Onward Homes Limited (202304956)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304956

Onward Homes Limited

7 March 2024

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. Handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Delay in the painting of the property.
3. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant who has lived in the 2-bed house since 22 September 2014.
The resident has made allegations of ASB by various neighbours in the vicinity of his property. It is unclear if the neighbours are also tenants of the landlord whereby the same tenancy conditions would apply to them as to the resident.

Scope of investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The Ombudsman is aware of historical ASB issues and complaints reported by the resident. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”. Following the closure of complaint 11433840 in September 2021, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of further incidents until April 2022. This report will focus on the more recent incidents reported and the actions taken from this date until the final complaint response letter (in October 2022).
Within his correspondence, the resident has highlighted his dissatisfaction with police. As the police is not a member of the Scheme, the Ombudsman is not able to make any comment on the service, action, or lack of action from the police.

Summary of events

On 22 April 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord informing it of an incident on 21 April 2022. A youth living in the street had asked him to remove the video recorder from his property. When the resident refused, he received verbal insults and threats. Later the same day, the father of the youth arrived with a baseball bat, wearing metal gloves. The resident said the neighbour (A) tried to gain entry and damaged his door with the bat. The resident said neighbour A and his son then broke the mirror and all the windows of his car. He asked the landlord to act on the behaviour of the family. The resident provided the landlord with the crime number given by the police and confirmed he would send the video of the incident via email.
On 6 May 2022, the son of the resident called the landlord regarding the incident on 21 April 2022. He had called as his father’s English was not clear. He confirmed there was video footage of the incident which he would send. It was confirmed that neighbour A was arrested.
The landlord called the resident’s son on 9 May 2022. It confirmed it had spoken to the police to obtain information on the incident and would call back once it had been received. The resident’s son said he would send the footage but over the next couple of days, due to its size, struggled to send it. Once it was received, the landlord then had difficulties playing the footage.
On 30 May 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord regarding the criminal damage he had reported. He said further incidents of racial harassment had occurred which had been reported to the police. He said he was told the landlord would contact him within the last week, but this had not happened, and no action had been taken. He informed the landlord the abuse had got so bad that he could not leave the house. The landlord asked for more information so it could be passed to the correct team. The resident provided this on 31 May 2022, however it is not clear what additional information was provided.
On 1 June 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord advising of an incident on 29 May 2022 with a different neighbour (B). He said children were playing ball games in front of his house and hitting the fence. He said he believed this was an intentional act and possibly requested by neighbour A. He said he had asked them politely to move away but received obscene gestures in return. He had reported this to the police and provided the landlord with the incident number. He asked who was responsible within for combatting ASB and when it would stop ignoring his complaints.
A complaint letter dated 1 June 2022 was sent by the resident. This was stamped as being received by the landlord on 7 June 2022. In it, the resident said the landlord was ignoring his complaints and was not fulfilling its obligations around ASB. He said eggs had been thrown at his property in 2015. The landlord had promised to paint the wall but had only been cleaned it. The resident said the landlord had not taken any action against the perpetrators and that the “barbaric actions” had occurred due to this.
A stage 1 complaint was raised and acknowledged on 9 June 2022. The landlord said it would be responded to within 10 working days.
On 10 June 2022, the resident challenged the complaint acknowledgement. He said his first complaint was on 22 April 2022. He believed his first complaint had been ignored and this more recent complaint should be at stage 2.
On 16 June 2022, the resident’s son called the landlord. He informed the landlord that another neighbour (C) was now involved and had started to use the front garden as their own, kicking the ball against the property and door. He confirmed the neighbours had not been approached as he did not want to cause any further problems.
The landlord called the resident on 17 June 2022. It advised it would look through the case, speak to the police, and call back the following Monday.
The resident wrote a letter to the landlord dated 21 June 2022. He also called and spoke to the landlord. He advised of an incident with a further neighbour (D) who had made accusations towards him. This had been reported to the police who provided a crime reference number and agreed to attend the property on 23 June 2022. The resident stated he was not willing to have mediation with the perpetrators and just wanted the situation to stop. He said different groups were harassing him when his son was not at home. He asked if there was anything that could be done to fence in his car to stop it from being vandalised.
A complaint holding response was sent to the resident on 22 June 2022. The landlord advised it needed more time and would respond by 29 June 2022. However, on 29 June 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to confirm he had not received a response to his complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 July 2022. It confirmed that due to police involvement and an upcoming court hearing, it was unable to provide an update on the action that could be taken. The landlord offered mediation between the resident and neighbour A.
On 6 July 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord. He said the landlord had ignored his complaints, had deliberately delayed the response, and had missed all deadlines for responding. He confirmed the police involvement but asked the landlord what actions it had taken regarding the ASB. He also asked when the wall would be painted.
