Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202120755)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120755

Notting Hill Genesis

11 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:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding the windows in the communal area.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
3. Handling of the resident’s transfer request.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as part of the assessment.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The property is a one bedroom flat located on the third floor of the building it is situated in.
In making her complaint the resident engaged the services of a representative. Throughout this investigation the representative’s actions will be referred to as the resident’s for ease of reference.

Summary of events

On 18 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the windows in the communal area. In summary the landlord said:
1. It had enclosed a key for the windows.
2. The windows may be opened for “a few hours a day during the warmer months however [it] strongly [advised] that the windows [were] closed in the evenings, when it [was] raining, windy and snowing and during the colder months”.
3. Leaving the windows open during the colder months could lead to draughts entering other tenants’ properties.
4. Should the resident require additional ventilation she should open the windows in the property.
Between March 2021 and June 2021 the Ombudsman can see that other tenants (the tenants) within the building raised concerns regarding the resident’s behaviour. The tenants set out that the resident’s behaviour was anti-social which included tampering with the windows in the communal area, noise nuisance, aggression and intimidation. During this period the resident sets out that she reported to the landlord that the tenants were engaging in ASB towards her which included intimidation and harassment. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of these reports within the evidence provided for review.
On 4 June 2021 the landlord wrote to all tenants regarding ASB within the building. Within its correspondence the landlord reminded tenants that the communal door should not be left open and communal windows should not be left open continuously. The landlord enclosed a copy of its “noise nuisance log” which it requested tenants complete if they experienced noise nuisance.
On 23 June 2021 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord, complaint A. The resident set out that it was unsatisfactory that the locks on the windows in the communal area had been changed without her knowledge. She stated that it was further unsatisfactory that no key had been provided for the new locks as the windows could not be opened, including in an emergency.
On 25 June 2021 the landlord replied to the resident confirming that it was responding to complaint A as a “quick fix” rather than a formal complaint as it believed that it could resolve the matter within 48 hours. In summary the landlord said:
1. It understood that the resident was complaining as:
  1. The locks on the windows in the communal area were changed.
  2. She required ventilation.
  3. She was unable to open the windows in the property due to second-hand smoke.
2. It had not changed the locks on the windows.
3. It had spoken with other tenants in the building who confirmed that they had not changed the locks on the windows either.
4. It understood that the resident would like to keep the windows in the communal area open however “the windows [were] not to be left open constantly”. It explained that the windows should not be kept open constantly as it created draughts, allowed bugs in and could cause “other issues in the hallway” which could be a nuisance to other tenants.
5. As a compromise it suggested that the windows could be left open for “a few hours a day” which would give the communal area “enough ventilation”.
6. The windows in the communal area were not for the sole use of any one tenant and the windows in the property were the resident’s source of ventilation when she needed air. It noted that the resident could open the property’s windows when other tenants did not smoke.
7. During a phone call with the resident on 23 June 2021 the resident disclosed that she had removed the locks on the windows, which was not permitted. It confirmed that it would collect the locks from the resident so that they could be refitted. It confirmed that it would like to “discuss the matter further”, proposing several dates in June.
The landlord concluded by confirming that if the resident was not happy with its response it would investigate further as a formal complaint. The landlord confirmed that the resident did not request to escalate complaint A.
In July 2021 the resident’s GP wrote to the landlord explaining that the resident’s mental health had “deteriorated significantly” due to her “home environment” which included issues of “conflict with neighbours about opening windows in the shared area”.
On 31 August 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord. The subject of the email was titled “complaint”. In summary the resident said:
1. The landlord had not taken into account her protected characteristics (no further details given), in responding to her concerns regarding the windows in the communal areas or ASB.
2. Following a conversation earlier that day she had made it clear that the “property [had] become untenable”.
The Ombudsman has not identified a response to the resident’s correspondence. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the resident’s correspondence was not treated a complaint as the content was in relation to a property transfer.
Sometime in summer 2021, exact date not known, the landlord wrote to the resident to reiterate that the windows in the communal areas were not for the sole use of one person and they should be open for ventilation and closed when needed. The landlord set out that it had also received complaints about her behaviour regarding “excessive banging of doors” from other tenants. Within its correspondence the landlord requested information regarding the resident’s protected characteristics, so that it could understand her vulnerabilities and update its records. The Ombudsman has not identified a response from the resident regarding her protected characteristics. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the resident “did not disclose any further information”.
