The landlord reiterated its offer of mediation and also increased its offer of compensation to £175.
It is evident that the resident has continued to report ongoing noise from his neighbour and bin bags left in communal areas. The landlord has provided this service with its communications to the neighbour dated 30 March 2021 and 15 April 2021 reminding them of their responsibilities regarding noise and litter. It has also provided us with its surveyor’s report dated 30 March 2021 which noted there was no subsidence at the property, along with its subsequent correspondence with the resident advising the same. On 22 April 2021, the landlord also advised the resident that there had not been any increase to his rent in 2018, but there had been a slight increase to his service charge. The landlord has advised this service that it is awaiting on its surveyor to reattend the property to assess repairs to the front door lock.

Assessment and findings

ASB

ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of a robust ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships, and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. Retaining accurate records also provides transparency to the decision-making process and an audit trail after the event.
Cases where there is a history of ASB reports over an extended period, such as this, are often the most challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome and it therefore becomes difficult to manage a resident’s expectations. In such instances, closely following the ASB procedure ensures that the landlord can progress the case to a resolution, even if that resolution is not the outcome requested by the resident.
The landlord’s ASB policy notes it will respond to reports of ASB within 24 hours and can issue warnings as a method of resolution. Following the resident’s reports that his neighbour was leaving the door open, the landlord appropriately responded to the resident the following day and set out that it would warn the neighbour not to leave the door unlocked.
Following the resident’s reports of further ASB issues in June 2019, the landlord responded on 3 July 2019. While this was not within 24 hours, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, given the frequency of the resident’s reports, this response time was reasonable. Again, the landlord appropriately advised it would raise these issues with the neighbour.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the frequent banging noises and shouting heard from his neighbour’s property has caused the resident distress. The threshold for such noises to become ASB ‘noise nuisance’ is, however, a high bar, and so while the resident expressed that such noises occurred frequently, the landlord’s response that it could not take action for every instance of day-to-day noise was reasonable.
Following the resident’s reports of a dog barking and of bin bags left outside the property, the landlord again appropriately responded within 24 hours. Given this was the first instance of this issue, it was reasonable for the landlord to expect the bin bags to be collected by the “dustbin men,” and for it to advise it would take further action should this not be the case. It is also evident that the landlord had investigated the issue of the dog, and on satisfying itself that it belonged to a visitor, it was also reasonable for it consider at this time that the barking was a one-off incident, and it was appropriate that it advised it would investigate further should the issue continue.
Following the resident’s further reports of dog barking and the door being left on the latch on 15 July 2019, the landlord appropriately responded within 24 hours and its advice that it would raise the issues directly with the neighbour was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy. Given that the resident had made further reports of dog barking, it was appropriate that the landlord enforced that the dog could not stay at the property over night and that it informed the resident it had taken this action. Following further reports of dog barking from the resident, it was also appropriate that the landlord, subsequently, enforced that the dog could no longer visit the property and that it kept the resident informed of this decision.
The resident made a number of other reports about ongoing dog barking, and on each occasion, the landlord appropriately responded that it would address the issue with the neighbour. It is evident, however, that the resident had also reported further issues with bin bags at the front of the property on 6 August 2019, which the landlord did not address. This would have left the resident unsure how this issue would be dealt with and caused him inconvenience in having to chase it up again. It is not disputed that the landlord arranged for its cleaning contractors to clear the bin bags in December 2019, however, it would have been helpful for the resident if the landlord had kept the resident updated with its actions.
