Notting Hill Genesis (202336648)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336648

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

17 March 2025

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 the resident’s:
1. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy that began on 1 October 2012. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the first floor. The resident explained to the landlord during the complaint process that she was “vulnerable” and had depression due to the loss of family members. The landlord subsequently recorded that the resident suffered from depression on its systems. The resident told us she is disabled, has arthritis, and a spinal condition that affects her mobility. We understand that the resident may have provided further information about this to the landlord after the complaint procedure was exhausted.
Since 2018 the resident raised regular concerns to the landlord that her neighbours were drilling through the communal areas of property to gain access to her flat. She said this caused holes and cracks to her internal walls and ceilings. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to review the cracks. The survey identified hairline cracks were present throughout the property. The surveyor advised the cracks were superficial and that the property was structurally safe. They recommended that the landlord address the cracks during the next cyclical programme. The landlord wrote to the resident shortly after to confirm this.
Between 2019 and 2023 the resident continued to report concerns about drilling and the associated cracks. In June 2023, the resident reported that the neighbour’s drilling had also caused damage to the CCTV by her balcony. She said she was worried that the holes may allow water to penetrate the electrical wires and cause a health and safety hazard. She also reported the other residents had overloaded the bin stores. The landlord said it had no evidence her neighbour was drilling into the property. It also said it had reviewed the CCTV footage and could not identify who was overloading the bin stores. The resident made regular reports about these two issues as well as further reports about her neighbours that:
1. they were drilling in the meter cupboards for the gas and electric and she was worried the wires had been compromised.
2. her kitchen ceiling had been damaged by the drilling.
3. they had tampered with the CCTV.
4. she felt unsafe because they were verbally abusive when she was collecting parcels.
5. they were making loud noises during unsociable hours.
The resident contacted us with her concerns and we provided guidance on making a complaint. The resident subsequently complained to the landlord on 15 March 2025. She said this was about:
1. poor management of her reports of ASB.
2. the handling of her concerns about associated electrical safety concerns.
3. the poor handling of a previous complaint she made.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 March 2024. It said:
1. following a conversation with the resident and her housing officer in November 2023, it would not compensate her for each call and email she had sent that was not responded to within its service level timeframes. At this time, it said it signposted her to the complaint procedure.
2. it had logged and responded appropriately to a complaint the resident made on 8 December 2023 about bags being put outside of the bin stores. It recognised she continued to report service requests to investigate this but could not find an escalation request for the complaint. It thought the complaint was resolved in light of this.
3. it had investigated and addressed the resident’s concerns about her neighbour drilling in line with its ASB policy. It had no evidence to substantiate her reports, and the neighbour had denied the reports.
4. it had requested a copy of the latest electrical inspection at the property and would provide it to her within 7 days.
5. it apologised for the delay in progressing her complaint and offered £30 to recognise this.
6. it suggested a communication plan was put in place to improve the landlord-tenant relationship to ensure all emails were captured. This was in response to a review it had conducted where it had identified not all reports she had made had been passed to the relevant officer. It said it would send a copy of this plan to her separately.
On 15 April 2024, following communications from the resident, we asked the landlord to escalate the formal complaint. This was because the resident felt the landlord had not addressed her concerns satisfactorily. She said she wanted “a safe home to live in” or for it to “rehouse her”.
On 25 May 2024 the landlord provided a communication plan to the resident. It said that due to the volume of her contact, it would review her reports every 2 weeks. After which it would provide one response. It signposted the resident about how to make emergency reports, repair requests, and that it would decline complaints if they were service requests. It also said if her communications remained “excessive” it would consider action through its unreasonable behaviour policy. The landlord also went on to conduct home visits, interview the neighbours, inspections of the bin stores, and review CCTV footage.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 June 2024. It said:
1. the resident had been sending a large number of emails to one staff member that was not her officer. To establish good channels of communication it had set up a communication plan.
2. it acknowledged that the property had been managed temporarily for a time by other officers. And this may have contributed to inconsistent communications. It apologised for any delays and offered £100 to recognise the inconvenience of this.
3. it had found the resident had reported an exchange with her former officer where she felt the officer was “rude” and “patronising”. It said the officer no longer worked at the organisation. But it raised her concerns at the time with them. Although they had denied behaving in this way, the landlord apologised if “this had been perceived differently” and for “any offence caused” but it was “not intentional”.
4. the resident had reported concerns about drilling, CCTV being tampered with, including the wires. It recognised this was a long standing “allegation”. And it had previously surveyed the property but found no evidence of “deliberate damage”.
5. it had investigated this recently but had not dealt with it as ASB because the previous investigations had not substantiated her reports. It said it had also:
  1. tried to visit the resident in January 2024 but she had cancelled the appointment.
  2. conducted a site visit in January 2024 to inspect the bin stores and areas of concerns for drilling. But it had found no evidence of suspicious activity or intentional damage. This included no evidence of drilling or tampering with electrical wires. It enclosed the latest EICR report which it had found to be satisfactory.
  3. reviewed her photographs and found there was crumbling mortar form wear and tear. And this was not consistent with the type of damage that would be caused by drilling.
  4. raised her allegations with the neighbours and they had denied them. It said its periodic questioning of the neighbours was causing them distress.
  5. previously reviewed the CCTV footage and found no evidence of ASB.
6. its investigations, reports, and visits were not logged appropriately on its systems. Although it had written to the resident to advise her of its findings, it recognised it had not issued a full response to her about this. It offered her £150 to recognise the inconvenience of this.
7. it asked her to gather evidence if she wanted to raise similar concerns in the future. After which it would investigate the matter further. This would extend to interviewing any witnesses that the resident may have.
8. it apologised for not understanding the resident’s initial report was a complaint. It said it thought her complaint had been resolved because she had accepted the compensation it had offered. And it could not find a request to escalate the complaint. But it had escalated the complaint once it had received a notification from us. To recognise its delay, it offered her £50.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 10 June 2024. She said she felt the drilling was ongoing and had caused damage her to balcony and the interior walls and ceilings of her property. She said she wanted to be moved to another property. She also raised concerns about the parking at the property being too far away, not having a key to the back gate, and poor service from the landlord’s repair department.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