On 4 October 2021 the resident’s MP raised an enquiry to the landlord following a telephone conversation with her regarding “issues with neighbours”.
On 12 October 2021 the landlord responded to the resident under its complaint procedure, complaint B, following the MP’s enquiry. The landlord opened by confirming that the resident was complaining about a “bag being placed outside” of the property’s front door in addition to the property being “untenable”. In responding to the complaint the landlord said:
1. The tenants had placed the rubbish bag, which belonged to the resident, outside her front door as she had not disposed of it correctly. It confirmed that it had spoken with the tenants and advised them to not do this in future. It also explained the correct procedure to dispose of rubbish.
2. It understood that there was an issue between the resident and the tenants regarding the windows in the communal area. It confirmed, as set out in its letter dated 5 July 2020, the windows were not for the sole use of any tenant and should not be left open continuously.
3. As the resident had removed the locks from the windows in the communal area it would be installing new ones. It reminded the resident that removal of the locks was a breach in tenancy.
4. It had received evidence showing the resident “spraying the tenants while they tried to close the windows”. It confirmed that this was why the police were called to the building. It requested that the resident refrain from doing “such acts” as this could be a breach in tenancy.
5. The resident should contact the police if she was concerned for her safety in relation to the actions of other tenants.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may escalate the complaint if she was unhappy with its response.
In late October 2021 the police contacted the landlord following a conversation with the resident. The police noted the following points:
1. The resident reported that she was “fearful of Covid-19 and was therefore trying to keep windows in the communal corridor open for ventilation in the hallway”.
2. The resident reported that immediately following opening of the windows the tenants would close them and “confront her about it”.
3. The resident reported that there was “little to no cleaning in the corridor” so she had sprayed cleaning products to kill germs.
4. The resident reported that the situation was impacting on her mental health and “ no matter what she [did] she [was] complained about”.
5. The resident reported that she had removed the locks from the windows in the communal area, without causing damage, as the landlord informed her that it had not locked them shut.
The landlord replied to the police setting out:
1. The resident did originally report that the windows in the communal areas should be open for “ventilation” and because she could not open the windows in the property due to second hand smoke.
2. Having the windows constantly open was not only an issue for other tenants but would cause damage to the building “at some point”.
3. It had tried to provide the resident with an explanation regarding the windows in the communal areas however she did not “want to hear what [it] had to say”.
4. In response to its position on the windows the resident had taken to “slamming and banging her doors at all hours”, “bangs the communal door and leaves [it] open” in addition to confronting the tenants.
On 4 November 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord to escalate complaint B. In summary the resident said:
1. Despite reporting ASB by the tenants, including harassment, the landlord had not offered her any support. She confirmed that she did not feel safe in the property and therefore would like the landlord to arrange a management transfer to a new property.
2. She believed that the tenants had engaged in ASB as she had tried to open the windows in the communal area.
3. She had opened the window in the communal area “to ensure her own health and safety” by preventing odours and bacteria from other tenants reaching the property which could make her asthma worse. She noted that she had also wanted to follow Covid-19 rules by ensuring “adequate ventilation in the building”. She stated that the landlord had not considered how the lack of ventilation was “affecting her conditions”.
4. The police were aware of the situation and they had suggested keeping the windows open during the day and closed at night.
5. She had provided the landlord with a letter from her doctor describing how she was affected by the situation.
6. Despite the landlord being aware of her desire to move it had not provided her with a transfer application.
7. She disputed that she had engaged in ASB behaviour towards the tenants, including spraying another resident with a cleaning product.
On 14 December 2021 the landlord provided its stage two, final, response to complaint B. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry that its response was provided outside of its service standard. It confirmed that it would therefore like to offer the resident £25 compensation.
2. The resident had confirmed on 2 November 2021 that she would like to escalate the complaint for the following reasons:
  1. Delay in responding to her request for alternative accommodation and the provision of a transfer application.
  2. The landlord had “misunderstood the reasons for [her] behaviour” in relation to the windows in the communal area.
  3. She felt threatened by the tenants.
3. It acknowledged that it had delayed in providing the resident with a transfer application following her request. It confirmed that it would therefore like to offer the resident £25 compensation. It advised that on receipt of the resident’s completed application it would be reviewed and she would be banded accordingly so she may start bidding for properties.