Following the resident’s formal complaint and further reports of similar ASB issues, the landlord’s reply on 2 January 2020 advised him it would investigate and provide an update, however, it is not evident it provided any update. As noted by the landlord in its stage one response, there were significant delays with its complaints handling during this period due to an employee leaving the business. The landlord’s complaints handling is discussed further below.
The landlord’s ASB policy notes that it will involve external agencies where appropriate and that where a crime is committed, it will encourage a resident to report it to the police. Following the resident’s reports that the neighbour was breaching COVID-19 restrictions, the landlord appropriately advised it was unable to enforce the restrictions on the neighbour and encouraged the resident to report this to the police, in line with its ASB policy.
Following the resident’s further reports of bin bags outside the property and of rubbish being placed in his bin, it was reasonable for the landlord to request the resident provide it with photographic evidence as part of its investigation. While the resident subsequently requested that the landlord attend to the property to investigate, it is not disputed that the landlord explained during a telephone call that it was unable to attend for non-emergency purposes during the period of COVID-19 restrictions, and so in the Ombudsman’s opinion, its further request for the resident to provide evidence was reasonable. As noted in its stage one response, it is evident that the landlord considered the resident’s communication during this telephone call to be “aggressive” and so it was commendable that it reiterated that it was committed to assisting the resident resolve this issue. It is also appropriate that it sent a letter to all residents reminding them of their responsibilities regarding litter and noise.
As part of the resident’s formal complaint, he referenced incidents of past aggressive behaviour from his neighbour. It is evident from the correspondence provided to this service that the resident reported incidents of this nature to the landlord and to the police in 2016. Given that the resident’s reports were now focused on the dog barking, noise, and bin bags, it was reasonable for the landlord to have advised in its stage one response that it had warned the neighbour to be mindful of each other going forward.
In his revised complaint, the resident also noted that the neighbour’s door was causing noise nuisance, and so it was appropriate that in its revised stage one response, the landlord advised it had investigated the issue and that the door had subsequently been repaired.
Following the resident’s further reports about dog barking, the landlord appropriately advised the steps it had taken to investigate the issue in its revised stage one response, noting that both it and the neighbour’s social worker had attended the property and not found evidence of the dog. It also appropriately advised that it would be approaching the neighbour again to remind her of her responsibilities. It also appropriately advised it would address the issue regarding the use of the resident’s bins and reiterated that any ASB will not be tolerated. It is evident that in July 2020, the landlord sent letters to all residents reminding them of their responsibilities regarding noise and litter, and that it also appropriately sent a letter specifically to the neighbour regarding the dog at the property. It is also evident that the landlord continued to appropriately investigate the reports, having attended the property during which it did not discover any dog.
Given that the resident continued to make reports about the neighbour, it was appropriate that the landlord offered mediation between the parties, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, is an appropriate option to resolve ongoing issues such as this. It was also appropriate that it requested the resident keep diary entries of any further incidents to assist it with its investigation, and that it advised the resident that it would continue to make unannounced visits to check for a dog, and the action it would take should a dog be discovered. It was also appropriate that it signposted the resident to the local authority’s environmental health team, in line with its ASB policy, and that it reiterated its offer of mediation. It is also evident that the landlord has continued to address the resident’s ongoing reports and has sent further warning letters to the neighbour following its stage two response.
While there were instances where the landlord’s responses were delayed, the landlord has appropriately acknowledged there was service failure regarding delays to its communications which is discussed further below. While the resident has expressed that his preferred resolution would be for the landlord to take legal action against the neighbour, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, its actions such as discussing the complaints directly with the neighbour and issuing warning letters, as well as making unannounced visits to the neighbour’s property were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

