Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202104209)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104209

Notting Hill Genesis

28 July 2023

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 management and handling of:
1. reports of antisocial behaviour and allegations of subletting made against the resident.
2. reports of harassment and a neighbour dispute.
3. concerns that the resident’s mental health was not taken into consideration when dealing with their service requests.
4. the resident’s request that the landlord repair their heating and hot water.
5. a suspected leak from pipework and the resident’s request to be reimbursed for plumber’s fees.
6. the resident’s complaints.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 35(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “a complaint is duly made when it has exhausted, or the Ombudsman has decided it has exhausted, the members internal process for considering complaints”. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 5 October 2021.
This Service asked the landlord to provide evidence related to this investigation to assist with the assessment and determination. However, the information it provided contained evidence of activity that goes beyond its final stage 2 complaint response, and therefore beyond the scope of this investigation.
It is, however, prudent for some elements of the additional evidence to be considered and referenced in the report; where it provides clarity on activity that is within the scope of this report. Where this occurs it is noted.

Background

The resident occupies a one-bedroom flat on the fifth floor of a housing block let under a shared ownership lease granted by Notting Hill Genesis (NHG). The resident took up occupation at the address on 30 April 2020.
The thermal store within the resident’s property generates hot water specific to their property and falls under their responsibility to repair, service and maintain. The landlord is responsible for the supply of cold water only.
The landlord appoints Notting Hill Home Ownership (NHHO) as a managing agent to provide housing services to the resident’s housing block but retains overall responsibilities as the freeholder and this includes responding to service complaints. This report refers to the managing agent and landlord interchangeably as ‘landlord,’ unless where it is otherwise stated and relevant to differentiate.
The resident receives mental health and advocacy support from a US-based clinical psychologist. All associated correspondence referenced throughout this case refers to them as ‘representative, ‘unless where otherwise stated.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s domestic noise and neighbourhood disputes policy states:
1. “a neighbourhood dispute is a conflict between neighbours, where there has been no breach of occupancy agreement,
2. we respect the right of each resident to live in their home without interference from [the landlord], unless they have breached their occupancy agreement,
3. we promote tolerance and an understanding that each resident has the right to their own chosen lifestyle, as long as it does not negatively interfere with the lives of others.
4. On receiving a complaint of a neighbourhood dispute from a resident, we advise them to politely discuss the issue directly with their neighbour in the first instance.”
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy states:
1. “We are committed to tackling anti-social behaviour (ASB) in a responsive, proportionate, and robust manner,
2. On receiving a report of ASB, we contact the complainant within 1 working day and offer to visit them within 5 working days. Our initial response is to investigate and monitor any risk. If a crime has been committed, we advise the complainant to contact the police,
3. In determining the seriousness of the ASB and what the proportionate action for resolving it would be, we consider the nature of the ASB, the frequency of incidents and the impact that the behaviour is having on the complainant and the wider community,
4. Except in very serious cases, the aim of our initial intervention is to stop the problem behaviour. Early intervention tools include meditation; warnings; acceptable behaviour contracts,
5. We adopt a multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling ASB and offer the police and the local authority support when they are able to take action,
6. After a report of ASB has been investigated, we draw it to a close.”
The landlord’s complaints and compliments policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within two working days and provide a written response to a stage one complaint within ten working days and within twenty days for a stage two complaint.
The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures policy states:
1. “We will consider financial compensation where we have failed to follow our published policies or there have been unreasonable delays against our service standards,
2. we may offer a discretionary goodwill gesture to acknowledge that there has been a service failure,
3. where you experience distress of inconvenience following a service failure we can make a discretionary payment of up to £250.”

Summary of events

The resident’s neighbour emailed the landlord (NHG) on 7 June 2020 about “health-hazardous air” in the communal fifth floor corridor. The neighbour referred to the resident’s property as a possible source. The email stated, “The enclosed area (corridor) is literally soaked by cigarettes/joints smell which is covered with some other disgusting substance’s odour” which was “unbearable and very smelly, it causes headaches and difficulties to breathe.” The neighbour also alleged that there was subletting of the property. The landlord (NHG) forwarded the neighbours email to its managing agent (NHHO) later the same day.
The managing agent (NHHO) replied to the neighbour’s email on 15 June 2020 stating it would investigate their reports of hazardous air in the communal areas and respond within 10 days. NHHO advised the resident’s neighbours that the matter would be addressed as a report of ASB, rather than a complaint.
The landlord (NHG) sent a letter to the resident’s property on 16 June 2021 incorrectly addressed to the previous occupant in relation to reports of ASB and subletting it received from the resident’s neighbour. The landlord (NHG) subsequently contacted the resident by phone to discuss the communal corridor pollution and subletting issues with the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord’s (NHG’s) customer service staff on 17 June 2021 stating that the landlord spoke to them “disparagingly, threatened them and they were unhappy”. The landlord (NHG) subsequently emailed the managing agent (NHHO) and requested it call the resident to discuss their concerns about the manner in which they were spoken to and their mental health issues. The property management officer (PMO) at NHHO called the resident back later the same day to discuss the matter and the impact it had on their mental health.
The managing agent (NHHO) sent an email to the landlord on 17 June 2020 stating the resident complained about the manner in which the landlord (NHG) spoke to them the day before. The resident asked for this to be bought to their attention without taking the complaint further. In the email the resident also stated that they did not use cannabis.
The landlord received a letter from the resident’s clinical psychologist on 21 June 2020. The representative’s letter stated:
1. They had provided support to the resident as a clinical psychologist for the past ten years and that the resident had a mental health condition,
2. the resident did not partake or consume alcohol or narcotics of any kind,
3. the landlord’s accusation was damaging and caused the resident stress and heightened his anxiety and state of paranoia and caused him sleep apnoea,
4. the area the resident lived was “predominantly white/anglo residents” and it was their hope the resident was not “targeted because of the colour of his skin which is unacceptable and illegal,”
5. a request for a third party to be established in “future conversations with the resident to avoid any misconceptions or confrontations,”
6. they would be available as a representative for communication purposes,
7. their letter should be retained “should the matter become a legal matter in future,”
8. the resident “should be treated with respect and dignity as afforded to other residents.”
The landlord replied to the clinical psychologist on 22 June 2020 confirming it was happy to work with him via email during working hours on behalf of the resident “if that is what is required.” The landlord’s response stated:
1. there may be occasions such as a leak that would require the landlord to hold a meeting after it responded to the incident,
2. it did not know about the resident’s medical condition and its intention was to create an amicable solution,
3. it would apologise to the resident because it was not its intention to cause more stress when following up on reports and complaints,
4. it wrote to the resident as it would any other resident to point out the issues that had been raised by neighbouring properties,
5. the resident was not “accused” of using cannabis but was advised the landlord had received reports about smoking and second-hand smoke,
6. the resident asked for face-to-face meetings which were agreed,
7. it had not met the resident prior to the visit and so the suggestion that their colour of skin impacted their treatment was “completely incorrect and wide off the mark,”
8. the resident invited the landlord into their home where they were burning incense and their conversation covered a range of housing related and introductory subjects and concluded amicably,
9. it subsequently updated the neighbour stating there was no subletting or cannabis use, that incense was used but no smells in the corridor were witnessed,
10. it attached a copy of the letters it sent to the resident so that the resident’s representative could see what information the landlord provided related to the complaints it received from the neighbour.
The landlord responded to the neighbour’s reports that they “had tried to live with the smell in the communal corridor for 3 months” on 23 June 2020. The landlord stated that it had investigated their reports of ASB and subletting and advised the resident was not subletting, there was no breach of lease and that the burning of incense was not prohibited, further that the resident’s rights must be respected.
The landlord wrote to and met with the resident on 24 June 2020 to apologise for any stress the situation may have caused and that they were unaware of any medical conditions. Further, that it was not its intention to cause any relapse.
The resident phoned the landlord on 9 March 2021 to discuss email advice they received from the landlord about water ingress that was affecting a property in the resident’s block. The landlord issued this email following its investigation into a number of properties in the block as detailed below.
The landlord sent an email to the managing agent on 9 March 2021 in relation to communication it had held with the resident about a leak affecting properties in the block. The landlord stated:
1. the resident had provided access to their property, but their bath was fully sealed, and tiling would be damaged to access beneath it,
2. it advised the resident they would need to arrange for a plumber to insert an access hatch to investigate water ingress coming from their property, but the resident refused,
3. it advised the resident the matter would become a legal matter if it were not addressed because of damage being caused to other properties,
4. the contractor reported water around the stack soil pipe connection which suggested there was a leak coming from the resident’s offset bathplug,
5. it did not intend to attack the resident by explaining their responsibilities, nor was there a race related matter as was previously insinuated by the resident’s representative,
6. it requested assistance in responding to the resident about the matter because the resident stated:

(1) the landlord was rude and causing trouble for them,

(2) they did not have to deal with the landlord,

(3) their medical issues were being used, based upon previous smoking allegations,

(4) they could not see water on the floor,

(5) they would no longer deal with the landlord (NHG).

The managing agent held a telephone conversation with the resident later the same day and subsequently sent an internal email confirming the resident was making their own arrangements for a plumber to attend and there may have been a misunderstanding previously. The managing agent nominated an alternative single point of contact for the resident in response to their request not to engage with a named member of staff any further.
The landlord emailed the resident on 11 March 2021 to find out if they had booked a plumber. The resident explained their insurers advised them to call back the following week as no plumbers were available. The resident emailed the landlord again on 15 March 2021, to confirm they booked a plumber that would attend on 20 March 2021.
The resident’s representative contacted the landlord on 19 March 2021 stating the resident wished to be assured that all units in the block were being looked at and that the costs for repairs would not be his alone. Further that the matter caused “some undue stress.” The email requested reimbursement for the costs of their plumber.
The landlord replied to the resident’s representative the same day explaining that the resident did not incur any costs for the inspection the landlord undertook at their address because it was completed by in-house staff. The landlord explained that the inspection led it to request a plumber was required to investigate behind the sealed bath at their own expense. Further the landlord stated this was the resident’s legal and maintenance responsibility.
The resident’s plumber contractor attended the property on 20 March 2021 and its report noted “All dry under the bath, waste pipe and seals were watertight and feed to the taps was dry. Plumbing in the kitchen and behind washing machine all dry”.
The resident emailed the managing agent on 22 March 2021 stating, “the plumber came and looked at the situation and said it is totally fine.” The resident emailed the plumber’s report to the managing agent on 26 March 2021 and subsequently held an email conversation with it about the process for making a complaint.
The resident’s representative sent a formal complaint letter to the landlord on 4 April 2021 stating:
1. the resident was contacted three times in relation to matters relating to their address and this contact “seems to be a pattern that is suspicious in nature,
2. “these contacts are now bordering on harassment, bias, intimidation, and profiling of my client,”
3. the resident “had made several attempts to create positive and respectful relationships with management and neighbours” but “feels targeted for reasons that are oblivious to him,”
4. the conclusions in two reports related to the investigations into water ingress coming from the property conflicted,
5. there was no need for tiles to be disturbed as an access point was located,
6. their client should be treated with the respect and dignity as afforded other residents,
7. the landlord should reimburse the resident with £150 representing the full costs the resident incurred when unnecessarily investigating the leak.
The managing agent emailed the resident’s representative later in April 2021 requesting clarity on the complaint they made. The representative responded to the managing agent stating the complaint was not made about the managing agent personally but about the resident being ‘targeted’ by the management. It is not clear to this Service what specific date this email exchange took place.
The managing agent emailed the resident’s representative on 20 April 2021 confirming their understanding that the matter was not a formal complaint and proceeded to respond to the complaint the resident’s representative made by stating:
1. its first contact with the resident related to a complaint from the resident’s neighbour about smoking, a matter related to their account with the landlord and a in relation to a leak.
2. the resident had not raised any concerns about the managing agent’s previous communications,
3. that it had communicated with the resident’s financial representative when necessary,
4. that the resident “had informed me of their mental illness,”
5. it avoided communication where possible to avoid causing distress related to the resident’s mental health,
6. the resident was responsible for the demised areas in his property and there are occasions where he will need to be contacted,
7. the resident was responsible under the terms of their lease and as a result the costs they incurred would not be reimbursed.
8. that the resident has not been targeted or treated unfairly.
The resident emailed the landlord twice on 21 April 2021 stating that they disagreed with the managing agent’s response and would seek a mental health solicitor to deal with the situation. The resident stated:
1. they were not guilty of doing anything,
2. they felt victimised related to the incense and leak related matters,
3. they had not received an apology from the neighbours nor the reimbursement of costs they incurred based upon incorrect advice they were given related to the presence of a leak in their property,
4. they thought they were the subject of racism and that “have always felt they don’t belong around here” and “this is more serious than you are taking it.”
The landlord issued an all-resident block communication to residents on 23 April 2021 stating planned works to service the water pumps would take place on 4 May 2021 and some disruption to the water supply may be experienced.
The resident’s representative emailed the managing agent on 27 April 2021 stating that their complaint was not directed personally but related to the company. The email stated the residents’ feelings of being targeted are “legitimate and should not be taken lightly, dismissed, or minimised.” The email asked the managing agent to confirm what steps it was taking to restore the resident’s confidence and trust in the organisation. The representative suggested the managing agent should arrange a multi-agency meeting involving the resident’s mental health team to bring closure to the matter.
The managing agent emailed the resident’s representative on 29 April 2021 requesting clarity on what action it had taken that made the resident feel targeted so that they could address this. The managing agent advised it would be happy to attend a multi-agency meeting, if arranged.
The managing agent also emailed the resident on 29 April 2021 requesting clarity on which part of its email “the resident disagreed with”. It took this action based upon the inferences made in the representative’s email. The managing agent stated it did not blame the resident for burning incense, and informed the neighbour there was no breach of lease and no further action would take place. The managing agent clarified matters related to the leak were required as a result of advice that suggested the leak originated in their property. The managing agent stated, “If you feel victimised by my actions, then I apologise but I can assure you that I was merely acting in my capacity as your PMO to notify you of your lease obligations.”