4. It had issued the resident a warning letter due to tampering with the windows in the communal area and for reports of inappropriate behaviour by the tenants which included spraying aerosols.
5. It understood that the resident wished for the communal area to be ventilated to prevent the spread of Covid-19, however as it was not a “high-traffic” area it did not require hours of ventilation. It confirmed that it would write to all tenants stating the times during which the windows may be opened and should be closed. It stated that should a tenant breached the timings it would take further action.
6. The resident should contact the police if she felt threatened by the tenants. It confirmed that the resident should provide it with any crime reference numbers so that it could discuss the incidents with the police.
7. It was aware that the police had suggested mediation to the resident, with the tenants, however she had declined. It explained that mediation was a helpful tool in rebuilding relationships and it would therefore like the resident to reconsider her decision.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer complaint B to this Service if she was not happy with its response.
On 14 December 2021 the resident referred complaint B to this Service for adjudication.
Following the resident’s referral to this Service, the Ombudsman can see that the resident has raised a further complaint concerning the windows in the communal area and ASB.
The complaint was dated 16 June 2022, complaint C. In summary the resident said:
1. She continued to experience ASB by the tenants which included “bullying and racial harassment”.
2. The “windows [in the communal area were] consistently being closed” by the tenants.
3. Despite reporting the ongoing issues to the landlord it had failed to take action.
On 13 October 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to issue her a warning for damage to the communal areas which included removal of draught strips from the communal areas and removal of a “communal window lock”, in addition to leaving the communal door open. The landlord confirmed that these actions amounted to a breach in tenancy and any repeat of the behaviours could result in tenancy action. Within its correspondence the landlord noted that it was aware that there was “an on-going ASB issue” with the tenants which it was “trying [its] best to manage”.
On 14 October 2022 the landlord provided its stage one response to complaint C. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was responding to the resident’s ASB concerns in line with its ASB policy, which had included meeting with her. It confirmed that it was waiting for a mediation meeting to be arranged between the resident and the tenants by its independent organisation. It set out that the resident should report any incidents relating to intimation or harassment to the police in the meantime.
2. The windows in the communal area were “accessible to all tenants” and no one tenant could take full responsibility “on managing as to whether the windows were left open or closed”. It confirmed that it had therefore asked all tenants to not interfere with the windows.
3. It had issued the resident with a warning letter for breach in tenancy as she had “deliberately vandalised” the communal area by “breaking the window locks and [removing] the draught excluders on the main door”.
On 2 November 2022 the resident requested to escalate complaint C as she did not feel that the landlord’s response had addressed the issues which she had raised. In summary the resident said:
1. The landlord had failed to address why ventilation of the communal area was prohibited.
2. The landlord had failed to explain why the windows in the communal area were locked without keys being provided.
3. The landlord’s management of the situation with the windows in the communal area had resulted in a “neighbour dispute”.
4. The landlord had failed to consider her “protected characteristics” (further details not given), in responding to her concerns regarding the windows in the communal area and ASB by the tenants.
On 8 December 2022 the landlord provided its stage two, final, response to complaint C. In summary the landlord said:
1. No evidence had been provided to support any “ASB, bullying or racial harassment” towards the resident. It acknowledged however that there had been a “broken relationship” with the tenants and therefore it had recommended mediation to rebuild the relationship. It confirmed that the tenants had agreed to mediation which was pending.
2. It had addressed the resident’s concerns that the tenants had recorded her without permission by asking that they did not do so again.
3. It upheld its decision to keep the windows in the communal area locked as the resident had previously caused damage to the windows.
4. It understood the resident’s desire to keep the windows in the communal area open, for ventilation, however as the area was a shared space all tenants must be in agreement.
On 5 May 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that on 12 May 2023 it would be opening the communal window. The landlord requested that the resident be “mindful and keep the windows closed in the event of extreme or bad weather”.
In an update to this Service in June 2023 the resident confirmed:
1. She had attended a mediation session with the tenants in early June 2023 however no resolution had been achieved. The resident noted that during the mediation session the tenants had reported that their property was cold due to repair issues.
2. The situation had severely impacted on her mental health. The resident also stated that the landlord had not taken into account her protected characteristics, noting that she was currently waiting for an Autism diagnosis.
3. While she had removed screws from the communal windows she had not caused any damage.
4. She was open to a property transfer however the landlord had only offered her studio apartments which she could not accept.
5. She had recently made a new complaint to the landlord regarding “disrepair” in the property however the landlord had not responded.