The resident’s son contacted the landlord on 7 July 2022 to report children playing football and kicking the ball against the property and car. The landlord advised there was nothing it could do and if there was criminal damage it had to be reported to the police. The resident advised the police were already aware. The landlord confirmed the referral for mediation between itself and the resident had been made and would take place on 28 July 2022.
On 12 July 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord about an incident on 8 July 2022, which involved his daughter and her young son. He said his daughter was subjected to verbal abuse and was then followed on a motorbike. The police had been informed but the resident had not received a reaction. There is no evidence of a response from the landlord.
The landlord spoke to the resident’s son on 26 July 2022 about a further incident where children from a neighbouring street had sworn at his dad. The police had confirmed it was to attend to give warnings. The landlord advised it had contacted a foundation that provides activities to children. It was hoped the children would engage and stay off the streets.
The resident told the landlord that on 10 August 2022, neighbour B had banged on his door and proceeded to shout at him. The video footage did not confirm the identity of the neighbour as faces were covered, however the landlord confirmed it would be visiting the neighbour with the police to issue a warning.
The resident wrote to the landlord further on 20 and 22 August 2022. He repeated the question regarding the painting of the property, and again stated the landlord had not taken any action against the ASB. He said he had not seen any action taken against those agreed during mediation.
On 23 August 2022, the resident’s son called the landlord to inform it of the outcome of the court case. He said the court had legally penalised the perpetrator and so the landlord was free to take any necessary action. The landlord’s records indicate it spoke to neighbour who had confirmed the perpetrator no longer lived at the address.
On 30 August 2022, the landlord emailed the police for an update on the case. It advised another mediation session was to be held with the resident. It confirmed the police had not responded to the joint visit request. The landlord contacted the resident’s son to confirm the painting would be done soon, as part of the mediation agreement.
The landlord and police visited the resident on 1 September 2022 to view the footage of a child knocking on his door. The resident believed he knew who it was, and the footage confirmed one knock on the door and nothing else. Further footage was shown of children playing with a ball, but the landlord confirmed this would not be classed as ASB.
On 3 September 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord, asking for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the process. This was acknowledged on 8 September 2022 with a response due by 6 October 2022.
In response to the complaint acknowledgement, the resident wrote to the landlord on 13 September 2022. He challenged the investigation and stated nothing had happened since April 2022. He confirmed he had spoke to the landlord and police on 1 September 2022 who had said they would not deal with it. The resident asked why the landlord did not follow its own rules and responsibilities.
On 20 September 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident’s son who alleged neighbour A had etched “you are dead” on his front door.
The landlord visited the resident on 4 October 2022 for mediation. The painting of the property should have been completed on 14 September 2022, but was noted as still outstanding. The resident’s son confirmed a contractor was arranging the work and he was happy with that. The landlord was shown a video of an altercation on 19 September 2022 with masked men where a rock was thrown at the resident. The resident had called the police who had said no one could attend due to low resources because of the Queen’s funeral. The landlord emailed the police with details of the attack and asked why it had not been treated as a grade 1 incident.
Following the visit, the landlord made a referral to the fire service for a fire risk assessment to be carried out. It also made a referral to adult safeguarding to see if any further assistance could be provided to keep the resident safe and supported.
On 6 October 2022, the landlord provided its final complaint letter to the resident. It confirmed:
1. The meeting on 4 October 2022 had led to several actions and the resident was happy with the approach.
2. The landlord had contacted the police regarding the incident on 19 September 2022 and asked for urgent action. It confirmed it would work with the police if any perpetrator was identified as its tenants.
3. A referral for a home assessment had been made to fire service.
4. A referral had been made to Adult Safeguarding to consider any additional safeguarding measures that could be made available.
5. It had suggested a move to another property, but the resident had declined the offer. The landlord confirmed the offer was still available.
6. It was working with the police regarding a wider issue of drug dealing.
7. The issues of children playing by the resident’s home had reduced since the landlord had spoken to the parents.
8. There had been ongoing issues with the painting to the property. The landlord apologised for the time this had taken and offered £100 compensation.
Following the response letter, the landlord’s internal records evidence the questions that were asked about the painting of the property. It asked if structural issues had been raised as it said the resident had said he had been told the mould from the egg had penetrated the brick work. The landlord confirmed it was render and not brick. A contractor attended on 11 October 2022, but was unable to complete the work as specialist paint was needed. The landlord contacted the contractor who provided the render and purchased special paint based on its recommendations to maintain the quality of the render and remove the stain. The painting was arranged for 26 October 2022.
On 24 October 2022, the landlord received a letter from the resident dated 16 October 2022. He challenged the content of the final complaint response letter. He said none of the plans made had been put into practice and asked the landlord what it had done to stop the ASB as he had not seen a change in behaviour. While he did not agree with the compensation, he did accept it. The landlord responded to confirm the stage 2 letter was the final response and the resident had to the right to refer the complaint to the Ombudsman.
It is evident the resident remained dissatisfied with the response received from the landlord. He continued to challenge its actions and asked why it did not follow its own policies, rules, and agreements.
In referring the complaint to the Ombudsman in April 2023, the resident stated the landlord continued to ignore his complaints and the ASB. He believed the lack of action from the landlord led to further incidents. The resident stated he wanted material and moral compensation from the landlord and wanted measures taken to ensure he could live safely in the house.