We recognise there is a long history of ASB reports by the resident. However, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from March 2023 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords within 12 months of incidents arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The resident has raised concerns to us about the landlord’s handling of:
1. reports about her neighbours trying to create a mice infestation at the property.
2. reports about her neighbour “tormenting” her pet dog.
3. her request for closer parking to her property because of her medical conditions.
4. her banding on the landlord’s waiting list, including its consideration of her medical conditions.
5. not having a key to the back gate.
6. not having a fob to the property.
7. repairs to her property.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s 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 this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
The resident explained that she felt her mental health had deteriorated as a result of the landlord’s actions and omissions. While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. We have considered if the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances in response to the concerns the resident raised about her vulnerabilities.

Reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy:
1. defines ASB as:

“Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person or conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person”.

states:
1. its initial response is to investigate and monitor any risk. If a crime has been committed, it will advise the customer to contact the police.
2. it will complete a risk assessment that is clear and realistic about potential outcomes. And it will keep the risk assessment up to date, for example, if it needs to interview the perpetrator or if the ASB has increased. This includes being clear about the timescales involved and developing an action plan with the resident.
3. it adopts a multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling ASB.
4. early intervention tools include risk assessments, meditation, warning, and acceptable behaviour contracts.
5. after a report of ASB has been investigated a case may be closed where:

(1) an investigation has been concluded, appropriate action has been taken, and no further incidents have occurred over a given period (this will vary depending on the nature of the case).

(2) it is unable to gather sufficient evidence to take any action. It will consult the resident before proposing to close a case and explain its reasons for doing so.