Assessment and findings

While it was complaints A and B which the resident referred to this Service for adjudication, the Ombudmsan has used its discretion to also consider complaint C as part of the investigation. This because complaint C is so closely linked to the issues that were the subject of complaints A and B, and therefore this is to assist in bringing the matter to a close for all parties.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the windows in the communal area

The windows in the communal area do not form part of the resident’s tenancy, and therefore she does not have authority over them or how they are used. This is a matter for the landlord.
It is clear from the evidence for review that the use of the windows in the communal area is a contentious issue between those who live in the building, with the resident preferring them open for ventilation and the tenants preferring them closed due to draughts. The Ombudsman understands the preferences of both parties.
In determining this part of the complaint it is not for the Ombudsman to decide how the windows should be used, rather it is for the Ombudsman to determine whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the windows was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
Between March 2021 and late 2021 the landlord’s position regarding the windows was that they could be left open for a few hours a day and should not be left open continuously. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s instructions regarding the windows were vague and ambiguous in the context of the circumstances of this case and that it was aware of the different views in the building. This is because the instructions were not clear or defined and left room for interpretation on how long and when the windows may be open. This is unsatisfactory and will only have served to fuel the resident’s (and the tenants’) frustrations over the use of the windows.
In December 2021 the landlord confirmed that it would write to all tenants stating the times which the windows in the communal windows may be opened and should be closed, in addition to setting out the consequences should the timings be breached. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was an appropriate course of action, in order to provide clear instructions on how the windows should be used, which took into account the needs and preferences of all occupants of the building. It is unsatisfactory however that the landlord delayed in proposing this solution as it was aware of the tension between the parties the issue was causing. While the resident may not have agreed with the proposal specified by the landlord, the proposal would have set out clear expectations for all tenants and provided the landlord with a framework in which it could respond to breaches of timings in a fair and consistent way.
Despite the Ombudsman requesting evidence that the landlord actioned the proposal, no evidence has been provided. This is unsatisfactory as it was an action that it had committed to undertaking in order to assist in resolving the issues related to the use of the windows in the communal area.
During the period under investigation the resident confirmed that she did remove the locks on the windows in the communal area, and explained that she had done so as the windows were locked shut without a key being available. Section 15 of the resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the tenant must “not make any alterations or additions to any part of the premises”. As the resident had removed the locks on the windows without the landlord’s permission or knowledge it was reasonable that the landlord issued her with a warning letter setting out that her actions could amount to a breach in tenancy.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