The resident and managing agent held an email conversation on 6 May 2021 related to a heating and hot water repair in the property. The resident reported that they did not have any hot water which they suspected was related to works being carried out in the block two days previously. The managing agent explained that the hot water is the resident’s responsibility and clarified that works completed related to the servicing of water pumps. The resident restated their ongoing perception that their hot water fault related to the previous works the landlord completed. The resident also asked why their representative’s complaint was not responded to as a complaint. The resident referred to the managing agent’s handling of allegations of smoking, its provision of the property inspection report and stated they were “heavily discriminated” against, and no “proper explanation” was provided. The resident stated, “the damage it caused to my mental health is significant.”
The landlord sent an internal email related to a phone call it received from the resident on 7 May 2021. The email stated “tenant has phoned in very angry regarding their neighbour and an email sent by you. He has made a verbal complaint about the issues that he is going through, thinks that he is victimised and has not got hot water in the property also.”
The resident emailed the landlord again on 7 May 2021 restating their perception that their ongoing hot water fault related to works the landlord completed previously. The resident the landlord should repair their hot water supply as the matter was not their fault. The resident further explained they had seen another resident having a boiler installed and that this may have caused the fault to their own supply.
The managing agent replied to the resident stating:
1. the water pump servicing work was completed successfully with no reported faults from any of the 1185 apartments the pumps service,
2. the resident’s water was warm suggesting it was working and therefore a boiler fault,
3. it contacted the representative about their complaint and explained that it was not logged as a formal complaint ‘upon agreement with the representative,’
4. they saw no evidence of discrimination,
5. it had not received any further complaints from the neighbour about incense burning and that mediation could be pursued if needed,
6. the contact details of agencies that could provide support and guidance for housing financial, mental health and wellbeing matters,
7. the resident should contact their doctor for further support.
The managing agent emailed the resident on 10 May 2021 to enquire if the hot water had been remedied and completed a further follow up phone call the next day. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 May 2021 stating they spoke to their boiler manufacturer and would sort out the matter with them.
This Service contacted the landlord on 16 July 2021 and instructed it to contact the resident to discuss their complaint and issue a complaint response by 30 July 2021.
The landlord emailed a complaint acknowledgement letter to the resident on 21 July 2021 stating their complaint was logged and a response would be provided by 2 August 2021.
The resident emailed the managing agent on 22 July 2021 with reference to their stage one complaint. The resident stated the complaint handling process confused them because their complaint which was now being addressed by the landlord and not the managing agent. The resident stated the previous complaint made by their representative was responded to by the managing agent and “no-one was being held accountable.” The resident requested information about what was said to their neighbour as they felt paranoid and did not know when the next complaint would come from them. The resident stated they would go to the regulator if they were not happy.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 2 August 2021. The letter summarised six elements to the complaint as the landlord’s:
1. investigation into reports of anti-social behaviour and subletting.
2. investigation into reports of harassment, linked to a neighbourly dispute.
3. handling of a request to repair the heating and hot water system.
4. handling of a suspected leak and a request to be reimbursed of £150 plumbers fees.
5. failure to take a mental health condition into account while dealing with service requests.
6. failure to deal with an appointed representative to help progress the complaint.
The landlord’s stage one response stated:
1. the resident was not registered against the property promptly when they purchased the property which led to a perception that the property may be sublet, but the subsequent investigation and supply of a notice of transfer resolved the matter,
2. the relationship between the landlord and its managing agents for the provision of housing services for clarity,
3. it has a responsibility to investigate the reports of nuisance, disturbance, and hazardous odours it received and advised the neighbour no further action would be taken following its investigation that confirmed incense sticks were being burned,
4. it apologised that the resident felt harassed by the landlord’s investigations into reports of disturbance and a water leak, but the landlord’s contact with the resident was justified for investigation purposes,
5. it could not review the tone of face-to-face conversations the resident held with the managing agent, but had reviewed emails which “do not appear to be of an offensive nature,”
6. an apology for the impact the landlord’s initial response had on the resident’s mental health,
7. it previously offered to raise the resident’s concerns related to the landlord’s initial contact as a complaint, but the resident declined,
8. claims of harassment had not been dismissed, but no evidence of it was found and all reports had been investigated in line with its ASB policy,
9. it had made arrangements with the managing agent for the property manager (PMO) to be a single point of contact for verbal and written communication,
10. it could only arrange an engineer if the resident did not have cold water as the hot water supply related to the residents own thermal store,
11. it would reimburse the resident £75 which represented half the costs they incurred investigating a water ingress matter the landlord confirmed they were responsible for, despite this advice being later found to be inaccurate,
12. it had responded to the resident’s mental health needs by attempting to resolve issues face to face in line with the resident’s stated preference. Further that it liaised with the resident’s representatives about the matters, copying the resident into emails for awareness,
13. there were times where it was necessary to discuss matters with the resident directly but that a dedicated staff member was assigned to handle communication with the resident,
14. with the resident’s consent it could add a marker to its databases for awareness of their needs to be made clear to staff that respond to their enquiries,
15. it received a non-formal complaint from the resident’s representative and responded to the resident’s representatives in email communications and would be happy to continue to do so,
16. it did not uphold the complaint,
17. at times it was required to follow its policies related to ASB and nuisance and that this may involve writing to the resident rather than holding face to face conversations,
18. contact details for its own website, other agencies and its own policies for further information and set out the complaint escalation process.
The resident sent a stage two complaint escalation request to the landlord on 6 August 2021 stating that they would not accept the £75 offer of compensation and disagreed with its complaint response. The landlord replied to the resident requesting further information about their reason for escalation.
The resident responded to the landlord on 16 August 2021 setting out their reasons for escalating the stage one. These were because:
1. the landlord did not remain impartial when it investigated reports of subletting,