Subsidence

Following the landlord’s initial stage one response, the resident reported his concerns regarding subsidence at the property. It is not evident that the resident had raised this issue prior to this so it was reasonable that the landlord had not addressed it in its initial stage one response. The landlord appropriately outlined its upcoming major works schedule and also advised that it would look at what other options were available, although it did not give an indication as to what these might be, or what timeframe it would do so in, which would have been helpful.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to carry out an investigation and provide an update to a resident within a reasonable timeframe. While it appropriately arranged for its surveyor to assess the property in March 2021 and it also informed the resident of the outcome of the assessment, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this delay without any update is unreasonable, and would have caused the resident distress and uncertainty regarding the resolution of his complaint. This constituted service failure and it is appropriate that an amount of compensation be offered. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, an amount of £50 is reasonable in the circumstances.

Data breach

Following the resident’s reports in August 2019 that he considered the landlord’s employee to have breached its data protection responsibilities, it is not evident that the landlord acknowledged his concerns, instead only responding to his most recent report about the dog barking. While the resident did not elaborate on what information he considered to have been breached, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have made further enquiries. This also would have left the resident unsure how this issue would be dealt with and caused him inconvenience in having to chase it up again. Following the resident raising the data breach again, the landlord appropriately investigated the issue by making enquiries with its employee and advising its position to the resident that no information was breached.
Given that the resident subsequently reiterated his concerns in his formal complaint, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have formally given its position in its initial stage one response, however, it is not evident it did so. It was appropriate, however, that it addressed the issue in its revised stage one response, and given that it had already investigated the issue and advised the resident of the outcome, it was reasonable that it advised it was unable to offer any further comments. Additionally, given that it requested that the resident advise it of what elements of the complaint it wished it to review, and such advice was not forthcoming, it was also reasonable that it did not address the issue in its stage two response.

Water leak

It is not evident that the resident raised the issue of a leak into his property from his neighbour’s property prior to his revised complaint in June 2020. It is evident that the landlord subsequently investigated the issue by making enquiries with the neighbour. Given that the resident had only reported an isolated incident, and the neighbour corroborated that she had caused a leak on that day, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise this to the resident and that it did not identify any repairs as necessary to prevent it from occurring. It would have, been helpful however, for it to have made further enquiries to see if there had been any damaged caused by the leak.
Given that the resident subsequently requested for his complaints to be reviewed, it was appropriate that the landlord advised it would arrange for its repair team to investigate further to identify any specific repairs required.

Door lock

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy notes that it will attend to non-emergency repairs within 20 working days. Following the resident’s reports regarding the door lock, it is not evident that the landlord acknowledged the report. It is evident this report was not part of the resident’s initial complaint, meaning it was reasonable that the landlord did not address it in its initial stage one response. It is also evident that the landlord had requested that the resident cease sending correspondence to its former employee, and that this report was initially sent to said employee, following which the landlord would have not necessarily been aware, however, it is evident that the resident raised the issue again in his revised complaint, following which, the landlord did not address the issue in its revised stage one response, nor did it provide any updates as to when its repair team would be able to address it.
While the landlord has advised this service it is still waiting for its surveyor to assess the issue, it is not evident this has been relayed to the resident. Given that the works remain outstanding and that they should have been attended to within 20 working days, this constitutes service failure, and it is appropriate that an amount of compensation be offered. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, an amount of £50 is reasonable in the circumstances.

Rent

It is also not evident that the resident raised his concerns about the 2018 rent increase prior to his revised complaint in June 2020. While the landlord subsequently advised it would arrange for its rents team to investigate the issue, it did not give a timeframe for it to do so, which would have been helpful.
As noted above, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to respond to a resident within a reasonable timeframe, however, it is not evident that the landlord provided an update until April 2021. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this delay without any update is unreasonable, and would have caused the resident distress and uncertainty regarding the resolution of his complaint. This constituted service failure, and it is appropriate that an amount of compensation be offered. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, an amount of £50 is reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it will issue a stage one response within 10 working days following a complaint. The Ombudsman would also expect a landlord to provide an update to a resident where it was unable to provide a response within this timeframe. The resident made a formal complaint in November 2019, however, it is not evident that the landlord acknowledged this complaint.
Following a request that it respond from this service, the landlord appropriately sought to discuss the complaint with the resident on 11 December 2019, however, following this, as advised by the landlord in its stage one response, the employee handling the complaint departed the company and the complaint was not successfully handed over. It is evident, however, that the landlord was again made aware of the outstanding complaint response following a further request from this service in March 2020, following which, it again sought to discuss the complaint further with the resident. Given that the resident articulated he did not wish to discuss the complaint and requested the landlord proceed with providing a response, it is not evident why the landlord sought yet again to discuss it with him, nor why it then delayed its response until June 2020 without any further updates.
Given the significant delays to its initial stage one response, it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the delays and explained the reason why. It was also appropriate that it advised it had put in place a system to prevent this occurring again and offered an amount of compensation.
In his initial formal complaint, the resident included complaints about subsidence and the landlord’s employees breach of data protection responsibilities, however, the landlord did not address these complaints in its stage one response. It was therefore appropriate that it addressed them, along with the resident’s additional complaints, in its revised stage one response. The Ombudsman considers that while the landlord’s delay in responding to the initial complaint was unreasonable, and it was right that compensation was offered to reflect this service failure, it was reasonable to subsequently consider the initial complaints and further complaints as a single complaint going forward.
Following the resident’s request for an escalation, given the number of complaints, it was reasonable for the landlord to request that the resident clarify what parts of its response he wished it to review. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord corresponded with this service to advise it was not intentionally delaying its stage two response and that it had sought clarification from the resident. Given that it had repeatedly requested clarification from the resident without a response, the Ombudsman considers the timeframe for it providing its stage two response was reasonable. Additionally, given the significant delays to its initial response, it was also appropriate that the landlord increased its offer of compensation in its stage two response, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was reasonable redress for its service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports concerning:
1. his neighbour’s ASB;
2. its employee breaching its data protection responsibilities;
3. a water leak at his property.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding its complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports concerning:
1. subsidence at the property;
2. increases to his rent;
3. repairs to the communal front door lock.