In cases of ASB the role of the Ombudsman is to investigate how a landlord has handled any reports of ASB it has received in the timeframe of the complaint, and to determine if it has acted in accordance with its policies and procedures, followed good practice and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns she has reported have caused her significant distress and upset and impacted on her mental health.
The landlord 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 of annoyance to any person”.
The landlord has an ASB policy and an ASB procedure which sets out how it will respond to reports of ASB. This confirms that it will investigate and monitor any reports made and take proportionate action to resolve any issues identified. This will include discussions with the complainant. The policy confirms that the landlord has a range of tools which it may use in ASB cases which include mediation, warnings and acceptable behaviour contracts. The policy further states that the landlord will be “clear and realistic about potential outcomes”.
While the Ombudsman has not seen any direct reports from the resident to the landlord reporting ASB by the tenants in early 2021, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord was aware of the resident’s concerns from at least summer 2021; when the resident’s GP wrote to the landlord citing “conflict with neighbours”. Further from summer 2021 the landlord’s correspondence references ASB reported by the resident concerning the tenants.
In order to determine this part of the complaint the Ombudsman requested that the landlord provide its records in response to the ASB reported by the resident. The landlord has not provided any records in response to the request. This is unsatisfactory as a landlord should have systems in place in order to demonstrate how it is meeting its obligations.
The absence of any records relating to the resident’s ASB reports from summer 2021 has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB allegations, and therefore whether its course of action was reasonable or not. This includes whether it was responding to the resident’s ASB concerns in line with its ASB policy, as it stated in response to complaint C.
In line with the landlord’s ASB policy the landlord should have proactively responded to the resident’s reports which ought to have included discussing ASB with the resident to gather further information in order to determine next steps. The only action which the Ombudsman has identified is an offer of mediation. While mediation was appropriate, to bring the parties together to clear up misunderstandings and agree a way forward, it is unsatisfactory that there is no other evidence documenting a response by the landlord which was in line with its ASB policy. The Ombudsman understands that there was a delay in arranging mediation following the resident’s agreement to participate due to the tenants not wanting to participate initially, which was beyond the landlord’s control.
The Ombudsman understands that the underlying cause of the ASB was in respect of the windows in the communal areas. In light of the conflict concerning the windows, in addition to mediation it would have been best practice for the landlord to have considered issuing both parties with an Acceptable Behaviour Contractor, a voluntary agreement, to abide by specific terms and therefore to tackle the problem, especially where mediation was not initially agreed by all parties.
The Ombudsman finds that it was reasonable for the landlord to discuss with the resident the tenants’ allegations about her. This is because the landlord also has an obligation towards the tenants to investigate their allegations under its ASB policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request

From the evidence provided for review it is not clear when the resident first requested information relating to a property transfer. However the Ombudsman notes that in August 2021 the resident advised the landlord that the property had become untenable and in late 2021 she asked it for a management move.
In responding to complaint B the landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in providing the resident with information on a property transfer and therefore apologised and offered the resident £25 compensation. As the landlord had identified a service failure it was appropriate that the landlord took these steps to recognise that the impact on the resident and put things right.
The landlord has confirmed in a recent update that the resident has a band 3 priority to bid on properties.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, first published in summer 2020 and updated in spring 2022, sets out good practice on how a landlord should respond to a complaint effectively and fairly. The Code sets out that the landlord should have a two stage complaint procedure, with stage one responses being provided within 10 working days and stage two responses being provided within 20 working days.
The complaint policy in operation when complaint A was made allowed for a quick-fix response where it could “resolve the query to the residents’ satisfaction within 48 hours”. While the Ombudsman cannot see any discussion with the resident regarding the complaint, the Ombudsman has not identified any adverse effect on the resident in the landlord’s approach. This is because the response provided by the landlord was comprehensive, addressing the issues raised, and provided the resident with an opportunity to escalate the complaint. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s current complaint policy is a two stage procedure observing the Code’s response timeframes. While the policy provides the landlord an opportunity to substitute a stage one response with a quick fix, this can only be done with the agreement with the resident.
Despite the resident’s correspondence dated 31 August 2021 requesting a new complaint, there is no evidence of a reply by the landlord under its complaint procedure. This is unacceptable and will have resulted in inconvenience and distress to the resident in addition to her feeling that her concerns were not being taken seriously.
The chronology demonstrates that the landlord’s handling of complaints B and C was also unsatisfactory. This is because it delayed in providing its stage one response to complaint C (approximately eight days delay) and delayed in providing its stage two response to both complaint B (approximately 65 days) and C (approximately 6 days). This is unsatisfactory as the purpose of a formal complaint procedure is to address complaint at the earliest stage. While the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to complaint B at stage two and awarded £25 compensation for the delay, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it does not amount to reasonable redress as the compensation was not proportionate to the time the complaint response was outstanding. The Ombudsman has not identified any apology from the landlord for its shortcomings in relation to the other delays, although we also note that these delays were of shorter duration.
The Ombudsman notes that while the complaint was live, the resident informed the landlord that she had protected characteristics. It was appropriate that the landlord made enquires with the resident regarding the nature of the protected characteristics to determine whether any adjustments should be made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the windows in the communal area.
2. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the windows in the communal area