2. the neighbour has breached some rules related to their false allegations of marijuana smoking and the resident would like them to be punished,
3. the response covered up fundamental issues that should have been addressed and was a “feeble attempt to close the complaint”,
4. the landlord took the neighbours’ view related to the burning of incense, a noise nuisance report and the condition of the communal hallway lights and did not have regard for how the resident felt,
5. a staff member was racist, and the resident’s mental health was discriminated against,
6. the landlord’s request to access the bath to investigate water ingress was intended to cause harm to the bathroom tiling,
7. the landlord did not show compassion to the resident’s mental health and that a different person should review the complaint.
The landlord emailed the resident’s representative on 19 August 2021 stating their complaint had been logged as a stage 2 complaint and would be addressed by two independent reviewers in line with its policy. The landlord asked whether the representative would prefer one of the reviewers to be a resident alongside a manager. The landlord stated it would issue its response within 20 working days.
The landlord sent its stage two complaint response to the resident on 5 October 2021. The complaint addressed matter it had investigated and responded to in its stage one response. The response:
1. provided a timeline of incidents and contacts with the resident and summarised activity that took place on each record.
2. explained the landlord contacted the resident as they would any resident to raise the concerns that had been reported to them [by a neighbour] to “try and bring about an amicable solution”.
3. explained that the resident was not accused of using cannabis, rather than they had “received complaints and reports about, smoking, second smoke, Hookah and allegedly partaking in the use of cannabis,”
4. stated that the landlord did not have any knowledge of the resident’s mental condition until a letter dated 21 June 2020 was received from the resident’s clinical psychologist,
5. stated the resident gave permission for his mental health condition to be shared with his housing officer but that the resident wanted it reiterated that they do not smoke cannabis,
6. referred to a home visit during which the housing officer noted incense was burning in a corner of the room and that” this wasn’t affecting the corridor and neighbouring apartments.” This assessment was later fed back to the complainant,
7. referred to advice it provided to the neighbour on 23 June 2020 about a there being no evidence of subletting and cannabis use and stated, “this was the right, proportionate action given the circumstances and outcomes of the investigation and was in keeping with our policies,”
8. referred to a meeting between the resident and landlord on 24 June 2020 and advised “the meeting was productive and ended on good terms” with advice being provided for the resident to contact the landlord – and to advise their neighbour the same – if the neighbour made any further contact,”
9. stated that the neighbour’s reports of cannabis pollution in the communal corridor predated the resident’s occupancy at the address and that the landlord “can only assume that the smell may have been from the former tenants that were living at the property,”
10. stated its “records show no evidence that you smoke cannabis or that you have constituted to any form of nuisance or that your property was being sublet.”
11. apologised for delays setting up the resident’s account and name change and explained this delay was as a result of series of internal processing failures,
12. stated it had investigated reports of harassment but could not find any evidence of it in the response it provided to the resident’s reports,
13. offered £100 compensation in relation to the ASB and harassment investigations.
14. referred to requests to repair heating and hot water and summarised that the property is linked to a thermal store for generating hot water and that the managing agent was not responsible for this,
15. stated that the hot water fault was not related to other residents or contractors and no other reports were received from any other properties but that the resident eventually spoke to their boiler manufacturer to sort the matter out themselves,
16. stated that the landlord had raised awareness of the responsibilities of the landlord and managing agent in respect of heating and hot water repairs and this was appropriate,
17. recognised that advice it provided whilst tracing a leak in the block resulted in costs being incurred by the resident and approved the full reimbursement of the plumber’s fees the resident incurred stated as £150,
18. outlined the date it became aware of the resident’s mental health needs and the steps it took to respond such as by:
  1. holding face to face conversations,
  2. adding a marker to the landlord databases to alert colleagues,
  3. engaging with the representative for communication,
  4. advising any other request for adjustments would be considered,
  5. responding to all emails from the resident’s representative and that calls or a meeting with them during work hours could be arranged,
19. offered £250 compensation related to a £100 goodwill gesture and £150 reimbursement of plumbing costs.
The landlord sent an email to the resident’s neighbours on 19 October 2021 in relation to an incident that took place the previous day. The email stated the resident’s neighbours were recording video footage of the resident and using an instrument to measure air quality which instigated an aggressive response from the resident. The landlord stated mediation was a possible way forward and advised the neighbours not to record images of the neighbour without gaining their consent and to report matters to the police if the resident’s behaviour became threatening.
The landlord emailed the resident’s mother on 20 November 2021 stating mediation was an option to address matters between the neighbours and that mediation costs would be £750. The resident emailed the landlord on 22 November 2021 to ask why they should pay for mediation if the landlord considered they were not guilty of anything.
The landlord sent an email to the resident’s neighbours on 29 November 2021 stating that the resident’s behaviour which they described as “aggressive and threatening” was in response to their behaviour. The landlord advised the neighbour:
1. that it cannot act on photographs of the neighbour’s open door as evidence of toxic air,
2. they could contact the council environmental health department for a further investigation to be completed,
3. to refrain from interacting with, and taking photos and videos of, the resident,
4. mediation costs were £750, that their neighbour has declined but their individual shares, if agreed, would be £375.
An air quality test was completed at the resident’s property and communal corridors on 22 December 2021.
The landlord emailed the outcome of the air quality test to the resident’s mother on 18 February 2022. The results confirmed “that the burning of incense is not penetrating via the corridor to any extent and that the concentration of volatile organic compounds detected are only trace amounts and are not likely to cause any health effects” The landlord confirmed it had notified the neighbour of the outcome and considered the matter closed.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in the Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a leaseholder and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour and allegations of subletting made against the resident.