(3) it will listen to any reasons about why the case should not be closed. Where it is informed of a new ASB case, it will open a new case referring to the previous ASB history.

It is not part of the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether someone has or has not committed a nuisance or ASB. It is our role to establish whether the landlord’s response was in line with its legal and policy obligations and industry best practices and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances.
For context, it is important to note that:
1. the landlord carried out an internal inspection of the holes and cracking to the resident’s property in 2021. The surveyor found hairline cracking to some of the walls and ceilings which was superficial. They said there were no structural concerns. They also observed the communal areas and also had no concerns with the structure of the property.
2. during 2022 the landlord also conducted its cyclical electrical inspection of the property to assess the safety and integrity of electrical installations. It found these to be satisfactory.
The resident made frequent reports to her landlord about her neighbours between March 2023 and June 2024 about the following issues:
1. drilling to:
  1. the external walls of her property which had caused holes in her internal walls and ceilings.
  2. the inside the communal electric and gas meter cupboards and she was concerned this was a health and safety hazard.
  3. her personal CCTV system on her balcony and she was concerned this was an electrical safety hazard.
2. noise disturbance during unsociable hours that was exacerbated by the holes to her walls and ceilings.
3. receiving verbal abuse when she went to collect her parcels.
4. the bin stores overflowing and inappropriate stacking of refuse.
5. tampering with communal doors.
The landlord signposted the resident to the police when she reported in April 2023 that she felt her life was at risk. She said this was because her neighbours were stealing things and changing the lights in her property. It also advised her not to approach her neighbours or confront them.
It was appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to the police and provide general safety advice given her concerns that her life was at risk. However, given the nature of the report, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns further. This is because the behaviour reported fell under the definition in its ASB policy. We also consider that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have conducted a risk assessment to determine any risk and the impact on the resident. This would have enabled it to have made a reasoned decision about which action was proportionate to take, including referring to other agencies for support such as the police and medical professionals. In doing so this would have managed the resident’s expectations about what it could do. That it did not was not in line with the way it is obligated to investigate reports and assess the risk of ASB in its ASB policy. It was also a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations about what action it would take and the associated timescales.
The landlord called the resident in June 2023 after she reported drilling and the bin stores overflowing. It said it had listened to her comments but had no evidence of drilling. It also said it had reviewed the CCTV footage and could not identify who may be responsible for the issues with the bin stores. Reviewing the CCTV footage was been a reasonable step to take. However, we have not been provided with any evidence confirming when the CCTV was reviewed and what the footage showed. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have kept some record of what its investigation had found. There was also no evidence that it had taken steps to investigate the resident’s reports of drilling at this time. Or how it had reasonably concluded there was no evidence to substantiate her reports. As such we cannot be satisfied the landlord had appropriately investigated either of the resident’s reports at this time.
The landlord called the resident again in June 2023 after she had reported verbal abuse from her neighbour when collecting her post. It advised her not to engage with the neighbour and that there had been counter allegations made about this encounter. When explaining to the resident that her neighbour had made counter allegations, it inferred that it had spoken with them. This would have been a reasonable action to take. However, there is no evidence to verify that it did this. We would have expected evidence of any interviews the landlord conducted and advice it provided when it said it investigated the resident’s reports. As such we cannot be satisfied the landlord acted reasonably to investigate the resident’s report. This was evidence of poor record keeping. In addition, it failed to demonstrate it acted in line with its ASB policy by conducting a risk assessment, or to consider any resources available to it to mitigate her concerns, such as mediation between the parties.