Reasons

ASB

Following the resident’s reports of ASB, the landlord took reasonable action in line with its ASB policy and what the Ombudsman would consider proportionate in the circumstances, including sending warning letters, unannounced inspections of the property, and advising the neighbour that the dog was prohibited.

Subsidence

While the landlord appropriately advised in its revised stage one response that it would investigate the issue further and provide an update, it did not give a timeframe for providing its update, and the amount of time that elapsed between its revised stage one response and it arranging for its surveyor to carry out an investigation and providing an update was unreasonable.

Data breach

While the landlord did not initially acknowledge the resident’s concerns, following him raising the issue again, the landlord appropriately investigated the issue by making enquiries with its employee and advising the resident of the outcome. While it would have been helpful to have sought further information about the alleged breach from the resident, given it had made its position clear, it was reasonable that it did not offer any further comments in its revised stage one response.

Water leak

Following the resident’s report of the leak in his revised formal complaint, the landlord appropriately advised him of the reason for the leak in its revised stage one response, and also appropriately arranged for further investigation of any repairs that may be required in its stage two response.

Door lock repair

While it was reasonable that the landlord did not address the issue in its initial stage one response, following the resident’s repeat of his reports in his revised complaint, it is not evident why the landlord failed to address it in its revised stage one response. Additionally, given that its repairs policy requires non-emergency repairs to be addressed with 20 working days, it is unreasonable that the landlord is yet to arrange for its surveyor to assess the issue.

Rent

While the landlord appropriately advised in its revised stage one response that it would investigate the issue further and provide an update, it did not give a timeframe for providing its update, and the amount of time that elapsed between its revised stage one response and it providing the outcome of its investigation was unreasonable.

Complaints handling

It is evident that the landlord’s initial stage one response was severely delayed and so it was appropriate that it apologised and offered an amount of compensation. Additionally, it was appropriate that it provided its revised stage one response within the timeframes set out in its complaints policy. Further, it was reasonable that it sought to clarify the resident’s concerns about its stage one response prior to issuing its stage two response, and given the residents continued concerns about the stage one response delay, it was appropriate that it increased the amount of compensation offered.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £150, comprising:
1. £50 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to provide an update regarding the increase to the resident’s rent within a reasonable timeframe;
2. £50 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to arrange for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s reports of subsidence within a reasonable timeframe;
3. £50 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to carry out repairs to the communal front door lock.
This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and include the following (if it hasn’t already):
1. reiterate its offer of £175 compensation in relation to its service failure regarding its complaints handling;
2. advise a timeframe for its repairs team to complete repairs to the communal front door lock.