The landlord was required to investigate reports it received related to disturbance and nuisance from hazardous fumes. This is clearly set out in its antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy and procedures. The landlord acknowledged the neighbour’s reports and subsequently made contact with the resident in writing and in person to discuss the reports as part of its investigation. The landlord completed this within ten working days which was a reasonable amount to time to address the matter with the resident. Holding a conversation with the resident about the matter was an appropriate step for the landlord to take to ascertain the ‘other side’ of the allegations it received.
The landlord addressed the initial letter to the previous occupant because their property records were not updated, and this meant the resident may not have been aware of the matter in advance of the later conversation. If the resident had been aware of the reports the neighbour made in advance of the conversation they later held with the landlord, as it is likely they would have felt less targeted had and ‘put on the spot’ and this was a failing. Notwithstanding, the landlord passed the responsibility for the management of the property to its managing agent and so it is not clear why the landlord took it upon themselves to respond to the matter that was outside of its remit. This would have blurred the responsibilities and had the potential to cause confusion to the resident. This was a failing.
During its investigation, the landlord accessed the resident’s property and witnessed the use of incense in the property itself which led it to conclude there was no illegal activity taking place in the property. This was a decision that the landlord was entitled to make. This Service relies on and cannot reinterpret the landlord’s assessment but considers the landlord’s response to the situation with reference to its policies, procedures, and the law.
Seeking to access the resident’s home and discussing the allegations it received with both parties is seen by this Service as an appropriate step for the landlord to take as part of its investigation. The landlord found no sign of illegal activity or subletting and confirmed this in writing to the resident and their neighbour. This this was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy. Taking this approach made it clear to the resident and their neighbours that the matter was closed because it was not considered an act of antisocial behaviour, further that there was no breach of the resident’s lease, and the resident’s rights must be respected. This was appropriate.
The landlord initially contacted the resident about the matter over the phone and this resulted in the resident reporting concerns about the manner in which they were addressed the next day. It is not clear to this Service what was said but the resident expressed that they felt the landlord spoke to them disparagingly and threatened them. The landlord was expected to approach its investigation and the way it handled communication with sensitivity and respect. The Housing Ombudsman spotlight report on low level noise nuisance states “landlords should ensure the tone of communication does not result in perceptions of bias against, or being dismissive of, the resident.” This Service is not drawing findings of fact in the allegations that the landlord’s tone was ineffective beyond the resident’s perception of it. But the landlord is encouraged to consider its handling of communication in light of this.
The resident’s representative wrote to the landlord ‘confirming’ that the resident did not partake or consume alcohol or narcotics of any kind. Further they referred to the resident’s mental health needs. It is not clear to this Service on what basis the statements made by the representative were found to be ‘confirmation,’ given the representative was based in the US. It is likely that the landlord accepted the statement based upon word of mouth. Notwithstanding, the landlord responded to the representative within 24 hours to explain the situation that had occurred, and this was appropriate given the sensitivity of the matters raised and the impact it had on the resident. The landlord stated it would apologise to the resident for any stress its investigation caused and agreed to hold face to face meetings and consider meetings with the representative during working hours. This response was reasonable in that it attempted to show transparency in its actions. Further it showed some consideration for adapting its service to meet the resident’s needs when responding to the reports of antisocial behaviour.
The landlord addressed its own handling of the reports of antisocial behaviour in its complaint responses stating that it considered it had provided “the right, proportionate action given the circumstances and outcomes of the investigation and was in keeping with our policies.” Referring to proportionality and the requirement to respond in line with its policy was an appropriate response to make given it was under an obligation to respond in what it considered the most appropriate way.
The landlord received a phone report from the resident in May 2021, which referred to the resident’s perception of feeling victimised and angry “regarding their neighbour”. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord explored this element of the resident’s report. It is possible that the resident was referring to a recent occurrence rather than matters the landlord had addressed the previous year. Therefore the landlord was expected to ascertain this further to ensure it responded to all aspects of the residents’ concerns. The landlord’s failure to make further enquires had the potential to cause detriment to the resident and was likely to have impacted their confidence in the landlord and this was a failing.
This Service had not seen any further evidence of reports of ASB related to the resident and their neighbours in this case, prior the landlord’s stage two response. This Service is however aware that since the landlord issued its final response, matters between the neighbours resurfaced in late 2021. This is outside of the jurisdiction of this report however it is worth noting the landlord completed an air quality test in the block in December 2021, subsequently shared the results with the neighbours and confirmed it had notified the neighbour of the outcome and considered the matter closed. Taking this investigative action was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take as it sought an external specialist’s view of the situation which was skilled in making this type of assessment.
It is evident that the landlord also suggested the use of mediation between the parties as a method of bringing resolution. Approaching mediation in line with its ASB policy was a reasonable suggestion for the landlord to take as a response to the relationship breakdown between the neighbours. However, the landlord could have considered encouraging this sooner so as to prevent a further deterioration in the relationship between the residents.
Taking into account all actions related to the landlord investigations into reports of ASB and subletting it is evident that the landlord addressed the matter in line with its policies but that there were record keeping matters that aggravated the investigation and prevented a cohesive response being provided at all times. The landlord did not sufficiently consider the manner in which the matters were communicated or how their messages were received, and this caused unnecessary distress and detriment to the resident. Taking all factors into account this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour and allegations of subletting made against the resident.
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of harassment and a neighbour dispute.
The landlord was required to investigate reports it received related to disturbance, nuisance from hazardous fumes, subletting and water ingress. This is clearly set out in its ASB behaviour policy and procedures and talking to the resident about the reports was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take.
The landlord was not responsible for the resident’s interpretation and understanding of the incidents it explained. However, it is responsible for the manner in which the information is provided. In this case it is apparent that the resident interpreted the landlord’s communication, in particular about the use of cannabis in their property and communal areas as ‘facts’ about them. Further that they considered the landlord initially spoke to them disparagingly and threatened them. The landlord was expected to communicate clearly and with sensitivity at all times. It is evident that the allegations were put to the resident before the landlord was made aware of the resident’s mental health needs. It is therefore likely that if the landlord were aware of the resident’s mental health needs at an earlier stage it would have considered alternative approaches to share the information, as it later attempted to do.
The landlord reviewed its handling of the matters in its complaint responses and concluded that there were no signs that the neighbour harassed the resident, nor that it harassed the resident itself. Whilst this general view is based upon evidence available to it in the form of its email communication and case management it does not fully take into account the resident’s perception that the summation of matters cumulatively led to their perception of harassment. It is this Services view that whilst harassment may not have been found by the landlord, the cumulative impact of the landlord’s handling of a number of matters led to the perception of being “targeted.” The landlord could have addressed the resident’s perception of bias by explaining more clearly the reasons it was required to investigate the matters it addressed. resident.
The landlord explicitly addressed the perception of harassment related to its handling of the reports of antisocial behaviour in its complaint response. The landlord stated it would have acted more robustly if there were further issues such as ASB or abuse directed toward the resident by their neighbours. This was reasonable advice for the landlord to provide given it was reliant on evidence or reports of harassment to take further action. This Service has not seen evidence that any reports were made to the landlord about specific incidents of harassment taking place and therefore an absence of evidence gave no single cause for the landlord to investigate.
The landlord referred to reports that the resident made to the police in its later complaint response, but this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord contacted the police to understand more about these matters. The landlord was expected to explore fully the impact of the situation between residents in line with its ASB policy. Whilst the advice that criminal elements would be handled by the police was accurate this did not absolve the landlord of a duty to investigate further. This failure to investigate the presence of harassment caused detriment to the resident. The landlord recognised that it did not respond appropriately in its complaint response but failed to put in place redress for its failings.
The resident and their representative made reference to an undercurrent of racism and discrimination throughout the landlord’s handling of the case. The landlord investigated this matter by reviewing emails, its case management database and by reviewing statements from staff members that clarified their actions as well as internal communications and complaint responses. In doing so the landlord concluded that there was no evidence of racial discrimination. This Service is unable to find evidence that the resident was treated differently based upon their race, but the resident’s perception of bias is acknowledged.
The landlord was required to investigate the allegations of subletting, disturbance and nuisance that were put to it. Further, it was required to investigate the presence of leaks from the resident’s property and respond to communication it received from the resident in an appropriate manner. It is apparent that the resident perceived the landlord’s requirement to investigate matters that were bought to its attention as harassment which they had explained to the landlord. The landlord could have responded to the resident’s perception more robustly, such as by explaining why it was required to address reports of ASB it received or sought specific feedback from the resident to understand more fully how its approach affected their needs and perception. Consequently, this service finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of harassment and a neighbour dispute.