Assessment and findings

Policies, procedures, and relevant guidance

The landlord’s ASB toolkit defines category A incidents as hate crime, threats of, or actual violence. Calls would be made within 1 working day to take details and make any necessary referrals. Category B incidents were low level issues where calls would be made within 5 working days.
It states that where the prime responsibility and power to lead an investigation lies with another service, it will support the investigation and take any necessary supporting action. If a resident feels threatened or at risk, it should call the police in the first instance.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. Stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged in 2 working days and responded to in 20 working days. If at any stage more time is required, the resident will be kept informed.
The complaint policy confirms an initial request for it to intervene or address the behaviour of others, e.g. ASB, will not be treated as a complaint.
The landlord’s remedies and financial redress guidance dictates the bands and reasons when compensation may be offered. This can vary from discretionary goodwill payments to compensation for poor complaint handling, or as part of a complaint.

Handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident and his family. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether it responded appropriately to his reports of ASB. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Rather, our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and case notes. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. It is clear the resident wrote numerous letters to the landlord regarding ASB. While a timeline has been provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman has not seen full ASB case notes which would confirm the dates and reasons for contact from the resident, and the response dates and actions it took. The Ombudsman finds this a failure in respect of record keeping which has made it difficult to determine if it acted in line with its obligations.
From April 2022, and beyond the final complaint response in October 2022, the resident informed the landlord of incidents of ASB. These incidents allegedly involved various neighbours from the surrounding area. They varied in levels of ASB but escalated to damage to property and person. Video footage captured some of the incidents reported, albeit the identity of the perpetrators was not always possible due to masks being worn, or faces being covered. While it is acknowledged this caused frustration for the resident, the lack of identity made it difficult for the landlord or police to take action.
Nonetheless, this investigation has highlighted occasions where there has been delays in contact from the landlord to the resident which this Service finds unreasonable. Notably, the incident on 21 April 2022. While this was a criminal act that was reported to the police, there is no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident about it. It was only after the resident’s son contacted the landlord on 6 May 2022 that was there any interaction between the parties. In line with the landlord’s policy, this incident would be defined as category 1 and so the Ombudsman finds the delay and lack of communication unreasonable. It is also noted that while the landlord asked the police for an update on this incident, there is no evidence to confirm if the landlord took any further action or if any update was communicated to the resident. Again, this Service finds this unreasonable. The lack of evidenced communication led to further letters from the resident who said the landlord was ignoring his complaints.
The landlord was notified of further incidents throughout May and June 2022. At the end of June 2022, the landlord’s notes confirm it was waiting to hear from a court hearing. The resident was given this information in the stage 1 complaint response on 1 July 2022. The landlord said no further updates could be given until after the hearing. While this may have been the case, this Service finds the landlord’s response unreasonable. While not disclosing precise details regarding the perpetrator, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have informed the resident of the general progress of the case and to confirm any direct action it had taken to date because of the incidents, particularly given the resident’s reports related to 3 other neighbours in addition to the party who was subject to court action. This would have demonstrated and assured the resident that it was taking the situation seriously and was taking the appropriate action where possible.
It appears from the landlord’s notes that the case was transferred to a different case handler in July 2022. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of more proactive work in respect of increased contact with the resident, joint visits with the police, referrals to external agencies and referrals to mediation. While it was appropriate for the landlord to take such action as preventative and supportive measures, it should have done so earlier than it did.
Further reports of criminal damage and harassment to family members were reported to the landlord and the police. In respect of the damage to the car, the landlord told the resident there was nothing it could do. In terms of the harassment to family members, there is no evidence of a response from the landlord. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s response to both incidents unreasonable. While it is acknowledged that these were criminal acts, it would have been expected that the landlord collaborate with the police to obtain more information. This may have led to tenancy enforcement action had the perpetrator(s) been identified as a tenant of the landlord. There is no evidence to suggest this happened. The Ombudsman finds this a failure in respect of how the landlord managed and responded to these reports and how it communicated its actions to the resident.
There is evidence of further reports of ASB in August 2022 when a child had banged on the resident’s door and had shouted at him. The landlord and police visited the resident on 1 September 2022 regarding this. The footage confirmed one knock on the door but did not confirm any shouting. There is evidence the parents of the child were spoken to but nothing to demonstrate any other actions taken. This Service finds the lack of evidenced communication to the resident unreasonable. This left him believing the landlord was not acting on the incidents reported which is clearly evidenced in his letters.
Events escalated when in September 2022, the resident was involved in an altercation at his home with masked men who threw a rock at him. The landlord was informed of this on 4 October 2022 during a mediation visit. It acted appropriately by contacting the police to ask why this had not been treated as a grade 1 incident. There is evidence to show the landlord continued to chase the police for a response on this. It was not until 24 November 2022 that the police confirmed no action could be taken due to the perpetrators wearing masks. The landlord provided the resident with this update on 24 November 2022. The time taken for the landlord to provide this update was appropriate and reasonable.
The landlord completed a risk assessment with the resident, however due to it not being dated, it is not clear at what point it was completed. The risk assessment score was 10 which fell into the low to medium range. Given the escalating seriousness of some of the resident’s reports, including threats to his person, the landlord should have completed a risk assessment at least as early as May 2022 and used this to tailor its support offer to him.
The landlord made a referral to Adult Safeguarding in October 2022 to ask if any additional support was available, however there is no evidence of any follow up to this. There was also a referral to the fire service requesting a home assessment as the landlord wanted to ensure the property was safe in the lead up to bonfire night. This was again done in October 2022 and the fire service confirmed no action was needed.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the ASB. The landlord’s initial communication with the resident was delayed, inconsistent and lacked in detail. It failed to communicate what action it could, and could not, take in response to the incidents reported. If the landlord had done this, it would have reassured the resident and set clear expectations as to when the landlord could act. The lack of information about what the landlord did and when also indicates poor record keeping. There were incidents whereby the landlord could have carried out further investigation to determine if tenancy action could be taken, but little evidence to suggest it did so.
The landlord has not identified the findings above and, as such, has not awarded any compensation for the way in which it managed the ASB. In the Ombudsman’s view, this is unreasonable. Although the landlord demonstrated its attempts to provide support via referrals to external agencies, it failed to do this promptly enough. It did not inform the resident of the direct action it had taken in response to the ASB. This resulted in the resident writing to the landlord on numerous occasions in which he stated the landlord was ignoring him. As a result of this, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, an offer of compensation should be made. Further detail can be found in the orders section of this report.