In July 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to explain it had no evidence of drilling in the meter cupboards. This was in response to a report she had made about this. Again, there is no evidence of what investigations it had conducted, its findings, and therefore how it came to a reasoned conclusion about the lack of evidence concerning the drilling. As such we cannot be satisfied it investigated the resident’s reports or acted reasonably in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord offered to conduct a home visit in October 2023 after the resident said her neighbours were harassing her and she wanted to be moved. The resident declined this as she said she had already had a home visit and did not want to “repeat herself”. We have not been provided with any evidence relating to the home visit. It is unclear whether the landlord failed to keep a record. However, owing to the lack of evidence we cannot say whether the advice provided at this time was appropriate and whether the landlord’s actions were proportionate.
The landlord said it reviewed the bin shed in November 2023 and asked its contractor to clean it in December 2023. There is no evidence that the contractor completed this work. This information should have been recorded. As it was not, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it took meaningful action to address the resident’s concerns about the bin shed.
The landlord also told the resident in December 2023 that it had found no evidence of the neighbours drilling through the communal areas to gain access to her property. This was after the resident had made a report about this. But it said it would continue its investigation if she provided specific times and dates so it could check the CCTV. It was positive to note the landlord intended to continue investigating the resident’s concerns if it received more specific information to allow it to do so. However, there was no record of how the landlord had concluded there was no evidence of the drilling, such as inspecting the alleged drilling sites.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained to the resident the steps it had taken to investigate her concerns. The failure to do so was a missed opportunity to demonstrate that it was taking her concerns seriously. The landlord’s records are also silent in relation to what action was taken at this time, and we therefore cannot be satisfied that a proportionate investigation into the resident’s concerns was undertaken.
The landlord called the resident again in December 2023 to “advise her accordingly”. This was in response to another report of fly tipping by the bin stores and “issues” with her neighbours. It is unclear which “issues” she was reporting concerning her neighbours, or what advice the landlord gave. This was because of the limited information that was recorded about the resident’s report.
The landlord appropriately conducted a home visit in January 2024 after the resident’s report of drilling in the meter cupboards and to her CCTV. It said it found cracks internally at the visit but no evidence of this being linked to the neighbour. It is noted the landlord also conducted a home visit shortly after to relay its findings. This was also reasonable because it gave the opportunity for the landlord to allay the resident’s concerns in person and manage her expectations.
The resident had also requested an electrical safety check of the meter cupboards during this time. The landlord referred this to its electrical safety team to inspect, 12 working days after the report. We consider referring the matter to the electrical safety team was reasonable. However, it is unclear why it delayed in doing so.
Following her reports of neighbours tampering with the communal doors, the landlord emailed the resident. It explained it was unable to disclose its CCTV footage or regularly attend to review it unless the police made a request to it. It explained that the police could make a request for the purpose of prevention and detection of crime. But it would not act on requests from residents to attend on “site on demand to review CCTV”.
Given the landlord provided no evidence to us that showed it had reviewed the CCTV during the course of the complaint, we are not satisfied this was a reasonable response. This is because it had encouraged the resident in December 2023 to provide specific information so it may review its CCTV footage. The landlord ought to have been able to demonstrate that it came to a reasoned decision not to take action to review the CCTV and that it had communicated this to the resident. As such it failed to manage the resident’s expectations or explain how the CCTV footage would be used or reviewed.
The landlord emailed the resident in February 2024. It explained it was becoming concerned with the content of her emails. It also said:
1. the neighbours had made counter reports suggesting she had been banging on their door.
2. it had interviewed the neighbour who had denied the resident’s reports, and it had no evidence to suggest drilling was occurring. It said her neighbours had said that the repeated reports were causing them distress.
3. it had inspected the bin area and the holes to the external part of the property that she had highlighted it were not caused by drilling.
4. it had inspected her property and the holes she had showed it were cracks to the ceiling and holes behind cupboards, in the toilet, and behind the radiator. However, it would be “impossible to drill from an external source as these were internal surface cracks”.