The landlord’s handling of concerns that the resident’s mental health was not taken into consideration when dealing with their service requests.

The resident’s representative wrote to the landlord in relation to its investigation into ASB. The representative stated that they were a clinical psychologist and working with the resident related to their mental health need. The landlord responded to the representative within 24 hours to explain the situation that had occurred, and this was appropriate given the sensitivity of the matters raised and the impact it had on the resident. However this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord sought to verify that the representative was authorised to speak on behalf of the resident. The landlord was expected to gain the resident’s consent prior to disclosing confidential details about its handling of its ASB investigation.
Notwithstanding, the landlord stated it would apologise to the resident for any stress its investigation caused and agreed to hold face to face meetings and consider meetings with the representative during working hours. This response was reasonable in that it attempted to show transparency of its actions. Further it showed some consideration for adapting its service to meet the resident’s needs. This Service has seen evidence that the landlord made an apology in writing and during a meeting it held with the resident in June 2020, and this was appropriate.
The landlord communicated with the resident’s representative throughout this case. However this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord sought to complete its own vulnerability assessments, nor make referrals to, or verify if support was provided to the resident by UK based mental health or other appropriate support services. If it had done so the landlord would have been better placed to ensure that the resident’s welfare and mental health needs were fully taken into consideration.
It is not clear to this Service in what authority the resident’s representative was functioning other than the assertions they made in their correspondence themselves. This Service accepts there are many different types of clinical psychologist and advocacy services, many of whom function and are accessed in different countries, but the landlord was expected to have completed its own checks to verify the authenticity of the resident’s representative itself to ensure the support they provided was in line with their intended and stated aims. This could have been achieved by assessing the resident’s situation as a safeguarding concern. Taking this approach would have further ensured and evidenced the resident’s mental health and vulnerabilities were given appropriate consideration.
The landlord was expected to have explored in more detail the potential to make alternative adaptations or adjustment to support the welfare needs of the resident, such as by adding a mental health alert to the housing database. The landlord provided this solution at a later date which showed recognition of the resident’s needs and how it could respond differently. Had the landlord made suggestions or implemented alternative options to support the resident sooner it is likely that the relationship with the landlord may have been improved.
This Service has seen evidence that landlord considered the resident’s mental health needs when responding to matters. It upheld its commitments to engage with the resident’s nominated representatives, to hold conversations aimed towards offering insight and support to the resident when responding to the water ingress and heating matters and avoided contacting the resident directly. Further it offered to add a marker on its database to alert staff to the resident’s needs. However, the landlord failed to consider making a safeguarding assessment and the approach it took towards communication with the resident was not consistently supportive and gave the resident the perception that their individual mental health needs were not responded to or a priority and this was avoidable. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord had in place suitable consent at the time of its initial response to the resident’s representative. Further the landlord did not take reasonable efforts to ascertain additional support the resident may have been in receipt of or might need in recognition of the resident’s disclosed mental health needs. Taking all matters into account this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of concerns that the resident’s mental health was not taken into consideration when dealing with their service requests.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request that the landlord repair their heating and hot water.