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the windows in the communal area was unsatisfactory as it:
1. Failed to provide clear instructions detailing how the window may be used between March 2021 and late 2021.
2. Failed to complete its agreed action from December 2021 to write to all tenants setting out the times which the windows in the communal windows may be opened and should be closed in addition to setting out the consequences should the timings be breached.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was unsatisfactory as it has failed to demonstrate that it responded to her concerns in line with its policy and procedure. The lack of records by the landlord indicate that it did not do anything else in terms of trying to proactively manage a situation, apart from offering mediation, that was clearly causing distress and inconvenience to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request

The landlord has offered reasonable redress, through its apology and offer of compensation, for the poor service and delay in handling the resident’s transfer request.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was unsatisfactory as:
1. It failed to respond to the resident’s correspondence dated 31 August 2021, requesting a new complaint, under its complaint procedure.
2. There were delays by the landlord in responding to complaint B and C for which it did not offer an apology.

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this determination, provide a written apology to the resident from its Chief Executive to acknowledge that its response to her concerns regarding the windows in the communal area, its response to her ASB reports and its response to her complaints was unsatisfactory.
The landlord should write to all residents within four weeks of the date of this determination providing clear instructions on how the windows in the communal areas may be used. The instructions should detail the times which the windows may be opened and should be closed, in additional to setting out any seasonal variations.
The landlord should contact the resident in order to gain further information relating to her ASB concerns in respect of the tenants. On receipt of the information the landlord should carry out a risk assessment to determine what action, if any, is needed in line with its ASB policy and procedure providing the outcome to the resident. This order should be completed within four weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord should pay the resident a total of £550 compensation, within four weeks of the date of this determination, comprising the £50 it awarded itself in consideration of the complaint in addition to:
1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience she would have experienced in relation to the landlord’s handling of her concerns relating to the communal windows.
2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience she would have experienced as a result of the landlord not demonstrating that it had considered her ASB reports in accordance with its policy and procedure.
3. £100 for complaint handling failures and the distress and uncertainty this will have caused her.

Recommendations

In light of the Ombudsman’s comments on the landlord’s record keeping the landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management to ensure that it has appropriate systems and procedures in place to maintain accurate records in order to demonstrate how it is meeting is obligations as a responsible landlord. The landlord should also complete a self-assessment against the report recommendations to enable it to embed the good practice highlighted.
The landlord previously made appropriate enquiries to gain further information on the resident’s circumstances but she did not respond to these enquiries. In light of the determination the landlord should contact the resident again in order to gain information on the protected characteristics which she reports that it has failed to take into account in managing her tenancy, in order that it can make an assessment to determine whether any reasonable adjustments are required.
The resident informed this Service that she had recently made a complaint to the landlord regarding disrepair in the property which she had not received a response to. The landlord should therefore contact the resident to discuss her concerns to determine if they have been resolved and whether a response should be provided under its complaint procedure or any other action taken to address any outstanding repairs.