5. although it had reviewed the property and the resident’s photographs of the cracks, it would arrange for a surveyor to also review them to provide her with further assurance.
6. it could not further take action against the neighbour without sufficient evidence.
It was positive to note the landlord was communicating its position, based on the investigations it said it had carried out. It was also positive that it explained its findings in more detail to substantiate its decision not to take further action about the reports of drilling.
However, as previously stated, there is no evidence of its interviews with the neighbour or supporting evidence of the counter reports that were made. The landlord said it had reviewed the photographs in its stage 2 response (this was in June 2024) and found normal wear and tear from crumbling mortar. However, this was a delayed response because it took 4 months to confirm its findings to the resident. There was also no evidence it had a surveyor review the photographs or that it wrote to the resident with their findings following this communication. This meant we could not be satisfied the landlord’s decision making was proportionate or based on evidence based investigations. Or that it followed up with the actions it had committed to take in a timely manner.
It is noted for context that there were large amounts of communication from the resident throughout the complaint. The landlord responded to the majority of the resident’s reports. However, we note there was a time leading up to the resident’s escalation request (April 2024) where the resident’s property was not covered by an officer due to staff sickness. During this time, it is evident that the resident was spending time and trouble chasing it for a response to her reports. The landlord said that, as a result, some of the communications may have been missed and this would have caused delay in responding to her. However, there is also evidence that in February 2024, the landlord gave her advice on how she can make ASB report because she had been emailing a particular officer. The resident continued to email this officer after February 2024.
On balance, the landlord identified the potential communication issue with the channels being used by the resident to make reports. It explained to her how and where to make her reports to ensure they were captured appropriately. Therefore, it demonstrated it tried to mitigate any potential impact of this. It went on to implement a communication plan with the resident in May 2024 where it committed to reviewing her reports fortnightly in writing. It said this was because it needed to manage its resources appropriately to deliver a service to the resident and others. It also said that this was to prevent it from taking further action through its unreasonable behaviour policy. This was reasonable because the landlord was entitled to ensure it balanced the need to respond to the resident’s reports while maintaining an efficient service for other residents. This was positive action to try to improve its communications with the resident and manage her expectations about how frequently it could respond to her.
The landlord also recognised in its stage 2 response that staff sickness may have contributed to inconsistent communications. It apologised for this, offered £100 in recognition of any confusion caused, and referred to the action it had taken with its ongoing communication plan. This was reasonable in he circumstances because it acknowledged what it got wrong, put things right, and put measures in place to prevent the issue from recurring.
There is limited evidence the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities. It demonstrated that it referred her to her GP. This was following a telephone call where the resident had explained she was depressed because of bereavements in her family. This was reasonable in the circumstances because it was trying to support the resident with finding additional help. However, we consider there were frequently missed opportunities by the landlord during the time the resident made her reports to conduct risk assessments and make an action plan with her. Had it done so it would have been in a position to demonstrate it had not only identified her vulnerabilities but set out how it intended to support her with them during the course of her complaint. As such we could not be satisfied the landlord took ongoing and meaningful steps to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities.
Further, during the complaint process, the resident raised concerns about a conversation she had with her officer, where she felt they were “rude” and “patronising”. The landlord said it addressed this with the officer at the time who did not agree with the report that had been made. And said they were “merely trying to explain no evidence had been found against the neighbours”. It went on to acknowledge the resident perceived this differently and apologised for any offence caused. We consider the landlord acted on the resident’s concerns by raising this with the officer involved, validating her experience, and trying to put things right by apologising. This was reasonable in the circumstances.