The landlord replied to the emails the resident had sent about the matter the previous day within 24 hours with a sufficient amount of detail for them to understand the works the landlord had completed and their responsibility to repair hot water faults themselves. This was an acceptable action for the landlord to take.
The landlord’s email response evidenced that it had looked to see if other residents were affected and/or had made similar reports. Further, it set out that it had attended the block to investigate whether the water supply was warm to the touch and whether there were any water pressure concerns related to the cold-water supply. Taking these steps to ensure the correct diagnosis of the repair was completed was appropriate to ensure the advice it provided to the resident was accurate.
The landlord proactively emailed the resident the start of the following week to check on the progress of the water fault. Further it telephoned the resident again the day after to make further enquiries. Given the landlord had already explained the resident was responsible for resolving the repair, making further contact, with the implication it would provide further help, in recognition of the resident’s mental health concerns, was a supportive approach for the landlord to take and an example of good practice.
The resident eventually confirmed that matter had been addressed by the resident’s boiler manufacturer. This outcome corroborated the landlord’s diagnosis of the repair, namely that it was not the landlord’s responsibility to repair the heating and hot water fault dispute the resident’s perception that it was.
Taking into account the timely, informative, and proactive approach the landlord took to address the resident’s concern using email and telephone conversation this Service find no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request that the landlord repairs the resident’s heating and hot water.

The landlord’s handling of a suspected leak from pipework and the residents request to be reimbursed for plumber’s fees.

The landlord was required to investigate a report of a water leak in the block by accessing properties to locate the origin of the water ingress. By arranging for its repairs staff to systematically access six properties including the resident’s home the landlord took appropriate action to track, trace and control the impact of the water ingress, and this was expected.
The landlord failed to agree an approach to defer responsibility for any costs until the outcome of investigations were known. Had it done so it would have avoided inconvenience, time, and trouble for the resident.
The landlord explained that the resident was required to obtain a contractor to investigate underneath their bath and install an access panel because the landlord was unable to access the area when it attended the property. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take, considering that damage to the resident’s tiling may have been required to access the area. Further, because in line with its policy and the shared ownership lease this was the resident’s responsibility. However, the landlord later recognised that the information it relied on was inaccurate and that an access panel was present in the resident’s property. A more thorough investigation at the resident’s property could have ruled out the need and the associated time and trouble to the resident in pursuing an unnecessary remedy to the situation at their own expense.
It is apparent to this Service that the conversation the landlord held with the resident was held by the same staff member that the resident had previously raised concerns about. The resulting conversation was not productive in nature and led to the landlord stating the matter “would eventually go to legal” because it was causing damage to neighbouring properties. Whilst the information the landlord provided may well have been accurate, the manner in which it was communicated did not result in a constructive outcome. This led to the resident stating they would “do nothing.” The landlord was expected to respond to the situation by taking time to provide clear information about the situation in a cohesive way, further by keeping to the agreed single-point-of-contact arrangements. Further to ensure its communication was effective.
The landlord recognised its communication failing by making a follow-up phone call to the resident later the same day. This resulted in the resident agreeing to make arrangements for a contractor to attend, trace and remedy any water ingress it located. By recontacting the resident over the phone the landlord effectively diffused the frustration its previous conversation caused. This was a solution focussed approach for the landlord to take to address the resident’s understanding of the repairs, their mental health needs, and the requirement to address the water ingress.
The landlord followed up on the agreements it made with the resident over the phone two days later. This resulted in a subsequent amicable exchange of emails about the progress of the repairs with the resident and their insurance company. The landlord evidenced that it understood the resident’s needs and situation by waiting for the insurance company to locate a plumber for the investigation to happen. This was a resident focussed approach for the landlord to take which balanced the needs of the business with the needs of the resident.
The landlord engaged with the resident’s representative in relation to its investigation into water ingress and this was appropriate given agreements it reached previously to limit contact and the associated stress it caused to the resident. The landlord explained that the resident did not incur any costs from the landlord’s investigations into the presence of water ingress. Further, it explained the reasons why access and investigation were required at a number of properties. This was appropriate reassurance for the landlord to provide as it evidenced that that fairness was being applied to all affected residents because the matter was a block issue and not only the resident’s.
By suggesting the resident should consider the installation of an access panel beneath their bath the landlord evidenced that it sought to improve responsiveness in the event of any future leak or access requirement. Notwithstanding the later revelation that the property already had an access panel, foreseeing the possibility of future adverse impact was a proactive approach for the landlord. Further, that this would most likely limit the impact and costs diagnosing, and/or remedying any future repair may have on the resident. This was good practice.
The resident’s contractor report conflicted with the landlord’s advice insofar as no leak was identified at the property. Had the landlord utilised the access panel that was in place in the resident’s property to verify if a leak were indeed present, the landlord would not have suggested actions that incurred cost to the resident. It is not clear to this Service why one report advised leaks were present at the resident’s address when the other said they were not. Nevertheless, this resulted in time, trouble, and cost to the resident in seeking resolution to a matter that was unnecessary.
The landlord reviewed its response to the investigation of water ingress from the resident’s home in its complaint responses. In doing so it explained that it was the resident’s responsibility to address repairs to the area under the bath and this was appropriate. The landlord initially offered the resident half the costs they incurred, but subsequently increased its offer to cover the full extent of the costs the resident incurred. By doing so the landlord applied a proportionate and reflective approach that recognised the detriment and inconvenience to the resident. Agreeing to reimburse the full costs the resident incurred was an appropriate response for the landlord to take.
Taking all matters in the landlord’s response to water ingress in the block into account this Service considers that some additional compensation for time and trouble was due to the resident, related to the inaccurate advice it provided. However, this Service finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of a suspected leak from pipework and the resident’s request to be reimbursed for plumber’s fees.