Delay in the painting of the property

The resident stated the property was first damaged by eggs being thrown at it in 2015. Although he said the landlord had promised to paint the wall, it had only been cleaned. The landlord addressed this issue in a complaint response in September 2021. It said that while it could not find any evidence of this being agreed previously, it would paint the property. This was a reasonable gesture from the landlord; however, it is evident it did not fulfil this agreement and gave cause for the resident to highlight this again in June 2022.
The evidence suggests there was no further communication and no action taken in relation to this issue until October 2022. It was during a mediation session that the landlord confirmed again the property would be painted. The landlord asked a contractor to attend, however it was established specialist paint was required. The work started in November 2022, but could not be completed due to weather conditions. It is not known to this Service when the painting was completed, however it is clear from the resident’s communication that it was not until after the final complaint response in October 2022.
The resident told the landlord he was not happy with the quality of the painting and the landlord asked for photographs so the quality of work could be assessed. There is no evidence to confirm the photographs were received nor of any further action being taken by the landlord. The resident stated in his contact with this Service that although the painting was poorly done, it was better than it had been.
This Service finds the landlord’s response to this issue unreasonable. In the final complaint response, it referred to the delay in the painting of the property. It apologised for the delay and offered £100 compensation but did not offer any explanation as to why it had not been done.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the painting of the property. It agreed in September 2021 to paint the property, but it took a further 14 months for the work to be completed, with no explanation given as to why it took so long. The continued delay is likely to have caused further frustration for the resident. He had to raise this matter on several occasions with the landlord, investing time and effort in trying to get it resolved.
It is acknowledged the landlord apologised for the delay and offered compensation, however in the Ombudsman’s opinion this does not offer reasonable redress for the delay and the time spent by the resident chasing this issue over an extended period of time. A determination of maladministration has therefore been made. The landlord’s offer of compensation should be increased and more detail on this can be found in the orders section.