Conclusion

Our Spotlight Report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ (KIM) sets out that if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information. Good records assist housing providers to offer efficient and effective services by ensuring that decisions and actions are taken based on good quality information. Records should tell the full story of what happened, when, and why. A record should state:
1. any decision made and the reasons for it. This includes any decision to take no further action.
2. if an action was taken, be clear about who did what, and when.
3. for planned actions, state who will do what and by when.

Communication with residents is improved when staff are able to access all of the relevant up to date information and get a good understanding of the issue, and what action has been taken (or not taken) and why.

There was a consistent theme of the landlord explaining that it had no evidence to substantiate the resident’s reports or that it had taken a particular action. While the landlord’s comments are not disputed, our investigation found limited evidence of said actions and a series of missed opportunities to record information that would have supported the investigations it said it had undertaken throughout the complaint. This was a detrimental failing which meant we could not be satisfied the landlord then took reasonable and proportionate action based on evidence led decision making. We would have expected the landlord to have documented the investigations and subsequent decision it made to demonstrate this. This would have shown it acted in line with its ASB policy to the majority of the resident’s reports. Given the failings we have identified, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the ASB.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: “Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified. The landlord recognised in its stage 2 response that it had not logged reports, visits, and communications appropriately on its systems. It apologised for this and offered £150 for the inconvenience of this.
However, we consider the landlord did not demonstrate it had learnt from the failings it had identified or set out what it would do to prevent them from occurring again. Therefore, we are not satisfied the landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate to recognise its failings. As such it must conduct a review of its record keeping. This is so it can identify how it intends to improve its working practices to ensure it captures all the actions it takes on its ASB cases. And to support its decision making on cases.

Complaint handling

Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 15 March 2024. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 21 March 2024. This was 4 working days later. This was in line with the timeframes set out in the Code.
The resident said that she had made a complaint prior to this but the landlord had not responded. The landlord found in its investigations that the resident had made a complaint in December 2023 about its handling of the bin stores. It responded to this complaint at stage 1 of its process and said it could not find an escalation request from the resident or evidence of a new complaint.
The evidence we have seen showed the resident continued to make service requests for the landlord to investigate ASB concerning the bin stores. We were unable to establish that the landlord failed to identify a complaint she made before her complaint in March 2024. Further, the landlord dealt with the resident’s concerns appropriately as anew complaint in March 2024. It also reviewed its own handling following our notification of the resident’s complaint. As such we consider it acted appropriately when it apologised to the resident for any need she felt to seek support to have her complaint responded to.
The landlord is obligated by the Code to ensure it progresses complaints if they are not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction. The resident said that she had made an expression of continued dissatisfaction after its stage 1 response, but the landlord did not escalate her complaint until we intervened. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had not escalated the complaint until we intervened because it could not find an escalation request and the resident had accepted its compensation offer at stage 1. The landlord also apologised that the resident was unhappy that “it had not taken sufficient action again her neighbours” and that “it had not understood she wished it to deal with that as a complaint”. It went on to apologise for “missing this” and offered an additional £50 for any additional delay this has caused. We consider this was a reasonable response in the circumstances because it investigated her concerns, explained its findings, and tried to put things right.
The acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 15 April 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 June 2024. This was 35 working days after it acknowledged her escalation request. There is evidence the landlord contacted the resident on 23 May 2024 and agreed and extension for its response to the 6 June 2024. This was reasonable because the landlord is required by the Code to notify a resident of any delays in issuing complaint responses and to provide a new timescale for it to respond. However, the landlord contacted the resident to do this 7 working days after its final response was due. There is no evidence this significantly inconvenienced the resident. However, the landlord is reminded to communicate any delays in a timely manner and before the relevant deadline has passed.
Based on the evidence, we consider the landlord identified and acknowledged its complaint handling failures prior to our formal investigation. And has on its own initiative, taken steps to put things right. As such we consider there was reasonable redress that resolved its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was 52 there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the handling of her complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 56 days calendar days of the date of this determination the landlord must assess its:
1. handling of the case and its approach to dealing with vulnerable resident’s including the use of risk assessments to support its decision making and developing action plans to support individuals.
2. record keeping for the:
  1. ASB reports investigated in this determination.
  2. actions it took as part of its investigations.

It must provide a written report to the Ombudsman detailing its findings and any wider learning it has identified with associated timescales. This must include identifying the minimum standards that ought to have been recorded in its ASB log, which of these standards it failed to adhere to, and why.

To assist it in doing this it may wish to consult the following recommendations in our Spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’:

a. recommendation 2.

b. recommendation 3.

c. recommendation 7.

d. recommendation 8.