The landlord’s handling and management of the resident’s complaint

In identifying whether there has been failure in service the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its’ complaint and compensation procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
The landlord received correspondence marked as a formal complaint from the resident’s representative in April 2020. The landlord responded to the letter to ascertain if the matter directed towards the staff member or more generally with the implication that this would affect how the complaint was registered. It is unclear to this Service why the landlord subsequently interpreted the complaint to be an ‘expression of dissatisfaction’ and not registered as a stage one complaint. This approach did not comply with the complaint handling code or the landlord’s complaint policy. Further it resulted in creating a barrier to addressing the specific matters the representative referred to by someone other than the person handling the case.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the request made by this Service on 16 July 2021 to contact the resident and register their stage one complaint within its policy timescales and in line with the complaint handling code. Further, the delay registering and logging the complaint meant the response target date referred to in its acknowledgement letter did not align with the due date advice this Service suggested. This did not uphold with the principles contained within the complaint handling code. It is recognised by this Service that the landlord issued its stage one response in line with its own target response date, which was expected, but the date the complaint was received should have been the date the target was calculated from, and this did not happen.
The resident escalated their complaint to stage two of the complaint process, but the landlord responded once again with a request for further information about the detail of the complaint. This Service has reviewed the resident’s correspondence and understands that the landlord’s request for further information was intended to ensure it fully understood the resident’s reasons and this was reasonable. Further it was a supportive approach to take to ensure the resident’s escalation reasons were specific rather than general which ensured the resulting complaint response addressed the complaint matters with a sufficient level of detail.
This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord subsequently logged and acknowledged the resident’s revised escalation request which it received on 16 August 2021, and this was expected to comply with its policy and the complaint handling code. However the stage two response it issued was sent within the policy and complaint handling code timescales, and this was good practise.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at both stages with clear and detailed information that complied with the complaint handling code. This Service recognises that responding to the various overlapping aspects of the resident’s complaints was challenging and considers the approach taken and the resulting quality of the responses to be effective and a sign of good complaint handing practise.
The landlord had an opportunity in its complaint responses to consider offering compensation to the resident for the manner in which it addressed various aspects related to the residents housing circumstances. The landlord offered £100 in relation to its handling of ASB and harassment reports only. This Service considers that awarding a compensation payment was appropriate given the impact this had on the resident. However the sum offered is considered to be low and did not sufficiently provide redress for the detriment caused.
The landlord failed to recognise its own complaint handling delays nor consider the impact its failure to recognise the representative’s complaint as a formal complaint had on its handling of the matters raised. This Service considers a further compensation payment is due in light of this.
This Service however considers an additional sum was due in relation to the time and trouble taken by the resident in unnecessarily seeking the service for a plumber for matter than was not present in their property.
The landlord failed to register the complaint it received in line with its policy and the complaint handling code. The landlord incorrectly classified a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction for no good reason and failed to issue a stage two acknowledgement within the required timescales. Most notably the landlord failed to look to its compensation procedures, which stated it could offer discretionary payments of up to £250 as suitable redress for its failings which had the potential to restore the resident’s confidence in the landlord. Taking all factors into account the Service finds maladministration in its management and handling of the resident’s complaints.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of:

a. The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour and allegations of subletting made against the resident.

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of:

b. The landlord’s handling of reports of harassment and a neighbour dispute.

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of:

c. The landlord’s handling of concerns that the resident’s mental health was not taken into consideration when dealing with their service requests.

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
1. d. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request that the landlord repair their heating and hot water.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of:

e. The landlord’s handling of a suspected leak from pipework and the residents request to be reimbursed for plumber’s fees.

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of:

f. The landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord responded to the reports of antisocial behaviour and allegations of subletting in line with its policies and by discussing the matter with the involved parties. The landlord issued investigation letters and visited the address to witness first-hand the reported nuisance. Further, it provided clear advice about its conclusions and issued case closure letters, and this was expected. The landlord’s communication style was not consistent throughout its handling of the matter, and this led to the resident’s perception of being targeted and threatened which was avoidable.
The landlord investigated reports of harassment by reviewing the various ways it made contact with the resident and the reports made by the neighbour. It shared its findings with the resident in complaint responses and in correspondence with the resident’s representative which was appropriate. The landlord did not fully show empathy for the resident’s perception of the cumulative impact the landlord’s handling of the matters had on them. Nor did it consider taking alternative approaches to its communication style which led to detriment to the resident.
The landlord used different methods for responding to the residents needs based upon advice it received from the resident and their representative and this was reasonable. The landlord evidenced that it broadly adjusted its service to respond to their needs although not always in a timely way was which was expected. The landlord did not verify the consent to discuss matter with the resident’s psychologist prior to engaging with them nor did it verify the advocacy or mental health support needs of the resident so as to ensure they were in receipt of the appropriate UK-based support.
The landlord communicated effectively and clearly with the resident, taking into account their needs and perception so as to ensure they understood their repairing obligations. The landlord effectively investigated the matter so as to rule out any obligation it may have to affect a repair and provided a supportive approach to the resident after the matter had been reasonably addressed.
The landlord made a judgement error in its diagnosis of the water ingress repair. This resulted in inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident. However, the landlord recognised its failings by reimbursing the full costs the resident incurred but failed to offer additional compensation in recognition of the additional impact and detriment the matter caused.
The landlord failed to register an initial complaint it received in line with its policy and the complaint handling code which resulted in the matter being classified as an expression of dissatisfaction and responded to informally. The landlord failed to register and response to the subsequent stage one complaint issued by this Service in line with the expected timescales. The landlord failed to recognise its failings related to complaint handling and its response to mental health and harassment in its responses and as a result failed to provide suitable redress to the resident.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in handling of four aspects of this complaint (a, b, c, and f) This is to be provided within 28 days of its receipt of this report.
Within 28 days of its receipt of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the leaseholder £1,100 comprising:
1. £200 for distress and inconvenience related to the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour,
2. £200 for distress and inconvenience associated with the landlord’s investigation into harassment and a neighbour dispute,
3. £200 for distress related to the landlord handling of the resident’s mental health concerns,
4. £250 for the time and trouble to the resident in pursuing a resolution to a water ingress matter,
5. £250 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
Within 28 days of receipt of this report the landlord is ordered to arrange for mediation to be offered to the resident and the neighbour residing in the property, without cost to either party but subject to their agreement to engage in the process. Further, to seek alternative ways to;
1. promote understanding and respect for alternative lifestyles in neighbouring properties,
2. ensure the landlord’s behavioural expectations are clear,
The landlord is ordered to consider the learning from this case and advise this Service of its intentions and planned actions, including timescales, to ensure that it’s managing agents complaint handling practices fully align with the principles of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code. In particular:
1. the classification and registration of complaints it receives,
2. the policy levels and application of compensation for recognised detriment,

The landlord should advise the Housing Ombudsman of its intentions to comply with this recommendation within 28 days of receipt of this report.

The landlord is ordered to review the learning from this case in respect of its response to mental health and diversity. In particular, to review compliance with single-point-of contact arrangements and ensure reasonable efforts are made to establish what support agencies are in place where welfare needs are known. The landlord should advise the Housing Ombudsman of its intentions in respect of this recommendation within 28 days of receipt of this report and bring identified changes into its day-to-day operations within 2 months of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to review the learning on this case in respect of its management of communication. It is recommended that the landlord reviews and incorporates the best practise highlighted in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports on noise complaints and knowledge and information management into the provision of housing services.