The associated complaint

The resident wrote a complaint letter on 1 June 2022 which was received by the landlord on 7 June 2022. It responded appropriately and in line with its complaint policy by acknowledging the complaint within 2 working days and advising a response would be sent within 10 working days.
The resident challenged the landlord as he believed he had complained on 22 April 2022, and the landlord had ignored him. He believed his complaint should have been at stage 2. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to explain the complaint process and why previous correspondence had not been treated as a complaint. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable. In line with its policy, the landlord should have clearly explained to the resident the difference between a corporate complaint and an ASB report. In turn, he continued to invest a lot of time and effort in writing to the landlord as he believed it was ignoring him.
The landlord acted appropriately by informing the resident it was unable to meet the initial deadline. It gave a new date of 29 June 2022 but did not respond until 1 July 2022. This further delay in response was not communicated to the resident. This gave him reason to write to the landlord on 29 June 2022 to highlight another deadline had been missed.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was brief and lacking in detail. It confirmed it was unable to provide an update on the action that could be taken due to the impending court hearing. Considering the additional time taken by the landlord, the Ombudsman finds the response unreasonable. As the resident had continued to claim the landlord had ignored his complaints and had not taken any action regarding the ASB, the response provided the opportunity for the landlord to confirm what it had done to date. This could have included any internal investigations and actions it had completed, and any support it had provided to external agencies such as the police.
The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 3 September 2022. Considering the postal system, the landlord received the request and acknowledged the request on 8 September 2022. The Ombudsman finds this reasonable. It provided the final complaint response on 6 October 2022, 20 working days after it was logged, and in line with the complaint policy.
The final complaint response confirmed the landlord had done the following:
1. Held mediation sessions with the resident.
2. Spoke to the parents of some of the children involved.
3. Made referrals to activity centres to encourage participation of the children, adult safeguarding, and the fire service.
4. Offered a move to alternative accommodation.
5. Compensated for the delay in the painting of the property.
While the above demonstrated the action taken, in the Ombudsman’s view, the response failed to address the resident’s escalation request in full. For example, he stated the landlord did nothing for 4 months regarding the ASB. He said none of the actions agreed at mediation had been fulfilled. He said the landlord ignored its owns rules and agreements and as a result the ASB continued. While this information may have been provided via other contact, the landlord should have used the complaint process to confirm all the actions taken. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord missed this second opportunity to clearly explain and define what sanctions were available to it when managing ASB. As a result, it is evident the resident expected more and believed the landlord was not acting on his reports of ASB.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. It acknowledged the complaints in an appropriate timeframe, and informed the resident when it was unable to meet a response deadline but then failed to meet the extended deadline. The responses lacked detail and clarification which led the resident to believe the landlord was ignoring him and not acting on his reports. There was little reassurance from the landlord in the final complaint response that it had done everything it could to manage the ASB and was not ignoring the resident. It included detail of the actions agreed from a meeting in October 2022, but failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate what it had done up to that point. In not providing this information, the landlord did not fully address the complaint made by the resident. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord should offer the resident compensation. Further detail can be found in the orders section of this report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the delays in the painting of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s communication with the resident was delayed, inconsistent and lacking in detail. It evidenced referrals to support agencies, and mediation but there was a delay in these being made. It failed to demonstrate any direct action taken against the perpetrators where it was possible to do so. The lack of detail gave cause for the resident to write numerous letters to the landlord stating his dissatisfaction, to which the landlord offered little reassurance.
The landlord took 14 months to paint the property after it was agreed. The lack of communication and action around this issue is likely to have caused further frustration for the resident who had to continuously invest time and effort and inconvenience in raising this with the landlord. The compensation awarded by the landlord for this delay was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s initial complaint response was delayed, but then did not include any update. It did not take the opportunity at any stage of the complaint to demonstrate the actions it had taken from April to the date of the final complaint response, and in doing so, did not fully address the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident £650 compensation, which is made up of the following:
  1. £250 for the failures identified in the handling of ASB.
  2. £300 for the delay in the painting of the property (this is inclusive of the £100 already offered in the final complaint response letter).
  3. £100 for the service failures identified with the handling of the complaint.
3. The additional compensation ordered should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears.
4. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should provide this Service with evidence to confirm compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should inspect the painting to the property to confirm if this has been done to an acceptable standard. If it is found to be below standard, it should come to an agreement with the resident how it can be resolved.
The landlord should inspect the front door to determine if anything can be done with regards to the writing that has been etched into it.
The landlord should write to this Service within 4 weeks of this report to confirm its intentions against the recommendations made within this report.